backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 142 comment(s) - last by Chaser.. on Jun 27 at 2:33 PM


Ford's 2009 F-150 is being delayed by two months due to "market conditions".

The current Chevrolet Suburban may soldier on for a few more years due to fuel prices.

The Ford Verve concept car foreshadows the upcoming 2010 Fiesta
Domestic auto giants take drastic steps to deal with rising fuel costs.

Large vehicles are taking a serious hit with the rise in fuel prices. DailyTech reported earlier this month that Ford's F-Series was knocked off its perch as the country's best selling vehicle in May. The F-Series was dethroned by not one, but four Japanese sedans (Honda Civic and Accord, Toyota Corolla and Camry) -- this was the first time that the F-Series wasn't at the top of the monthly sales chart since late 1991.

Auto manufacturers and dealerships are fighting back with schemes promising free gas for a year or discounted pricing on future fuel expenses. Ford, for example, is offering 0% financing on nearly all of its vehicles and employee pricing on the F-Series -- presumably to help boost the truck back into sales lead for the month of June.

GM is taking a more drastic step that will affect its future product plans. The current lineup of GM full-size pickups and SUVs was scheduled to be redesigned for 2012. Due to the changing market conditions, GM has suspended plans for this move and is instead shuttling its engineers to other projects. The "other projects" in this case will be the development of more fuel efficient cars.

"We're going to leave all of our options open, but this is a direct result of the market conditions we are facing," said GM spokesman Tom Pyden.

The move is not surprising at all considering that company sales of trucks, SUVs, and full-size vans tumbled 37 percent during the month of May. To make matter worse, GM is even having trouble selling its more efficient, hybrid full-size SUVs. GM projected to sell 12,000 of its Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid and GMC Yukon Hybrid full-size SUVs during all of 2008 -- through the first five months of 2008, the company only managed to move a combined total of 1,100 vehicles.

GM is also on track to close four of its plants that produce full-size SUVs and pickups by the end of 2010. This will reduce annual production of said vehicles by 700,000 units per year. GM, however, will also boost car production by an additional 200,000 units per year to somewhat blunt the impact. "Somewhat" is the key word as GM makes three times the amount of profit for each full-size truck or SUV that is sells versus a compact or mid-size sedan.

GM isn't the only feeling the effects of the gas crunch, however. Jim Farley, Ford's group vice president of Marketing and Communications sent out an email to dealers earlier this week with regards to a two-month delay in the introduction of the all-new, 2009 Ford F-150.

"In parallel, Ford is adjusting the public introduction timing of the new 2009 Ford F-150 by approximately two months due to the industry-wide slowdown in the U.S. truck market and the need to sell down dealer inventory of the current model," said Farley. "The new F-150 now will go on sale in late fall."

With dealers having so much trouble finding buyers for the old '08 F-150, it doesn't really make sense to drop an all-new model onto dealer lots for the buyers that are looking to buy a truck.

Ford also announced that its Dearborn truck plant will be idled for much of Q3, while the line speed will be reduced for two additional full-size truck/SUV plants. A fourth plant, the Cuautitlan Assembly Plant in Mexico, will cease building full-size trucks and will ramp up production of the all-new sub-compact Ford Fiesta in 2010.

Luckily for GM and Ford, help is on the way with new car models due in the next few years. GM hopes to gain some mindshare with the American car-buying populous with the Chevrolet Volt. The vehicle is due in 2010 and can travel 40 miles on battery power alone thanks to its lithium-ion battery pack. The company is also banking on its next generation Chevrolet Cobalt to boost small car sales.

Ford on the other hand is finally coming around to embracing the idea of shared global vehicle platforms and will provide a single Focus for all global markets (Ford’s home market has been saddled with the nearly decade-old Focus platform while other markets received a second generation platform a few years ago). Ford will also bring the aforementioned Fiesta in 2010 to the U.S. to do battle with the Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris. The Fiesta will take styling cues from the Ford Verve concept car.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: No Surprise here
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2008 11:47:42 AM , Rating: 3
I drive an "econobox" Mazda 3s Hatchback. How much vehicle do I need to go to run errands, may trips to the mountains/beach, or visit family?

I can seat four comfortably, five in a pinch, and the cargo area is decent. If I fold down the rear seats, I can swallow everything from La-Z-Boys to a 42" Plasma TV (both were handled with ease).

On top of that, I get around 31 - 32 MPG on the highway. If I need a big truck (on the rare occasion), I just borrow my dad's Nissan Titan Crew Cab Long Bed and pay him for the gas I use.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: No Surprise here
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2008 12:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
"I really hope you joking here. My "big V8 gas guzzler" just averaged 31.2mpg round trip on the way to Bowling Green, KY. And that only has a measly 800hp."

Huh, are you driving a Corvette or something? B/C that's one of the only extremely high HP vehicles I can think of that can manage 30 MPG on the highway.

I have my doubts about 800HP and and 31.2 MPG though...


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 12:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Highway MPG is relatively easy to get.

It is city MPG that is more difficult. His mpg probably drops to 10 or less in the city.


RE: No Surprise here
By FITCamaro on 6/25/2008 12:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. 800 hp out of a Corvette isn't hard. A good turbo set up can do that. And as long as you stay off the pedal in the city it'll still probably do 15.

It all comes down to gearing and how heavy your right foot is.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose it would depend on how the turbo is sized and when it will spool up.

My 11 second Eclipse GSX gets around 18mpg city, but 32mpg with pure highway. I get 24mpg with mixed driving. But I have a small turbo, and it spools up quickly, which can get it into the richer part of the map.

Unfortunately, running pure highway miles for a full tank of gas realistically doesn't happen all that often.


RE: No Surprise here
By vapore0n on 6/25/2008 12:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
haha, small turbo and 11 seconds dont match.

Hell, my stock STI hits 20mpg average, and I dont get 12s.

Back to topic. Cars should advertise average MPG. I hear lots of commercials putting out #mpg.....highway.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 12:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
It is just a 16G turbo. It is the stock turbo from an Evo III. People have gone MUCH faster with it than I have.

Here's a video of my car running an 11.98@116. But my best is an 11.82.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJKqII6R4F4


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 12:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cars should advertise average MPG. I hear lots of commercials putting out #mpg.....highway.

I agree completely. The real value should mirror the EPA's value for "combined" fuel economy.


RE: No Surprise here
By nugundam93 on 6/25/2008 1:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
aha, small turbo and 11 seconds dont match.


exactly. unless that eclipse has a lightweight composite body and nawz (ooooh yeah).

seriously, i'd like to see what the eclipse is packing. that'd be interesting.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 1:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, it weighs 3150lbs. Stock weight. 3320 with me in it. Gotta start working out more. ;)


RE: No Surprise here
By FITCamaro on 6/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: No Surprise here
By 67STANG on 6/25/2008 2:02:18 PM , Rating: 1
My carbureted 67 mustang has 512hp, naturally aspirated. It does about 16 city and 28 highway. Of course, that's with the Overdrive 5spd. I just swapped in.

A C6 vette weighs in at over 3,100 lbs, while my stang weighs in at 2,642 lbs. with driver and full tank of gas-- verified at the track.

I have a VERY hard time believing an 800hp corvette that weighs over 3,000 lbs. can get 30+ hwy mpg. Engines are vacuums for all practical purposes, and forced induction (ie-turbos) require more fuel to go along with the compressed air from the turbo as opposed to no turbo.

My guess is that either to Corvette doesn't get 30+MPG (a STOCK vette only gets 26 hwy mpg...) or that it doesn't have 800 hp.-- or both, which is most likely.


RE: No Surprise here
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 3:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your not in boost all the time so it's quite believable that a 800hp vette can still get 30 mpg.


RE: No Surprise here
By FITCamaro on 6/25/2008 3:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Stock Vette's are rated at 29 mpg. My dad's 3800lb Trans Am gets 27 mpg highway. And many C5-C6 Vette owners with the 6-speed manual report 30+ mpg. It's because the T56 has a 6th gear of .5 which lets the engine run at around 1800 rpm at 80 mph. A typical 4 cylinder usually runs around 3000 rpm. Your mustang probably runs around 2300-2500 with a .75 5th gear (guessing). Not to mention the Vette is just a little more aerodynamic than your 67 Mustang.

So yes its possible and happening. I've seen a supercharged Vette getting 35 mpg on the highway. He doesn't run the same tune on the highway as the track but still. And you can't compare a carbureted engine with an FI one. Yes you can get good mileage with a carburetor. But you can get better with FI.

At 16 city and 28 highway, you have nothing to be complaining about though.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/26/2008 8:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
First off.......you have a carburated NA 512hp engine and get 16/28. Who's BS'ing who?

EPA numbers are just a standard testing method to compare, it doesn't equate to real life. If I go on a long trip, and take the time to compute, I do indeed get that milage. I suggest you spend some times on the corvette boards if you doubt my word. You'll find that it's pretty typical.

As for boost, your not in it all the time, and certainly not in it while cruising along at 1500rpm's on the highway. Nor when stoplight to stoplight. However, with the occational WOT, it will suck gas like you wouldn't believe, but that's not what were talking about here, where talking about everyday driving.

Sounds like a little vette envy to me. Probably still pissed the 500hp shelby KOTR can't keep up with a stock '08. Now, go pick on some hapless 3rd gen carb'ed camaro.

And for the record, I loved the old 67-69 stangs, but no way your gettin that mpg on an older (probably 4bbl) carb'ed engine.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Huh, are you driving a Corvette or something? B/C that's one of the only extremely high HP vehicles I can think of that can manage 30 MPG on the highway.

I have my doubts about 800HP and and 31.2 MPG though...

Figured the Bowling Green, KY reference would tip you off. The Corvette Cruise In just happend in May. Bowling Green is home to the Corvette assembly plant. You get a tour and everything, pretty cool. My 5th year going.

As for the car I took, it's a 2007 Z06, with a ECS Paxton Novi Supercharger and a bunch of other stuff ;)
It puts out over 800rwhp, so that's closer to 900 at the motor.

As for doubting the milage, the supercharger takes less than 5hp when not in boost, effectively rendering stock mileage for cruising. City mileage isn't affected appreciably either. On the highway, running 75mph the car only runs 1500RPM's. Compare that to other cars that have to run at 4k or higher at that speed, and you can see why those "low tech push-rod" engines are pretty competitive.

BTW,
Should have got the MazdaSpeed 3.....now that's a fun car.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 1:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
It is more about getting the most torque and power per cc of fuel at a given RPM instead of being about the RPMs itself, especially when comparing completely different engines.

So what kind of city mileage do you get?


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 1:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
City is real hard to determine, so many factors.

If your in a parking jam than evey car get's exactly the same, 0mpg.

When I reset the computer, on a typical "city" trip I've seen it as low as 13mpg, and as high as 21mpg.

I've also seen it as low as 4mpg at the track, but that doesn't count :P


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 1:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Are you relying on the car computer for mileage? They aren't all that accurate, particularly when you start messing with tire sizes, gearing, and injector sizes. Even if you have calibrated the speedometer.

It is better to fill up completely, reset the trip odometer, drive, fill up completely again and divide the miles by the fuel used.

But yeah, I'm not surprised to see your mileage suck in the city and be great on the highway. My Eclipse is the same, but not to the same extreme.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 1:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've done it both ways, and the computer is pretty close.

In all fairness, the topping off method isn't too accurate either, since there is quite a variation in "filling up completely".


RE: No Surprise here
By goku on 6/25/2008 2:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
So wait, you don't trust the computer to tell you the mileage of the car but you do the odometer and how much fuel you put in? Give me a break! In case you weren't aware of this, most if not all vehicles have inaccurate speed sensing. I mean the VSS may work perfectly fine, but the ECU or what ever controls and reads the input from the VSS is inaccurate/doesn't calibrate. At 55mph I've seen vehicles off by 3mph or less, that is enough to make mileage appear measurably less than it really is. Get a GPS unit and see what it says your travelling speed, you'll probably be surprised.


RE: No Surprise here
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 2:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "Get a GPS unit and see what it says your travelling speed, you'll probably be surprised. "

If you're not on perfectly flat ground, your GPS will be off as well...and even a 4% grade will through the values off, even though its almost indistinguishable to most people.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/26/2008 8:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
Your absolutely correct. Changes in tire sizes, tread wear, and inflation pressure all affect how your odometer will read. You have to recalibrate your computer for changes in tire diameter for it to be accurate, but on top of that, I've seen where factory cars have been off by a few mph right off the showroom floor.

The best method to calibrate is to use a dyno, but that's not practical for everyone.

The GPS method is a real good one for the casual user, but as Masher correctly stated, you have to be on a flat road with little elevation change for it to be effective.


RE: No Surprise here
By ziggo on 6/25/2008 1:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
The MS3 is a very fun car, but don't ever expect to get good mileage in it. It just begs to play in the boost.


RE: No Surprise here
By andrinoaa on 6/26/2008 8:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with big engined cars is not what they are capable of, but what they actually do. Whats the point of driving something with 800hp at boat-anchor pace just to prove how economical it can be? I know from past experience, if you have power , you tend to use it. There goes the economy.........
Small engine ( 1.6 or less ) can be thrashed all day and still acheive good economy figures. Sorry to rain on your day guys.


RE: No Surprise here
By Spuke on 6/26/2008 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry to rain on your day guys.
LOL! Ok dude. Some of us like to have our cake and eat it too. If we can have good gas mileage AND quick straightline speed, why not? I have a pretty quick car but I'm not on the gas hard ALL the time. It's there when I want it. If I don't want it, I don't have to use it.


RE: No Surprise here
By jRaskell on 6/26/2008 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Small engine ( 1.6 or less ) can be thrashed all day and still acheive good economy figures. Sorry to rain on your day guys.


Thrashing your small engine still doesn't approach just driving my 5.7L V8 at moderate levels, and my fuel economy drops at most 2-3mpg when driving moderately aggressive. When I get really aggressive, the mileage takes a more substantial drop, but at that point I'm at a level of thrashing an econobox could only dream of.

I prefer to have the choice myself, and history has proven out, for me at least, that I spend the vast majority of my time just driving it normally and getting 24-27mpg 9 out of 10 fillups. And on those occasional moments that a fully loaded tractor trailer is apporaching as I come up the onramp to the highway I don't even have to take a moments pause to wonder if I can get ahead of it. I just put the pedal to the medal, and leave that traffic backup behind as opposed to having to slow down and merge in with the rest of the crowd behind him. 10 years ago I was driving a Civic. Fuel prices will be over $10 a gallon before I even contemplate going back to that kind of vehicle.


RE: No Surprise here
By ebakke on 6/25/2008 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So if I need a truck, I'll just call your father, right. Sure he won't mind? Not all of us have a relative with a truck.


Things you need to use on rare occasions can easily be rented. Trucks are no exception.


RE: No Surprise here
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2008 12:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

I'm not gonna let my experiences speak for everyone, but I've needed a truck just three times this year:

1) Helped my GF move from one apartment to another.
2) Bought a washer/dryer.
3) Transported a mattress, box spring, and four tires to the landfill

I can't see myself owning a hulking truck for such infrequent occurrences. But to each his own :)


RE: No Surprise here
By Penti on 6/25/2008 12:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
You know, in most countries one doesn't use a truck for stuff like that. We just use trailers with our normal sedans, hatchbacks, station wagons and so on. Or we rent a small truck (not pickup) or just pay some people (movers) that moves the stuff for you with a larger truck. A trailer isn't more bad then a pickup for the stuff you describe as i guess one can't fit ones entire belongings in the pickup.


RE: No Surprise here
By Reclaimer77 on 6/25/2008 6:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I never see a trailer in America.

*sarcasm*


RE: No Surprise here
By Penti on 6/26/2008 10:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like it sometimes. It's very unusual to use pick-ups for moving stuff here, they aren't often used as commercial vehicles either.

Here we can just rent a trailer at the Ikea, hardwarestore etc if one doesn't have one. So a big car for moving furnisher isn't something people think about or reason about, it's more that the baby carriage should fit in the vehicle and stuff like that. Like room for groceries.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 1:23:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm not gonna let my experiences speak for everyone,

Good

quote:
but I've needed a truck just three times this year:

DT readership is somewhat of the younger variety. My guess that it's primary demographic would be in the Males 18-28 catagory.

When you get older, your priorities and lifestyle change. Most us "older folks", have homes, children, and also have more disposable income, to buy a boat/jetski for example.

I've been pretty fortunate in my finances, yet still like to do home repair. I also like to do woodworking, have a boat, children, a wife who complains a lot ;P etc.

No car fits the bill on a consistant basis like the SUV. If I had to rent a truck every time I needed one, than after 2 years, I would have already paid off the SUV. What's the point of that?

Flash forward.....the minute you have children, and your signifigant other complains about how dificult it is to put them in a carseat, not enough room, etc. You'll get one. Trust me there young'n.

quote:
But to each his own :)

Exactly what I've been saying all along.


RE: No Surprise here
By Reclaimer77 on 6/25/2008 6:02:00 PM , Rating: 4
You never actually realize how much you need a truck until you own one. Especially when the friend factor kicks in and everyone is calling you for favors cause your the " guy with the truck " hehehe.

I bought a Tacoma some years back, my first truck. And all of a sudden there were TONS of uses for it I couldn't believe I had made it so long without one. Of course now I'm kicking myself for ever trading it in !

I think by now everyone knows you have a nice little Mazda and your happy with it. Every car thread you bring it up. You say your not trying to speak for everyone, but constantly get in arguments with anyone voicing their right to purchase whatever damn vehicle they want.

People with 'Vettes or trucks don't need to justify their purchase to you.


RE: No Surprise here
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 6:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "People with 'Vettes or trucks don't need to justify their purchase to you"

In another ten years, they very well might. I can see a federal application being required to show due cause before purchase.


RE: No Surprise here
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 6:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In another ten years, they very well might. I can see a federal application being required to show due cause before purchase.
I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Oh well, I'll just get a general contractors license so I can continue to use one. There's more than one way to skin a cat.


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/26/2008 8:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
And I'll use my NHRA license :)


RE: No Surprise here
By Spuke on 6/26/2008 1:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I'll use my NHRA license :)
Bastard! ;)


RE: No Surprise here
By theapparition on 6/26/2008 8:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

However, I doubt it will ever come to that with the vette, since it already gets better combined fuel economy than most of GM's models.


RE: No Surprise here
By DragonMaster0 on 6/25/2008 8:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not, the Mazda 3 has already been the gas guzzler in it's category, compared to other manufacturers' models. (It's not the case anymore though)


RE: No Surprise here
By jamdunc on 6/25/2008 12:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
Only 31-23 MPG? Is that US Gallons, as that could explain the discrepancy. Most cars in the Mazda 3 size range are usually 36MPG and above over here in Europe.

My knackered Megane (before it got fixed) was burning too much fuel due to my coil packs being out of sync and I still managed 35MPG.


RE: No Surprise here
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2008 12:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
That was on a trip to Charleston last month with the A/C blasting. My mileage is usually "down" during the summer due to A/C usage.

If I'm not running the A/C, it closer to 34 or 35 MPG on the highway. And the 2.3 in the Mazda3 isn't exactly known for its fuel efficiency :)


RE: No Surprise here
By AlexWade on 6/25/2008 1:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
I lose 4 MPG if I run my AC in my 350z at 55 MPH. I'll get 28 with my convertible top up and 30 with it down. Of course, I had to make a few adjustments.

First, I get a permanent air filter. That bumps it up slightly but the advantage is as the miles add on, you don't lose mileage because of a dirty air filter.

Next, I over inflate the tires a little. Makes the ride rougher, but it gives less rolling resistance, which gives better gas mileage. I keep my pressure 1 PSI below the max rated.

Finally, I put in Mobil 0W-20 or Enos 0W-20 oil. That stuff is hard to find and it isn't cheap when you do find it, but it pays for itself with the better mileage. I ordered mine from Amazon.com I also use a premium oil filter. Not that Fram garbage.

On the interstate, I get behind a big truck and draft them. Even if I have to go slower, I think it is worth it. I'll see big SUV's pass me at 80 to 90 MPH, and then see the same one again pass me at 80 to 90 MPH. They lost time because they had to stop more. So speeding gained them nothing and cost them lots of money. If I draft a truck, I get between 30 to 31 MPG with the AC full blast. And I don't really lose time because I don't have to stop as much for gas. The key to drafting is don't get too close but don't get too far. Make sure you can always see the truck's mirrors. If you can't draft a 18 wheeler, draft someone else. Every little bit helps.

If you try these tricks, I'll bet you can get 37 to 38 MPG highway. Maybe 40+ if you draft a big rig.

The next thing I want to try is to put in a cold air intake.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you keep your tires 1psi below the max rated, chances are that you will be replacing your tires far sooner than you should have to. You are going to wear out the center of the tread sooner and faster than the edges.

Is the 1 to 2 mpg you get from doing this really worth having to replace your tires miles sooner, and losing traction in the corners? I wouldn't be surprised to see you have a net dollar loss due to the more frequent tire changes.

My stock 06 Maxima with the same engine gets 31 to 32 mpg with pure highway driving. I was thinking of getting a K&N panel filter for it, but I'm not sure it will help or not. Plus some cars have issues with the MAF and the oil from the filter. Have you had any such issues with yours?


RE: No Surprise here
By goku on 6/26/2008 3:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I've found most vehicles when inflated to the PSI rating on the door tend to wear out the sides of the tires before the center, meaning that they're under inflated. Generally speaking I've found it to be an extremely rare occurrence for people to wear out the middle over the sides since it's far easier to under inflate than over inflate mostly due to negligence.

For cars, most tires fail due to overheating and stress, stress caused by under inflation, not over inflation. The over inflation where the middle wears out before the outside that you have described would be ABOVE the tire's PSI rating, not at or near it.

Here is a fun factoid: The load rating on your tire is invalid if it is NOT inflated to the max COLD PSI rating designated on the tire wall. That means if your tire is rated at 1000kg max load, and you have it filled to 30psi yet the max cold PSI rating is 44PSI, that 1000kg max rating is invalid for your current PSI and is in fact a much lower number. Another factoid which is semi-irrelvant is that the speed rating is entirely invalid if the tire has experienced a puncture that goes through to the inside of the tire and is then later repaired. I also wouldn't be surprised if the speed rating of the tire was only valid at the max cold tire pressure as well.

If you have a performance car or luxury car, one thing the owners manual will state is that if you drive your car above 100 miles per hour that you should increase the PSI of the tires by about 4 psi for all tires above that listed on the door. If you have a truck with a hitch, the owners manual will state that when towing, you should increase the tire pressure over that designated on the door jam, too bad it doesn't say to the sidewall pressure.

In case you're not aware, when you inflate your tire to the max PSI rating on the side wall, you're not only reducing the likelihood of hydroplaning by a significant margin but you're also going to improve handling characteristics and are far less likely to experience a blowout due to overheating. The reason you actually improve the handling characteristics and not hurt them is because higher PSI means a more rigid sidewall which leads to less deflection of the tire and therefore better cornering. This is why performance cars have short side walls while family cars or trucks have larger side walls, larger side walls are beneficial for a "softer ride" and for going off road.

The PSI tire rating on the door jam is there because it's a compromise between comfort, performance, economy and safety, with it moving in varying directions depending on the type of car, tires, etc. etc. Also while there are many benefits to be seen with running the tire at the sidewall's max cold PSI, one problem you could experience (though I know of no anecdotal evidence to suggest this) is faster wear and tear on the suspension components, engine/tranny mounts and basically anything that would be affected by a harsher ride.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/26/2008 8:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
In my experience, inflating over the recommended pressure will result in wearing out the center. So I guess our experiences contradict eachother.

Increasing tire pressure a ton will definitely reduce traction in corners. When I was autocrossing on street tires, we would over-inflate the tires (say 40psi) to keep from rolling over onto the sidewall. But over-inflating a ton in the rear would generally make the car much more prone to oversteer due to the decreased traction. If this happened, the recommendation was always to drop the rear tire pressure down a couple psi while keeping the fronts at their current level. You were less likely to roll over the tires in the rear than in the front.

However, if you were understeering more than you wanted to, and not rolling over, decreasing the front tire pressure a couple psi would decrease the understeer.

While under-inflation can lead to poor traction, so can over-inflation. There is a middle ground where things are optimal all around. But the max tire pressure is not it.

Some info on tire pressure:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0208scc_tir...

"An overinflated tire will feel harsh on impact and over smaller bumps, and while responding crisply, will lack grip when pushed hard. "


RE: No Surprise here
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "And I don't really lose time because I don't have to stop as much for gas"

More power to you for saving gas, but the "saving time" theory really doesn't wash. On a recent ~1000 mile trip I just drove, the difference between the 70mph limit and the 85mph I averaged was 2.5 hours off the trip....and it certainly cost me no more than one extra five-minute stop to fill up.


RE: No Surprise here
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 3:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Solstice GXP and get 30 mpg on my trips to Phoenix. About 430 miles. Bumping your average mph makes a helluva difference in time reduction. The first 50 miles or so is usually driven at 45-50 mph because of the two lane road that I have to drive on. Once I get to the freeway I drive from 80-90 mph. I make the trip in 6.5 hours.

On my last trip out there, I was able to bump my speed up to 70 mph on the first 50 miles. I drove the same on the rest of the trip. I shaved an entire HOUR off the drive!! I must've averaged 80 mph on that trip. Going faster with no long slowdowns makes a big difference.


RE: No Surprise here
By FITCamaro on 6/25/2008 4:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Let me know the next time you're in Charleston Brandon. I'll buy you a drink. :)


RE: No Surprise here
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2008 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Only if we can go eat at "The Wreck" as well. Damn that place had some good food :-)


RE: No Surprise here
By FITCamaro on 6/25/2008 6:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
Heh. Well I haven't been there. But sounds good. If you haven't, try California Dreaming as well. Great food and prices are pretty reasonable.


RE: No Surprise here
By ShapeGSX on 6/25/2008 12:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Under performing"? Compared to what, exactly?


Smart move by Ford US
By Amiga500 on 6/25/2008 11:35:31 AM , Rating: 4
Ford Europe's cars have been market leaders for some time now...

The Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo either lead, or are amongst the leaders in their respective markets.

No better way to fix a poor bank balance than by using existing in-house designs.

Why reinvent the wheel when you have the blueprints sitting in one of your own offices somewhere? :-)

GM should be looking at the Opel Corsa, Astra and Insignia to shore up their options.




RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2008 11:39:50 AM , Rating: 4
The Astra is already here (Saturn Astra) -- and it is doing poorly. Maybe they should advertise the thing more.

Or maybe it's because the thing is overpriced, has poor options packages, and gets mediocre fuel economy numbers.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 11:43:52 AM , Rating: 1
With the weak dollar, no import is going to be priced competitively.
Guess investing in building foreign cars in the US was a wise decision.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By JonnyDough on 6/25/2008 12:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Saturn had a plant here in the U.S. I could have sworn...


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 12:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Pontiac has plants in the US too. The Pontiac GTO was a Holden Monaro (made in Austrailia). So was the Cadillac Catera.

Just the same, the Saturn Astra is not made in the US. It's an import from Opel. If you build it somewhere else and then import it, it's going to cost more.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By ebakke on 6/25/2008 12:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming your input costs are the same.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By teldar on 6/25/2008 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're sure the Caterra wasn't an Opel like the Saturns?
And I do believe there are some Opel based Saturns being built here in the U.S.
I could be wrong, however.

T


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By theapparition on 6/26/2008 7:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
It was also sold under the Opel brand in europe. Much like the Holden Monaro was sold as the Vauxhal Monaro in europe.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By onwisconsin on 6/25/2008 1:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
They already have the Chevy Malibu, which is selling well and getting rated well and good milage (for the performance (owning an 05 Malibu Maxx, I consider 20/30MPG very good with the pickup the motor has)), GM didn't need the Astra (or the Saturn division in general)


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By onwisconsin on 6/25/2008 11:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Disregard my comparison to the Malibu, it just hit me 9 hours after posting that the Astra is a compact not a midsize like the Malibu. That I don't see the point of Saturn (I'm not the only one, Iacocca's new book mentioned that too) still holds true.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By jpcesar on 6/25/2008 12:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Im from Portugal (europe)

my mixed MPG is 33.6
my highway MPG is 42.8

I have a gasoline 1.2cc Honda Jazz (Accura Fit in US).

We are paying atm 2.4 USD for a liter of gasoline.

That is 9.12 USD for 1 gallon of gasoline.

How this compares to your current costs in US?


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By kmmatney on 6/25/2008 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
We are about $4.00 for 1 gallon in the U.S. (Actually today it was $3.87 in Denver, Colorado) so gasoline costs a lot less here than in Europe.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By 67STANG on 6/25/2008 1:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Must be nice, here in California it's $4.69/gallon (87 octane). At the rate of increase here, it'll break $5.00/gallon for regular unleaded by the end of July.

On top of that, our strict air guidlines here (we are a blue state after all), require 10-15% ethanol in our gas which means we get less mileage on a fillup as well...


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By FITCamaro on 6/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Smart move by Ford US
By xphile on 6/26/2008 12:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
Don't think that's a particularly fair comment, although it's fair to say there were a lot of people at movie theaters on the West Coast in the 80's and 90's that never got the full implication of the words "I'll be back" in quite the way they should have...


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By 67STANG on 6/26/2008 1:41:43 AM , Rating: 3
Well, I live in the SJ Valley.. all non-Democrats here. Unfortunately, our vote never counts because of LA and SF...

Fuel and politics aside, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We have everything here. Mountains, Ocean, Culture, etc. Most of the other states I've been to are lacking in enjoyment.

Also, Arny isn't that bad of a governor... just goes to show... ANYONE can do it...


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Reclaimer77 on 6/26/2008 11:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the other states I've been to are lacking in enjoyment.


What does this even mean ?


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Spuke on 6/26/2008 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does this even mean ?
Californians think their state is the ONLY place to live in the US. Everywhere else is backwards and undesirable. Some people are afraid to move out of the state. I live there too but I'm not a native. I've had more than a few people tell me this.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Reclaimer77 on 6/26/2008 1:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
heheh I know Spuke. I just wanted to hear him say it :)


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Chaser on 6/27/2008 2:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'll keep my very affordable, state of the art condo, 10 minute commute to downtown, vastly lower city crime rates, and reasonable tax rates over anything CA has to offer anyday.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Parhel on 6/26/2008 5:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
They say that all the fruits and nuts in this country roll west.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By acejj26 on 6/25/2008 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 4
You are aware, however, that the difference in price between U.S. and Portugese prices are the taxes that you pay to fund your social programs, right? You cannot directly compare the two.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By mahax on 6/26/2008 12:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
In Finland (scandinavia) we pay just as much 2.4$ for a litre. Out of that roughly 50% are taxes, so our gasoline costs 1.2$ tax free or 4.57$ per gallon.

Also notice that we use 95 and 98 octane gasoline only.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By jRaskell on 6/26/2008 1:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also notice that we use 95 and 98 octane gasoline only.


Europe rates it's fuel octane different than the US. Here in the US we average the two standard methods of determining octane rating, in Europe, you only use the method that provides the higher of the two. Your 95 is pretty much the same as our 87, with the exception of maybe the Ethanol that gets dumped into our gasoline.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Penti on 6/26/2008 8:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
There is just ethanol in our 95 octane petrol in Europe. The 98, 99, 96, etc are not containing ethanol. In Sweden over 90% of the gas has ethanol in it. Much of the diesel has FAME in it too.

95 RON is not 87 AKI though but 90-91 AKI.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By MrBungle123 on 6/25/2008 1:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
The torque report says that ford is considering extending the life of the Ranger to 2011... perhaps the high gas prices will put some dollars back into the nearly dead compact truck market.

The only one left is the Ranger since all the other manufacturers have moved their small trucks into the mid-size category. I for one would like to see compact trucks make a resurgance since they are not so hard to park, get better mileage, and still offer the ground clearance and 4 wheel drive I need to climb the hill to get to my house when there is snow on the ground during the winter.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By FITCamaro on 6/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Hoser McMoose on 6/25/2008 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
The Colorado/Canyon is slightly bigger than the Ranger (and it's close relative, the Mazda B2300), though I would say they're close enough to be considered in the same size.

Perhaps more importantly though is that the Ford Ranger gets MUCH better fuel economy with it's smallest engine, 10.2L/100km vs. 11.8L/100km (combined EPA numbers for 2008 manual transmission, 2WD models). It's also cheaper. You do give up about 40hp on the Ford vs. the GM. For some that will not be an acceptable trade off, for others it is.

As for looks, that's a personal preference thing. I personally wouldn't touch either with a 10 foot pole. But then again, I wouldn't touch any truck with a 10 foot pole myself, I have use for one and I hate the way that they handle.

Obviously others will have different opinions.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By FITCamaro on 6/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 6:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
The Colorado can tow up to 4000 lbs. That will do some jet ski's or bikes easy.


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Spyvie on 6/25/2008 6:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still torqued off at Toyota for taking the Tacoma upsize/upmarket.

I really wish I could still buy a little 2.3 Toy PU


RE: Smart move by Ford US
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 7:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get the Pre-runner package and get the 2.4L engine. The truck ends up being pretty small without the Pre-runner. There's a guy at work with this and I thought it was the old Tacoma.


They'd sell another car if