backtop


Print 167 comment(s) - last by vshin.. on Jan 14 at 9:20 AM


2011 Buick Regal

2011 Hyundai Sonata
New report from the Detroit News suggests that the V6 engine could be on a downward spiral

With all of this talk about eco-friendliness and fuel efficiency, it seems as though many manufacturers are starting to listen to their customers when it comes to their tastes in new vehicles. It wasn't long ago when 90's era Ford Crown Victorias used 4.6-liter V8 engines to pump out a "measly" 210 hp. Nowadays, your typical 3.5-liter V6 Camry, Accord, or Altima can pump out 260+ hp without breaking a sweat.

However, even with all of that power available, it looks as though many Americans have come to the realization that they don't really need close to 300 hp to shuttle Jr. to school or to soccer practice. As we come upon an age of reduced earnings and keeping a closer eye on cash flow, many consumers (and auto manufacturers) are looking to more economical powertrain options for new vehicles.

Detroit News has taken a look at this trend and how even the venerable V6 engine is giving way to smaller naturally aspirated and turbocharged four-cylinder engines for mainstream passenger cars. It's no secret that compact vehicles have long used four-cylinder engines as their choice of motivation. Even larger mid-sized vehicles use them for base engines, but typically offer a more powerful V6 option for those that crave a little more "go" when they mash on the pedal.

However, the tide may be slowly turning to phase out V6 engines for volume sellers. It has been a common convention among mid-sized vehicles for the four-cylinder models to greatly outsell its V6 counterparts. As recently as 2007, 81.5% of Toyota's passenger cars featured 4-cylinder engines; Honda wasn't far behind with 78.2%.

As technologies like direct injection and turbocharging give four-cylinder engines more power and greater fuel economy, the need for V6 engines is waning. Detroit News points to the example of the Ford Fusion which saw a 2006 take rate of 43% for the four-cylinder model. In 2009, it was up to 73%.

In the case of the new Buick Regal which will be coming our way soon, it will only be available with a naturally aspirated or turbocharged four-cylinder engine. This also happens to be the case for the all-new 2011 Hyundai Sonata which will drop the V6 option that previous generations of the vehicle have carried for quite some time.

The use of four-cylinder engines also might have a lot to do with upcoming CAFE regulations which will require automakers to achieve a fleetwide average of 35.5 mpg. Hyundai, with its previously mentioned 2011 Sonata, is looking at fuel economy ratings of 23 mpg city / 35 mpg highway from its 198 hp direct injection four-cylinder engine.

In the end, something must be done to get passenger cars up to 39 mpg (a goal that has been targeted for 2016) and it looks as though an increasing reliance on four-bangers is just one way to achieve that goal.



Comments     Threshold


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

My opinion
By akse on 1/7/2010 4:11:10 AM , Rating: 3
I think a 2 litre engine with around 150-170hp is quite enough for anything, if you want some more power but not much increased fuel consumption or engine size, you could get a 2 litre turbo. That should be around 200-250hp when you press the pedal, but fuel consumption should be low when you drive steadily.

Of course if your car weighs 3tons, that 150hp might feel quite small.

For small drive in Cities 100hp should be enough, I don't see a reason to accelerate from 0-60 under 8 seconds just to get faster to another traffic lights.

On highways and larger roads and distances, more powerful engine is of course more comfortable to drive.

Well thats just my opinions .) Currently driving with 2 litre 140hp car but guess I'd like some more hp.. like 200. :)




RE: My opinion
By AnnihilatorX on 1/7/2010 4:41:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I don't see a reason to accelerate from 0-60 under 8 seconds just to get faster to another traffic lights.


Sadly I've seen plenty of idiots do that


RE: My opinion
By Chaser on 1/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: My opinion
By retrospooty on 1/7/2010 7:43:04 AM , Rating: 5
I dunno where you live, but the "grandma's where I have lived at various points in my life would do 0-60 in about 40-60 seconds. 8 seconds is extremely fast for anyone driving around town. Not fast for a 0 to 60 spec test (as in drag racing basically) but no-one's grandma is doing it in 8 seconds... maybe Jeff Gordon's grandma =)


RE: My opinion
By Chaser on 1/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: My opinion
By Chaser on 1/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: My opinion
By Arribajuan on 1/7/2010 10:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
"I guess it depends on how far part the lights are. But 8 seconds "extremely fast"?"

if the distance is 1/4 mile I would take one of those inline 4s!!


RE: My opinion
By SoCalBoomer on 1/13/2010 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
0-60 in about 8 seconds is about what my Neon will do so no, that's not "extremely fast" - it's fairly quick, but not "extremely fast" - extremely fast is anything under 6 seconds.

And nobody's doing it in 40-60 seconds - I'm not sure what time frame you're living in, but that's a LOOOONG time. Seriously. If they're doing that, they're not even making it to the next light AND they're a hazard on the road. I make it to the next light in less than that ON MY BICYCLE (where I do stop. . . :D )


RE: My opinion
By Lazarus Dark on 1/7/2010 8:14:16 AM , Rating: 3
My 5.7L V8 Dodge Challenger gets 28 to 29 mpg on the highway (using 6th gear with a manual transmission, I have calculated this on several 200 mile trips to verify it.). And if I can stay off the go pedal in the city I know I can get 18 mpg in the city (though that takes all the fun out, so... that doesn't happen much. But EPA estimates aren't really real-world either, they are only best case scenario) But my wifes Honda Fit only gets 35 or so mpg on the highway, so for highway trips I actually prefer to take the Challenger. Not quite the cargo space/rear passenger space, but the front seats are roomier and more comfortable and the ride is much smoother, and I consider the 5mpg negligable for that comfort level.

However as I've said many times, if they offered a hybrid V8 at the time, I would have jumped at it. ...But I still want my near 400 hp V8, thank you. Hey, I pass emissions and accept the responsibility that I will be paying more for gas so whats the problem?


RE: My opinion
By Levish on 1/7/2010 8:45:50 AM , Rating: 3
That'd probably be single digit MPG in NYC stop and go no matter how much you stay off the go pedal. And Highway I'd say you'd be lucky to hit 20's since they're frequently backed up and stop and go too.

You can hit your numbers under ideal circumstances but there is no way around the fact that the v8 challenger is thirsty.

A smaller/lighter challenger with 2/3's the weight and HP/TQ would get 20-30% better fuel efficiency while maintaining mostly the same driving dynamics (acceleration/cornering etc).

In the US at least we're in the late 60's all over again :p

Hopefully no one decides to pull another mustang II on us Q_Q


RE: My opinion
By steven975 on 1/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: My opinion
By jRaskell on 1/7/2010 12:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
You just said most Corvette's, Lamborghini's, Ferrari's and Porsche's aren't sports cars.


RE: My opinion
By Noya on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: My opinion
By jRaskell on 1/7/2010 12:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much every ICE vehicle will take a mileage hit in those conditions. That is nothing specific to large displacement vehicles.


RE: My opinion
By Alexstarfire on 1/7/2010 5:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but I believe he was trying to point out that a V8 would take a bigger hit. Much like a car like the Prius would take no hit.... and might even increase mileage depending on the driver.


RE: My opinion
By Lazarus Dark on 1/7/2010 6:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ha. I wouldn't own a V8 in New York (or LA, or Chicago, etc)If I was in NY, I'd use public trans most likely (I've never actually lived anywhere with decent public trans, so I actually have no idea what that's like.)And forget owning a manual trans in those cities, I'd get sick of it in a month. But here in the Mid-South (Arkansas), I've got tons of wide open roads to play on.

I think Lexus has a hybrid V8 now, correct? I'm all for saving some gas and emissions. I just can't justify spending any amount of money on a car that's boring and slow like a prius or something, I can't compromise on performance (or style). I am slightly interested in the new Honda CR-Z hybrid. I won't give up the Challenger, but I'd be interested in a CR-Z for driving to and from work if it's got enough get-up-and-go


RE: My opinion
By mmatis on 1/7/2010 10:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ha. I wouldn't LIVE in New York or LA or Chicago, etc. And I dam sure don't want those who do dictating what I'm going to drive.


RE: My opinion
By zmatt on 1/10/2010 7:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not forget that the EPA's system for measuring fuel economy is very outdated. Until recently for AWD vehicles they had to disconnect one of the differentials and run it in 2wd setup because they lacked an all wheel dyno. Most auto magazines post mpg numbers that are much better than the EPAs estimated, and that is even with the knowledge that the auto magazines drive the cars harder than most people.

V6's are fine as long as you don't overdue it. I agree that the way to go is smaller cars. Lotus has shown us that you can make very fast sports cars that are very light and economical. This doesn't mean big engines need to die however. Just think how much better overall performance and economy can be if you have a 2800lb car (mid 90's accord) with a modern 280hp V6. That is corvette fast, and still pretty efficient. No doubt with modern construction techniques this wouldn't be hard to attain. No doubt it would be much cheaper than a chevy volt and faster, and more practical.


RE: My opinion
By LordanSS on 1/7/2010 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 3
I drive a 1.0L FlexFuel supercompact car (Fiat Palio), with 65ish horsepower. For the chaotic, slow (or stopped actually, traffic-jam packed) transit here in Rio, it's more than perfect.

It's very light, very nimble, and very economic obviously. I can get 34-36mpg while in the city, depending how bad the transit is during the week. On the road, mpg goes up only to 38mpg, but that's mostly because it's set up to cruise at 55mi/h, which is already superior to most of our road's legal speed of 50mi/h. That's running on our gasoline (which has 25% ethanol in it's composition), if I put on ethanol I might gain a couple HPs but mileage will go down.

Considering a gallon of regular gasoline, at the pump, costs the equivalent of 5.9 USDs right now, in the period of a year my savings are just massive, and that is something we brazilians value a lot.

Culturally speaking, we don't give the same value to big cars as most north americans usually do. Car manufacturers usually end up releasing their european models (or derivatives) as they are more suited to our reality. Personally, I think most cars sold here by GM (Chevrolet being the only brand present here) are crap. Their S10 is actually a good truck, but other than that... Ford, on the other hand, does fairly well with their Fiesta, Focus and even the small Ka (which I think it's too dang ugly, but oh well).


RE: My opinion
By Alexstarfire on 1/7/2010 5:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Can it run on pure ethanol? If so, what numbers does it get?


RE: My opinion
By LordanSS on 1/7/2010 5:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, it can run on pure ethanol... I can actually put in any mix of ethanol/gasoline I want, and it works. Can also add a bolt-on Natural Vehicular Gas kit, that would increase my savings to a whole new level, but if I do that right now I'll lose the warranty on the car, so it's something to think about later.

About the MPG on pure ethanol, it goes down to around 26-27 in the city. It's a big difference indeed, but at least for us, ethanol is cheaper per liter than gasoline is. I choose to buy one or the other depending on the price ratio between them at the pump. If the ethanol price is low enough, it's worth it.


RE: My opinion
By Eris23007 on 1/7/2010 5:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
The times I've visited Rio I've been stunned by the enormous difference in driving culture compared to the USA... I rented a Palio once (my fiancee is Brazilian and we drove from Rio up Via Dutra to her home town), in fact, and we used Ethanol because where we filled up it seemed to be considerably less expensive per liter. Anyway, Rio, much like Europe, has roads far narrower than those of the USA, which certainly impacts the car size. My fiancee always wanted a Honda Fit when she lived in Rio - she said it was on the large side for Brazil. Here it's one of the smallest cars on the road!

There were far fewer large trucks and other such vehicles on the road in Brazil. Here they are everywhere. I actually asked her not to get a Fit here because I am concerned about the safety - no matter how good they get at making crumple zones and that sort of thing, momentum still equals mass times velocity and in a crash, a small car is at an enormous disadvantage to a huge one.

If I were going to live in Brazil I would almost certainly tend toward a smaller car. Here in the USA, just for safety's sake I think you need something at least somewhat bigger until the "average size" consistently decreases - and that will take a long time. The good news is that cars have already started gotten much smaller compared to the 70s and 80s, so the trend is in the right direction...

Note: I drive a 3000-lb 4-cylinder. :-)


RE: My opinion
By Samus on 1/8/2010 4:04:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
My 5.7L V8 Dodge Challenger gets 28 to 29 mpg on the highway


That's great, but what about the 14-16MPG in the city?

...if you're lucky, because we all know you probably use the power on tap to get under 10MPG...why else did you buy that engine, anyway? Just because your huge V8 uses trick injection to run on 4 cylinders highway doesn't mean its efficient, it just means its smart. But unfortunately it doesn't do anything for you at idle and in city traffic, where most urban area's need to clean their act up. Compare air pollution in Nebraska (an all highway driving state) to California and your Hemi all the sudden seems a little neck'ish.

People who want big engines (I'm one of them) should be taxed much like they are in Europe. The only penalty we suffer here in the USA is paying for more fuel and possibly higher insurance premium, but not much. I'm all for it, because few people truely deserve those big engines because they're the one's gunning it to the next red light and cutting through traffic like clowns. When's the last time you saw a Prius doing that?

Thought so.


RE: My opinion
By wolrah on 1/12/2010 12:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People who want big engines (I'm one of them) should be taxed much like they are in Europe. The only penalty we suffer here in the USA is paying for more fuel and possibly higher insurance premium, but not much. I'm all for it, because few people truely deserve those big engines because they're the one's gunning it to the next red light and cutting through traffic like clowns.


Why should this depend on displacement? I used to have a Crown Victoria with the amazing 180HP 4.6L V8. I now have a BMW 325i with a 180 or so HP 2.5L I6. I get roughly the same highway mileage and two better in the city with a bit more than half the displacement (hauling around significantly less car). I agree that heavier users should pay more, but the idea of a European-style displacement tax has just never made sense to me in an environment where highway miles can be a significant part of someone's driving. Fuel taxes are the way to go in my opinion. If I was to buy a 6 speed LS1 Camaro/Firebird I'd be more than doubling my displacement, but I'd be cutting my fuel use since most of my driving is highway and the 6 speed F-bodies are known to get around 30 MPG highway. Why should I pay more when I just helped?


RE: My opinion
By Lazarus Dark on 1/12/2010 6:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
A note: the Auto trans V8 can cut fuel to half of it's cylinders, but I have the Manual trans, which DOES NOT have that feature, it is a V8 24-7.

I probably could get to 10 mpg if I tried, but I am averaging 14-16 in the city. I don't live in California, and would not. I have lots of open road here and my Challenger fits the roads here well.

There is a Tax on big engines! It's called the Gas Guzzler tax and is $3000 to $5000 I think at vehicle purchase. For the Challenger it is only applicable on the 6.1L engine. I have the 5.7L which squeaks under the requirement for this tax thanks to the 6th gear on the manual (or the cylinder shutoff on the automatic).

And actually, I am now carpooling to and from work. The Challenger is now a weekend only car, saving me like $30 to $40 a week in gas and preserving the cars value longer. Also saving the planet! *snort*


RE: My opinion
By 91TTZ on 1/13/2010 4:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People who want big engines (I'm one of them) should be taxed much like they are in Europe. The only penalty we suffer here in the USA is paying for more fuel and possibly higher insurance premium, but not much. I'm all for it, because few people truely deserve those big engines because they're the one's gunning it to the next red light and cutting through traffic like clowns. When's the last time you saw a Prius doing that?


I disagree. I rarely see cars with big engines such as Corvettes racing around town because they're usually driven by older drivers who have the money to afford them. Around here, it's the riced out Civics and Neons that buzz around as they weave through traffic.

People should not be taxed more just because they drive a car with a larger engine. They already pay a penalty for that in the form of higher fuel costs.


RE: My opinion
By AnnihilatorX on 1/7/2010 8:40:02 AM , Rating: 3
you can choose to, but you ain't going anywhere any faster.

Accelerating fast for few seconds but when one has to stop 20 metres in the next junction, I can hardly call that an intelligient move.

Of course it depends on the traffic light settings, distance and all that. I am saying there are plenty of idiots that do so in an obvious usesless attempt to beat the clock.


RE: My opinion
By seamonkey79 on 1/7/2010 8:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think it was more to do with the idiot flooring it so they could sit at the next red light, nothing about the performance capabilities and certainly not comparing it to Indy Bore 500.


RE: My opinion
By drycrust3 on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: My opinion
By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 11:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
I use to own a motorcycle and I can tell you fast acceleration is dangerous. People don't judge it correctly and pull out in front of you.


RE: My opinion
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2010 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In New Zealand, where I live, I think it was 2007 in which we had the lowest death toll in 50 years.


Big deal, you barely have 50 people.

OHHHH !!! *rimshot* Thank you, thank you. You've been great ! I'll be here all week.


RE: My opinion
By drycrust3 on 1/8/2010 3:27:50 AM , Rating: 1
Whether we have barely 50 people or a bit more should not be the issue. The issue should be why is this one year so different from the years before and after it, especially as this involves the theoretically most valuable thing our country has (human life).
The sad part isn't that we still lost 300 or so people, the sad part isn't that maybe we could do a whole lot better but won't, the really sad part is that nobody seems to care.
Theoretically, one life lost is too many.


RE: My opinion
By PitViper007 on 1/8/2010 3:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, you are dealing with human nature. We as humans tend to think "That happens to someone else, not me". So while we may all know better, actually doing what we should in following the rules of the road seems to be something many won't do simply because they think they can get away with it.


RE: My opinion
By mindless1 on 1/7/2010 10:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
Some regions in the US also have very low death tolls last year, I believe it has more to do with having less disposable income for driving around, the average car being safer and safer each year, and the internet distracting more and more from activities away from home.


RE: My opinion
By Masospaghetti on 1/7/2010 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 1
Not everyone has $60,000 to blow on a IS F, let alone eat the fuel cost of your thirsty V8. 20 MPG isn't economical at all when gasoline costs $3+ a gallon and especially when your engine uses premium fuel.

That said, I am trying to get a V8 powered vehicle, but the V8 is far from mainstream or cheap from a fuel standpoint.


RE: My opinion
By JediJeb on 1/7/2010 5:59:15 PM , Rating: 3
Actually 20 mpg can be economical if the cost to replace it with a more fuel efficient vehicle will cost more in the long run. I looked into it in 2008 when the gas prices hit $4 per gallon. Even at that for me to replace my truck with 18mpg with a car that got 35mpg, I would need to find one I could make $80 per month payments on to recoup them with the fuel savings, and that was not counting the fact that the insurance on a new vehicle would surely run me more than the $500 per year I am paying on the truck now. So for me, until they make a car that gets 60mpg and cost less than $20k I will come out better keeping what I have.


RE: My opinion
By superflex on 1/7/2010 11:27:44 AM , Rating: 1
That 8 speed tranny is a nightmare.
Nothing like shifting every 2 seconds.


RE: My opinion
By Durrr on 1/7/2010 3:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a conventional manual.


RE: My opinion
By Runiteshark on 1/7/2010 4:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Never been a car with a CVT eh? It still sucks shifting so much (And yes, I know CVTs don't really shift).


RE: My opinion
By gamerk2 on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: My opinion
By Chaser on 1/7/2010 8:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
Some American "muscle cars" come in V6s.


RE: My opinion
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/7/2010 8:31:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Although its fun for my inline-4 camry to constantly beat Ford Mustangs off the line :D

It's amazing what can be achieved when the other guy doesn't even realize he's racing you.


RE: My opinion
By Scabies on 1/7/2010 11:21:07 AM , Rating: 1
30MPH?! BUT I HAVE PLACES TO GO!!
/tailgate


RE: My opinion
By supergarr on 1/7/2010 1:52:12 PM , Rating: 3
You ever merge on a busy highway with a really short entrance ramp? Didn't think so.


RE: My opinion
By Omega215D on 1/7/2010 4:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that but some on-ramps in NYC have traffic lights to regulate when vehicles can enter a freeway. The light is only active during the usual times of congestion.

Once that light turns green you better make it up to the speed of surrounding traffic otherwise you'll cause a nice domino effect of brake lights.


RE: My opinion
By Scabies on 1/7/2010 10:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
I-15 here in utah does, and my i4 camry does fine tyvm. (though they invariably cause that domino-caterpillar effect across all lanes; really all they do is make sure that no one is going over 55 during rush hour -.-)

the reference is the cyborg (as evidenced by permanently attached cell phone) SUV yahoos that have to save 30sec on their trip to the grocery store, and will weave and tailgate and race-to-red the entire two miles across town.


RE: My opinion
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 8:52:10 AM , Rating: 5
And your opinion is just that. Yours.

Why should others have to live their lives according to your opinions? If I can afford something, why shouldn't I be allowed to buy it? I mean hell my taxes go to helping people who bought homes they wanted but can't afford keep them, why can't I buy a car I can afford but doesn't meet your or our presidents approval?


RE: My opinion
By GaryJohnson on 1/7/2010 9:58:23 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why should others have to live their lives according to your opinions?

It's the great flaw of our democracy: you might be in the minority, and the minority always gets the shaft.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 11:06:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's the great flaw of our democracy: you might be in the minority, and the minority always gets the shaft.


Technically a "democracy" is majority rule - or mob rule, if you will. It's one of the worst forms of a representative government right up there with dictatorships and oligarchies. We (the US) are a democratic republic - some call it a constitutional republic.

Besides, if anything lately, it's the majority that's been getting the shaft for the minority. Case in point, the majority of Americans do not want the federal government taking over their health care - 84% of said Americans have a health care plan. The federal government argues that it has to be done because a whopping 16% do not have a health care plan (and whether or not some of those 16% can afford coverage but choose not to is not even addressed).


RE: My opinion
By mikefarinha on 1/7/2010 11:33:52 AM , Rating: 5
You contradict your own statement.

Our democracy isn't a mob rule because we don't live in true democracy. We live in a representative democracy which means we don't vote on federal issues. We vote for representatives to vote on issues for us.

A pure democracy would be awful.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 11:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
No I don't. I cleared up what so many people think we are - a democracy - which we are not. Didn't I say that above? Of course we don't vote on federal issues. I seem to recall those words that used to mean something: "The Will Of The People." At least, that meant something to the opposition when Republicans ran things and did things against what people wanted. Now apparently that no longer matters when Democrats are in charge.


RE: My opinion
By GaryJohnson on 1/7/2010 1:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused. In your other post you suggest your views are those of the majority, and the views of the majority should be acted upon. In this post you make it sound like your are the minority and are being unfairly taken advantage of. Which is it?


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 2:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? I said no such thing about my views. The only issue I referenced as a majority and minority view was who had health care insurance and who did not and who wanted that changed (Democrats) and who did not (American public). Clear enough?


RE: My opinion
By wookie1 on 1/7/2010 1:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
I bigger feature of our structure that may be different from other "democracies" is that although there is majority rule (even if it is a representative majority), it is limited by the minorities rights, such as outlined in the bill of rights and other amendments. And the founders made it intentionally difficult to make amendments.


RE: My opinion
By mcnabney on 1/7/2010 12:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think a big chunk of that 84% which do have coverage are pretty damn worried what is going to happen if they lose it. Unless you have a chronic condition, if you find yourself out of work the first thing that gets cut is COBRA due to the outrageous costs associated with it. That is why something needs to be done. Unfortunately, not enough on the cost-control side is being put forward. Would Tort Reform be a fair trade for the Republicans to allow a government-run option?


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 2:23:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think a big chunk of that 84% which do have coverage are pretty damn worried what is going to happen if they lose it.


Not as worried as they are about the incompetence of government forcing private insurers out of business which ultimately would lead to pure government (and rationed) health care.


RE: My opinion
By GaryJohnson on 1/7/2010 12:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you can say that just because someone currently has healthcare they don't want a government option. If the representation of the majority didn't want it (perhaps in this case the vocal majority, aka: lobbyists) it wouldn't be happening. And it may not be happening - it's out of the senate bill; so it may be that the representation of the majority didn't want it after all.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 2:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Okay this article is about cars, not health care. So I'll quit at this:

quote:
I don't think you can say that just because someone currently has healthcare they don't want a government option.


No, not every person who has health care insurance is against government takeover. Where did I ever say that was the case? But the fact remains a solid majority (higher than the majority that put Obama in office) are against this entire debacle, which, as we have now seen, is not being broadcast on CSPAN as promised by said Obama last year.

quote:
If the representation of the majority didn't want it (perhaps in this case the vocal majority, aka: lobbyists) it wouldn't be happening.


Oh really? Arrogance against the will of the people is what got Republicans thrown out of Congress in 2006 by the people. We are going to slowly start watching it happen to Democrats now. Go read up on Nevada voters and see how they feel about Harry Reid lately.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/harry-r...


RE: My opinion
By Alexstarfire on 1/7/2010 5:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if I want the government taking control of health care either, but health care certainly needs to be reformed. I'd rather government stay out of businesses, but when businesses aren't being run properly there isn't much of a difference.


RE: My opinion
By rcc on 1/7/2010 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the minority always gets the shaft.


Not necessarily true in the US these days, or for the last 20 years.

A vocal minority is far more likely to get their way than is the majority.

And, before someone starts throwing insults, no, I'm not talking about race.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 3:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A vocal minority is far more likely to get their way than is the majority.


EXACTLY! That's the point I was trying to get across earlier, but obviously failed to do. Short and to the point works every time, lol.


RE: My opinion
By theapparition on 1/7/2010 10:13:21 AM , Rating: 5
You're wasting your time trying to explain this. These people think everyone needs to sacrifice to make thier life better. They want only the rich to pay thier taxes while they sit back and collect the benefits.

Who needs a 300hp vehicle? For that matter, why does anyone need over 60hp? How about if you dare want to own a boat? Or like to go on vacations with the entire family and tow a camper? Or want something that you can put 2-4 children in comfortably? Or what if your business requires a pickup, or SUV.

It's all not acceptable according to the powers that are trying to control us. Brandon (sorry, but true) consistantly states with incredulity why anyone would want a high hp or big vehicle. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who lives in an appartment in the city, has no family, and suggests that if you want to move, rent a truck. Understanding his personal situation casts light on the bias of his articles.

American people, everyone for that matter, not just Americans, always want something bigger, better, faster. The rich europeans don't drive econoboxes, so don't give me that drivel. Given the opportunity, even grandmas want the best they can get (money not withstanding). As soon as money becomes a factor, that's where people need to start makeing choices. People are not clamering for low hp cars, or small cars, or anthing of that sort. It's only when money becomes a factor do people start looking to compromise.

FWIW, if you have the money, you'll still be able to buy anything you want. Want a 1000hp Bugatti, no problem. Lambo, Ferrari, sure, just plop your money down.

But want an affordable car with some power, than too bad. We've just mandated it away. Legislation like this doesn't affect the premium brands and people who can afford them, it only further differentiates the gap in economic socilization.


RE: My opinion
By RU482 on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: My opinion
By sbtech on 1/7/2010 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Commies I tell you. These are all commies. A matter of time before they start on equal wages.


RE: My opinion
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 2:58:19 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah but someone still has to say it. Even if they label me as an ignorant redneck. I'd take being an ignorant redneck any day though as opposed to a sniveling, snobbish liberal who thinks I know everything.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 3:35:09 PM , Rating: 1
The funny thing about liberals is that they claim to be so open-minded and tolerant of diversity and viewpoints. As we well know, nothing could be further from the truth. They trashed Condi Rice because she was a member of the Bush Administration. They snap and snarl and hurl insults - and that's only after you simply tell them your political affiliation. The shrill and attacks get worse as you start speaking your viewpoints and proclaim to be a Tea Party supporter. And then when someone like Sarah Palin has a #1 best seller, all hell breaks loose in lib land and heads explode.


RE: My opinion
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/7/2010 4:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
You actually have it wrong (nice assumptions though ;) ). I live in the "country", outside the city limits of Raleigh, have a wife, and live in a single family home in a cul-de-sac. I've never, EVER, lived in an apartment.

I personally don't see the need for ME to have a larger vehicle because it's easier for me to borrow an SUV/pickup from a friend or family member on the off chance that I need a large vehicle to move something than to pay for gas and store a hulking vehicle in my driveway/garage 24-7. My dad has a Nissan Titan Crew Cab Long Bed which he barely drives, but I've used a handful of times to move stuff.

But if YOU need it, go ahead and buy it. It's your money :)


RE: My opinion
By Alexstarfire on 1/7/2010 5:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the guy was referring to himself with that and not you.


RE: My opinion
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/7/2010 5:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he was talking about me since he called me out by name and mentioned stuff that I have commented on in the past (like renting a moving truck to move and not personally needing high HP cars to commute).

But if he isn't, I apologize :)


RE: My opinion
By theapparition on 1/12/2010 11:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
No I was calling you out, but obviously was mis-informed. Perhaps it's your editor Kris Kubucki who lives in Chicago.


RE: My opinion
By theapparition on 1/12/2010 11:35:59 AM , Rating: 2
And I was correct on your not having a family. No children = no clue on how much crap you'll have to lug around with you.

Meant no disprespect.

And what happens when "dad" is no longer able (or no longer allowed) to afford a pick-up truck?


RE: My opinion
By chunkymonster on 1/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: My opinion
By Spuke on 1/7/2010 9:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The comments from people about "consumer choice" or that it is a "right" to drive for larger engines and vehicles have to remember that all States in the Union consider driving a privilege and not a right
It is indeed a privilege to drive. But that does not extend to what you buy. We have a right to buy anything we want. So you can go buy that V8 powered car but you must take a test and get a license to DRIVE it.


RE: My opinion
By GaryJohnson on 1/7/2010 10:16:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So you can go buy that V8 powered car but you must take a test and get a license to DRIVE it.

You also have to register and in some states have inspected any vehicle before it can be drive on on a public road. The state can refuse to register or fail an inspection on a vehicle based on any criteria they set.

So while you might have a right to buy a V8, and you might have a license, you may not have a right to drive it on a public road.


RE: My opinion
By chunkymonster on 1/7/2010 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is indeed a privilege to drive. But that does not extend to what you buy. We have a right to buy anything we want. So you can go buy that V8 powered car but you must take a test and get a license to DRIVE it.


Semantics aside, I beg to differ, it is not a right to buy anything you want. If a particular product is deemed illegal, then you can not purchase it. There are numerous examples...

In some States, it is illegal to drive single passenger commuter vehicles in certain lanes on the inter-state highways, that are over a certain weight limit, or exceed emissions standards; these limits were made law because driving is a privilege. And given that driving is a privilege, it is wholly plausible for a State to make it illegal to drive a single passenger commuter vehicles with more than 4 cylinders.

Look at what California, Illinois, and States in the Northeast are doing to reduce greenhouse gases. Consensus already is that single passenger commuter vehicles are a great contributor to the "problem".

Fact is, if American car manufacturers were able to produce a V6 or V8 that had the same emissions as 4 cylinder, they would have done it by now. But as this article states, car makers are cutting back on V6's in favor or 4 cylinders because of emissions (CAFE) standards.

Lastly, in January of 2009, President Obama lifted the EPA restrictions put in place by President Bush to restrict individual States from passing their own own emissions standards. Another reason why it is wholly plausible for States to determine what size engine can be driven on the road.

So, why you may be able to purchase that V8, if trends continue, you may not be able to drive it.


RE: My opinion
By Spuke on 1/7/2010 1:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Semantics aside, I beg to differ, it is not a right to buy anything you want. If a particular product is deemed illegal, then you can not purchase it.
Sorry for making assumptions. I figured we all knew the difference between legal and illegal. I'll be specific. Cars are not illegal and you can buy any car you want but you cannot drive it until you have a license, registration, and etc needed to drive on public roads. Like I said, you can go buy that V8 powered car if you want it. You have the right to do so. You don't have the right to go drive it. You can drive it after you jump through all of the legal hoops.

quote:
Fact is, if American car manufacturers were able to produce a V6 or V8 that had the same emissions as 4 cylinder, they would have done it by now. But as this article states, car makers are cutting back on V6's in favor or 4 cylinders because of emissions (CAFE) standards.
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are not emissions mandates, they are fuel economy standards.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 10:56:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If driving in the United States was a right and not a privilege, the the founding fathers would have made provisions for personal transportation in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.


I guess you can say the same about health care too, eh? But don't let that stop the politicians from ignoring the will of the majority on that, right? But regarding transportation, there was no infrastructure and organized method of transportation other than two forms during the late 1700s: horse and human foot. How could they have made provisions for something not even dreamed of yet? Sorry, failed logic.

quote:
Sorry folks, but if States and the Federal Government determines that 4 cylinders are what the public wants and what is best to meet environmental requirements, then GM (Government-Motors) will only make and sell 4 cylinder vehicles;


The States continue to lose the rights granted to them in Amendment X by our wonderful politicians, both Democrat and Republican, although lately more from the former. In any event, the government can shove it up its a-s-s on what I'll be driving. If all we'll be offered in 10 years is little pu$$yassed ecoboxes like the smart car with 3 cylinders, they'll be removing my American V8 (and foreign V6) from my cold dead foot.


RE: My opinion
By chunkymonster on 1/7/2010 11:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
If driving in the United States was a right and not a privilege, the the founding fathers would have made provisions for personal transportation in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
I guess you can say the same about health care too, eh? But don't let that stop the politicians from ignoring the will of the majority on that, right? But regarding transportation, there was no infrastructure and organized method of transportation other than two forms during the late 1700s: horse and human foot. How could they have made provisions for something not even dreamed of yet? Sorry, failed logic.
Nope, sorry, not failed logic. Much to your point of health care, it illustrates the fact that the federal government has greatly over stepped their bounds and is regulating far more than what was provisioned for the by the Constitution. The founding fathers new what was important to establish a viable and lasting governmental infrastructure and by leaving out things like transportation and health care, they (un)intentionally left those decisions and choices to the States and People.

quote:
quote:
Sorry folks, but if States and the Federal Government determines that 4 cylinders are what the public wants and what is best to meet environmental requirements, then GM (Government-Motors) will only make and sell 4 cylinder vehicles;
The States continue to lose the rights granted to them in Amendment X by our wonderful politicians, both Democrat and Republican, although lately more from the former. In any event, the government can shove it up its a-s-s on what I'll be driving. If all we'll be offered in 10 years is little pu$$yassed ecoboxes like the smart car with 3 cylinders, they'll be removing my American V8 (and foreign V6) from my cold dead foot.
Fact is the Tenth Amendment has long been disregarded as a result of legislating from the bench and liberal interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause. While I admire your Charleton Heston-esque vision or prying your vehicle from under your dead cold foot, it is We the People who are ultimately to blame for allowing the politicians we elect to disregard the Constitution and confirm the Judges to the Supreme Court that legislate from the bench.


RE: My opinion
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 12:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
Okay I misunderstood your viewpoint.

quote:
We the People who are ultimately to blame for allowing the politicians we elect to disregard the Constitution and confirm the Judges to the Supreme Court that legislate from the bench.


Well said. But so many "We The People" are ignorant and uneducated and vote with emotions and what they read in the (biased) media. I'd be willing to bet at least half of the first time voters in 2008 who voted for Obama didn't even know who their representatives are in the Senate and House.

So, those of us who are educated, know the issues, and study politics are damned by the ignorant masses.


RE: My opinion
By rcc on 1/7/2010 2:28:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In reality, a 4 cylinder is all anyone really needs for daily driving


Yes, and you can servive on nothing but water, rice and some protein, etc. But who would want to.


RE: My opinion
By rcc on 1/7/2010 2:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, survive


RE: My opinion
By FlyTexas on 1/8/2010 5:02:12 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with a 4 cylinder is that my Tahoe wouldn't work very well with one. It might get by with a high power V6, but there are just times it really needs that V8.

Oh, what do I need a Tahoe for? Well, I have 3 kids, and we're always hauling stuff from one event to another, helping with school stuff, shopping, etc.

My wife drives a Honda Odyssey (which also wouldn't work well with a 4 cylinder), and it is indeed nice, but it doesn't haul what my Tahoe does, even if the seats are indeed easier to use.

The HP and fuel economy isn't even that different, the Odyssey gets 18mpg combined, the Tahoe gets 15mpg combined. When both are loaded up however, you really can tell the difference.

(The Tahoe is a 2001 with 280hp, the Odyssey is a 2009 with 245hp, however the Tahoe has a lot more torque, so when loaded up the difference is noticeable. The newer Tahoes get the same 15mpg but have 320hp and are even nicer to drive)


RE: My opinion
By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 11:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
The last model honda accord came with a 2.4 cyl with something like 180hp and that seemed about right. I think 150hp in a mid sized sedan might be a little to low, maybe if you live in a very flat part of the country.


RE: My opinion
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2010 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think a 2 litre engine with around 150-170hp is quite enough for anything


Then you go and enjoy that. But people with a different opinion shouldn't be forced to adopt yours.


RE: My opinion
By jonmcc33 on 1/7/2010 12:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
To me the issue isn't speed but what each engine can do. With a V6 if you turn on the AC you can't tell much difference. With a 4-cylinder if you turn on the AC your car acts like a 2-cylinder.

It also has to do with acceleration. I'm not going to race someone but if I need to quickly accelerate to avoid an accident a V6 will give you there where a 4-cylinder will not.

I have a 2006 Hyundai Sonata V6 (240HP Lambda) and honestly I wasn't even looking at anything with a 4-cylinder when I was car shopping. It gives me near the same gas mileage as my old 1999 Cavalier did.


RE: My opinion
By Davelo on 1/7/2010 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 1
This article basically echos what I had been thinking. The auto industry keeps upping the horsepower ante but ignore consumers' desire for greater MPG. Seems the last 20 years the auto makers have basically went backwards. I remember when I was a kid and many cars were getting 30 mpg. Here we are 30 years later and the only thing to improve is the power. Now, the only way to get 50 mpg is with a complex hybrid system. I had 50 mpg back in the early '90s with a Honda Civic VX. It was a simple car and was very fun to drive.


RE: My opinion
By wookie1 on 1/7/2010 1:10:16 PM , Rating: 3
Really? Then why do they keep selling these cars? It seems like there are many manufacturers and models to choose from. And it seems like plenty of people buy cars that aren't in the top 10 for fuel efficiency, so perhaps the automakers are delivering what consumers want. If there were some underserved market, it would seem that one of these many automakers would find it after a short time to boost their sales. I think that your logic fails.


RE: My opinion
By sinful on 1/7/2010 2:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there were some underserved market, it would seem that one of these many automakers would find it after a short time to boost their sales. I think that your logic fails.


That's not necessarily true;
For one, cars are complex products - meaning a car might have many of the features you want, but not all. Meaning, Ford could release the Mustang without a stereo if everything else about the car was amazing - and people would buy it anyway. That's no reflection on the market for Steroes, however.

Second, despite many manufacturers, many people have a high degree of BRAND LOYALTY.
i.e. would you rather have a KIA supercar, or a almost-as-good supercar by FERRARI?
Most people would chose the Ferrari - and skip the "better" Kia, just because of Brand.
Thus, the auto market is much narrower for most people, because they automatically exclude certain manufacturers.

Finally, automakers make what they THINK you want, which is not always actually what you want, assuming they can even translate what you want into an actual product correctly.

(i.e. the Volt prototype looked amazing, yet the final product looks mediocre; do you really think people were saying "Make the Volt look more like a Prius!"? I doubt it).

That said, if the Volt had looked like the prototype, I might be in the market for that type of vehicle - but because none have been "Done Correctly", I've passed on that entire CATEGORY of vehicles - despite it being very appealing in other ways.
In other words, the market is obviously underserved, despite having a considerable amount of time to get it right.

In short, the free market might be pretty good at coming up with products people want, but it's by no means perfect.


diesels
By highqee on 1/7/2010 4:49:54 AM , Rating: 5
i guess a lot of users got it wrong.

unless you live in some 3rd world country, where fuel quality and quantity is low, there is just no use of petrol engine in a 4wd or SUV, whether it is large displacement or small. Europeans (and in asia too) have understood this: you really need a diesel in a 4WD. i have tested jeep cherokee V8 and CRDI and diesel has miles ahead better power delivery, torqey, smooth, powerful, yet economical. you could climb reasonable inclines even without stepping on a gas pedal, there so much power even on idle revs. and you can still get over 40mpg average with a SUV.
the only thing is that modern common-rail turbodiesels are a bit picky on fuel quality, but in northern america this should not be an issue. there are no other advantage of petrol engine in a SUV.
this actually goes also for luxury sedans. take a merc or audi or a beamer, get a V6 diesel and try. the next time you try corresponding petrol engine, you'll run back to diesel straight away.

the only disadantage of diesel in a road car is weight, revving speed and price compared to similar power/displacement petrol. weight is not really relevant on a SUV or middle/larger or sedan, and so is revving speed, this is sporstcar stuff.
the more important factor is the price, as diesel engine costs more than 4-cyl petrol, but at the same time good 4-cyl diesel will cost less or same than v6 petrol. and if you drive a lot (60k miles or more) then you'll win with fuel economy after all.

yes, you won't race with standard diesels (though you can with proper racing-grade diesels as le mans series or World Touring car championship have shown), but this is a sportscar territorty and these are specialized vehicles.

i don't get this, why northern americans (USA, canada) haven't discovered diesel cars.




RE: diesels
By eddieroolz on 1/7/2010 6:39:10 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure if there's any truth to it, but the US standard for diesel emission is too tight for European makers to bring their diesels over, and that the strict regulation would require a re-engineering of the entire powertrain for most European diesel cars, hence they all decided to stick with petrol.

That's what I read somewhere. Not sure if it holds any water though.


RE: diesels
By BZDTemp on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: diesels
By knutjb on 1/7/2010 8:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, diesel in the US doesn't have to do with the cars themselves but with the cost of the fuel.

Right now with a slow economy diesel is quite reasonable. When our transportation sector cranks up it will be a different story. Once it recovers diesels cost effectiveness over gas disappears.

In the US The biggest demand for diesel/jet fuel, both are quite similar fuels, goes to aircraft, railroad, and large semi trucks. To give some perspective, the Union Pacific Railroad is the single largest consumer of diesel on the planet.

You don't move cargo by train across Europe like we do in the US. It is estimated 80% or so of all materials sold in the US is touched by the railroad. It is the most cost effective form of cargo transportation.


RE: diesels
By highqee on 1/7/2010 8:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
thats actually strange.
if you take standard 2-litre petrol and 2-litre diesel engine, then diesel will produce less co2.
for standard intermediate class vehicles; most of the modern diesel engines (VAG group, renault-nissan, citroen-peugeot, ford-mazda, opel-saab-fiat-GM, honda, toyota, kia-hyundai etc) produce less than 150 g/kg. you'll never achieve that with 2 or lagrer litre petrol, most V6 petrols reach over 250 g/kg.
but of course there are more emission types, other than co2.


RE: diesels
By Laereom on 1/7/2010 10:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
I may be dating myself, but I remember when 'emissions' generally did mean things like actual pollution rather than a largely innocuous molecule which marginally warms our planet in when present in massive quantities... I mean, really, even 5 degrees warmer over the entire planet just means more fertile farmlands in Canada and Russia. Particulate emissions (which the US is far more strict on than Europe) will actually damage people's health, any sector of the environment it touches, etc, and do so without offsetting that damage by improvements somewhere else.


RE: diesels
By twhittet on 1/7/2010 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
It's 11:30AM and -11 degrees where I am right now. Though I would be the first to glady welcome warmer temperatures, I think your
quote:
even 5 degrees warmer over the entire planet
thought is dangerously wrong, and I hope you're exaggerating to make a point.


RE: diesels
By BZDTemp on 1/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: diesels
By mathew7 on 1/7/2010 8:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Some diesel facts:
- for the same capacity, you need a turbo charger for the diesel to get the same power as a gasoline engine.
- diesel engines have a bigger torque at lower RPM, which means when you cruise at 2000rpm and press the pedal, you "feel" immediately the big acceleration, whereas with the petrol you need to switch to lower gear.
- untreated diesel fuel has a very high viscosity under -20C (I don't know how many F). To use it in cold climate you need additives to diesel fuel, which I have no idea how expensive are (the additives are included in the fuel at the pump).

As a sportiness example, I compared the european Mitsubishi Lancer, which comes in 1.8L petrol and 2.0L turbo diesel. They both have around 140HP (max 5HP difference) and the diesel has .1s advantage at 0-100km/h (0-60mph).
And yeah, the turbo is one of the reasons the diesel is more expensive.


RE: diesels
By highqee on 1/7/2010 9:38:14 AM , Rating: 3
the cost for winter additives is not that much, less than 5cents per litre (so maybe ~20 cents/gallon). here, all stations sell winter-rated diesels, that can handle temps under -30 celsius.
but of course, engine oil must be up to the level also at such freezing temperatures.


RE: diesels
By tjr508 on 1/9/2010 4:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
#1 diesel is fine below -40C (-40F). Additives are generally expensive and ineffective.

New synthetic 5W-40 motor oils help quite a bit in the cold as well.


RE: diesels
By Modeverything on 1/7/2010 9:05:59 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see why so many people want these huge SUV vehicles anyway. I live in North America, and probably 1/3 of the automobiles on the road where I live are gigantic SUVs that barely fit in the lanes they're driving in. When I look in the windows of these vehicles, they are never full, never carrying large amounts of cargo. Why do so many feel they need the largest vehicle they can possible afford just to ride around town?

I understand that some people may need an SUV, but this many people can't need the biggest ones built by the manufacturer. The Ford Excursion weighs over 7000 pounds, and over 7000 pounds for the 1/2 ton Chevy Suburban or 8600 pounds for the 3/4 ton. I see SUVs like these on the roads along with Hummers and many other types. These people buy automobiles like these then complain about gas prices. Even the Ford Explorer, which is one of the smaller models weighs about 4600 pounds according to what I read.

I drive a 2008 Nissan Altima sedan, and I love it. It is a family size car with plenty large enough to do anything I need to do, and it weighs just over 3000 pounds.


RE: diesels
By Redwin on 1/7/2010 10:04:14 AM , Rating: 3
For a lot of people it boils down to safety. The question is always "Why does a soccer mom need a 7000 lbs vehicle to drive her kid to practice?"

The answer is generally "Because there are other 7000lbs vehicles on the road, and she feels her kid will be safer in an accident if she is in a similar sized vehicle."

I have relatives who bought an Excursion for their 18 year old daughter for this exact reason. They know it costs more in gas, but they don't feel they can put a price on their daughter's safety.


RE: diesels
By FITCamaro on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: diesels
By rudolphna on 1/7/2010 10:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
I will agree with you here to an extent. My parents own a 2003 Ford Expedition. We could NOT get by without it. Every time we go on a trip, it is packed to the maximum. It can also tow up to 8900lb which is great so we can tow a camper with it, instead of having to get a seperate pickup truck to do it. But the family of three, with one small child does NOT need one, unless they regularly haul large loads and need the space.

EDIT: Oh yes, and for the most part the fact that SUVs handle poorly, accelerate sluggishly, and tip over easier, and in general quite a fallacy. It might have something to do with the fact that the expedition has IRS, but it handles excellent, and acceleration is satisfying enough, for a 230HP 4.6L V8 pushing 5000lb of Steel.


RE: diesels
By Iaiken on 1/7/2010 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 3
So why is it that SUV's have the highest death rates of any vehicle class other than motorcycles?


RE: diesels
By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 11:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
Plus its streight physics, as vehicles have increased in weight there is a corresponding increase in force that needs to be dissepated in a crash. The soccer mom was hoping she would plow into a honda civic and the large truck would protect her and her kid from injury, by the way not caring if she kills the other driver. What happens now that everyone is driving trucks when soccer mom gets plowed by another giant truck while driving her own giant truck, not good. The roads are safer for everyone when people are driving well designed smaller vehicles.


RE: diesels
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 12:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So why is it that SUV's have the highest death rates of any vehicle class other than motorcycles?


Women drivers.


RE: diesels
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 2:58:38 PM , Rating: 3
Win.


RE: diesels
By Keeir on 1/7/2010 2:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
And pray tell, what is your source for this?

FARS by the NHTSA
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleOccupan...
Passenger Cars - 14,587 Deaths (Driver + Passenger)
Light Truck - 10,764 Deaths (Driver + Passenger)

Bureau of Transportation Statistics
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transport...
Passenger Cars - 135.9 Million Cars
Light Trucks - 101.5 Million Trucks

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transport...
Passenger Car - 1.67 Billion Miles Driven per Year
Light Truck - 1.11 Billion Miles Driven per Year

36.2% More Deaths in Passenger Cars than Light Trucks
33.9% More Registered Passenger Cars than Light Trucks
50% More miles driven by Passenger Cars than Light Trucks

End Result

Passenger Cars : 0.86 Deaths per 100 Million Vechile Miles
Light Trucks : 0.96 Deaths per 100 Million Vechile Miles

Essentially Equal. At least in comparison to Motorcycles which are over 30 deaths per 100 Million Vehicle Miles.

The picture changes when we remove single Car or Roll-over accidents. IE, if we start with the assumption that the driver is safe and drives appropriate for thier automobile, niether of these crashes should occur regularly.

Deaths by autotype in Multiple Vehile Crashes is not an offical Statistic kept by FARS. I will approximate it as such Deaths in General * Multiple Crashes/Total Crashes= Deaths in Multiple Vechiles Crashes. This favors the passenger cars btw

Deaths in Multiple Vehicle Crashes per Million Passenger Miles
Passenger Cars = 0.52
Light Trucks = 0.50

My end conclusion is fairly straight forward. People assume that they are safe drivers and that thier children or wives are safe drivers. When being driven by a safe and smart driver, SUVs and Light Trucks are indeed -safer-. Unfortunely, large numbers of drivers are either not skilled or safe. For a non-skilled driver, a medium to large passenger car (Camry Class, NOT Yaris) will likely be safer than any other class of cars. For an unsafe driver the only thing to do is remove thier priveledge to drive. (BTW, the #1 automobile class for deaths is 2-door/4-door performance cars in the hands of the unskilled or unsafe. Followed by 2-door/4-door performance light trucks in the hands of the unskilled or unsafe) Fundamentally, the majority of crashes occur because of intoxication (part of close to 40% of accidents -even after years of advertising against it-), misuse of safety devices, or driving during unsafe condition such as at 3 AM on rural roads.


RE: diesels
By Iaiken on 1/7/2010 10:40:11 AM , Rating: 1
The major reasons involve either Ego or the misconception that SUV's are safer or more useful than a car.

My parents own two cars and a Ford F-150 Super Duty. The cars are driven to work and around town while the F-150 is used as *gasp* a truck! They use it to haul horse trailers, the boat, and to move things that are too big to fit in the cars. They purchased the truck after working out that they would spend more in truck rentals than it would cost to own one and being a burden on thier other friends with trucks was simply not an option.

Coming from a household where practicality rules has led to me having a rather dubious view of urbanite SUV/Truck ownership. In large part, they are simply stupid people and what concerns me most is that my drive to work has demonstrated that there are LOTS of them. This is further compounded by the ludicrous prices that accompany SUV's. In many cases you could have bought a full-sized luxury sedan with better performance characteristics in every department outside of the utilitarian functions that hardly get used anyway.

When it comes to the Ego factor it's something that can't really be reasoned out. Basically it comes down to the attitude of "I'm more important than you so get out of my way or I will run you over". Several industry journals included views of the SUV-buying demographic that are similar to the above and marketers then stepped in to tap into peoples vanity to sell them SUV's at a huge mark-up for major profits. What people wound up getting where large dumbed down AWD vehicles that had nothing in common with the vehicles that had created imagry that SUV's are associated with (Jeep CJ, Land Rover, Toyota Landcruiser and the Nissan Patrol). Marketing took over and crammed this imagry down peoples throats (though it has been toned down recently) despite the fact that most SUV's are practically worthless off road without significant modification.

It's the greatest scam since... well... maybe ever!


RE: diesels
By eetnoyer on 1/7/2010 10:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to get a current model Altima. I'm driving a 10+ year old '00 Altima right now. Sadly for me, we just bought a new Town & Country for my wife last summer, so I won't be getting anything other than parts for myself until the current loan is paid off. Just curious, do you have the CVT? If so, do you like it? Has it been reliable?

At least with 4 kids, the T&C is actually a need for us, rather than a convenience. Besides, with the fold flat 2nd & 3rd row seats, I can still go to HD/Lowes and pick up 4'x8' sheet goods when I need to.


RE: diesels
By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 1:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
I worked at a Nissan dealership for a while. The CVT transmissions were not problematic at all, but they havent been in Nissans for that long. One thing that I saw was when people put the wrong transmission oil in them it led to quick transmission death.


RE: diesels
By Modeverything on 1/8/2010 11:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
I know I'm responding to this late, but yes I do have the CVT. I got the V6 3.5 L, which I understand is the same engine that's in the 350Z cars, just tuned differently. I used to only buy manual shift transmissions, but I wanted to try this. It has been a great transmission for me. I run my Altima hard, like a sports car. I have no problems auto-shifting or manual-shifting it and redlining the RPMs. No matter how hard I push that car, it handles it beautifully.

Also, yes I realize the irony of me driving my V6 this hard in a thread discussing getting good gas mileage. :)


RE: diesels
By chunkymonster on 1/7/2010 10:05:34 AM , Rating: 3
DIESEL FTW!!!!!!!!!

When bio-diesel can be made from just about any bio-mass like soy, peanuts, switchgrass, and hemp; all renewable resources that have more than one growing cycle per year. There is no other reason than a lack of testicular fortitude and political will to produce and sell more diesel vehicles in the United States. Heck, Rudolph Diesel himself used peanut oil to power his own diesel engine!

When Ford can successfully sell a 60+mpg diesel in Europe and yet at the same time claim that there is no market for the same vehicle in the United States, the argument for a lack of a market for diesel vehicles is a bunch of BS. When VW can successfully sell the Jetta, Rabbit, Touareg, and Passat TDI's in the United States, the argument for a lack of a market for diesel vehicles is a bunch of BS. When more than 50% of the vehicles sold and driven in the rest of the entire world are diesel, the argument for a lack of a market for diesel in te United States is a bunch of BS.


RE: diesels
By Masospaghetti on 1/7/2010 10:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can still get over 40mpg average with a SUV.


Considering the Jetta TDI is rated at 29/40 mpg, I doubt any 4x4 true SUV could come anywhere close to 40 mpg.

quote:
but at the same time good 4-cyl diesel will cost less or same than v6 petrol


This is definitely not true. A V6 gasoline engine is incrementally more expensive than a gasoline 4-cylinder but a diesel is often thousands more because of the additional robustness required in construction in addition to the high pressure fuel system. In some cases, the V6 option actually cost LESS than the 4-cylinder option (such as when the pushrod 3.5 V6 was still offered in midsize GM vehicles) simply because of the simplicity of a pushrod design compared to a DOHC design, although this is not typical.

In addition, here in NA the emissions requirement make it ifficult for a diesels to pass without (expensive) catalysts or urea injection systems. Its obvious that the NA emission standards are flawed, but that is how it is.

Also, diesel is not available at a large number of gas stations, which can make refueling inconvienent, depending on where one lives.

I agree that diesels do make sense but its not a magic bullet - gasoline vehicles definitely still have thier place.


RE: diesels
By Spuke on 1/7/2010 1:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its obvious that the NA emission standards are flawed, but that is how it is.
They're not flawed at all, they're just stringent. If you can't pass, you can't sell that car here. Ignoring the fact that diesels don't pass without the parts that you mentioned, like in Europe, doesn't make them cleaner. I'm interested in seeing what happens with diesels in Europe once they enact their upcoming much stricter standards.


RE: diesels
By highqee on 1/8/2010 3:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
not here in europe.
yes, car prices in EU are higher than US overall, but the average rule for passenger cars is:
* cheapest option is under 1,6 litre petrol
* standard 1,8-2,2 litre 4-cyl petrol costs about the same as little diesels (1,5-1,6)
* standard 1,9-2,2 litre diesel 4-cyl cost approx the same or even less than V6 petrol
* v6 diesel is in the same price territory as higher-end v6 or v8 petrols.

in North America it maybe different, but that's the way it is EU.

kind of strange thing that in EU, manufacturers talk about diesels, that they are environmentally friendly, burn fuels better (higher efficiency, that's why diesels get better mpg), etc. while at the same time in US, it's other way round.

i don't know of any diesel engine, that sells in EU at the moment, that does not pass EURO4 standards, and EU4 standards are very strict.

two comparing situations:
in 2008 and 2009 me and my fiance went to roadtrip: 2008 was in Europe, total of ~5000 miles. Ford Mondeo 2001 estate, 4-cyl TDI 2.0 litre, car pretty much loaded, different types of terrain and roads (freeways >75mph, cities, high mountain passes, b-roads), averaged 42MPG
2009, western US, also varying terrain (yellowstone, utah, arizona, california), total of ~4000 miles . Chrysler Sebring 2008 Covertible 2,4 4-cyl petrol, averaged maybe 25mpg.
here comes US "weight" mentality: how come my diesel powered car (should be heavier), estate (strenghtened back suspension), that is higher, wider, longer (a lot), bigger wheels, far roomier weighed less small sebring?

in germany, engineers think in a way: "should we put 5mm or 6mm aluminium plate here", in US they think: "lets make it 10mm and lets make it from solid steel".


nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By Navvie0 on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By Chaser on 1/7/2010 7:47:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
My last car was a modified 3 litre V6 with 290bhp and 240lb/ft of torque. 18-20 mpg.

And? Mine's a 5.0 liter V8 that does better than that.
quote:
Replaced that with a 1.4litre 4-banger turbo diesel. 96bhp and 94lb/ft of torque, 67 mpg average. No problem at all for my 50+ miles of motorway/freeway commuting every day. This little diesel does everything I can reasonably ask of it.

Hey YOUR needs FTW.

quote:
Driving a big engine is all about ego. Stop thinking with your love-organ for a minute and consider the money saving you can make on fuel.

And your comment doesn't have a touch of smugness to it as well?

And as far my ego or money savings goes um guess what? Both are nunya bidness. Enjoy your wind up toy and I'll enjoy my car.


By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 3:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And? Mine's a 5.0 liter V8 that does better than that.


Mines a 6.0L V8 that can do better than that.


RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By Pneumothorax on 1/7/2010 9:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
Then get out f-tard legislators to lower the emission standards on our diesels. Right now, trying to get euro-diesels pass our emission standards keeps most of them out due to cost.

Also back the article. I HATE 4-bangers! With just a few exceptions, they are much more buzzy-thrashy than their equivalent 6 cylinder engines.


RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By vshin on 1/7/2010 10:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
I will go ahead an mention one exception: VAG's 2.0T FSI engine that recently was chosen as one of Ward's 10-best Engines of 2009. Audi's version of the engine is currently used in their A4/A5 models and puts out 211 HP and 248 lb-ft of torque and uses variable-lift timing to flatten out the curve. It actually has more torque and flatter curve than the V6 engine it replaced.


RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By PrazVT on 1/7/2010 12:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
Ultimately it comes down to this ... cars have gotten too big, which has lead to this need for bigger engines. A 1992 Honda Accord with 198HP would probably perform on par w/ a 2009 Accord w/ a 273HP V6.

But the 2009 Accord is a full size car!

The weight gain of all cars is retarded. About the only car that is reasonably sized is the current BMW 3 series ...even the Audi A4 has gotten a little bigger..


By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
I know, the last model honda accord had tons of room in the front seat and the back seat. But for some reason they felt the need to make the current model bigger and heavier.


RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By Spuke on 1/7/2010 1:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 1992 Honda Accord with 198HP would probably perform on par w/ a 2009 Accord w/ a 273HP V6.
The 273 hp V6, even with the extra weight, is MUCH quicker than the old 92 Accord V6.


RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By PrazVT on 1/7/2010 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
The 1992 Accord didn't have a V6 - The V6 showed up in ~1995 on the subsequent generation Accord. And that was a 170hp V6 that required a slightly longer front end, and ultimately wasn't all that much faster. And that subsequent Accord (~94 - 97 i think for that gen) was bigger again. The 1992 Accord LX had a ~122hp 4cyl and I believe the EX model had ~140hp.

The 1992 Accord - 2700+ lbs
The 2009 Accord - 3200 - 3500 lbs

1992 Civic 4-dr - 2200+ lbs, 70 - 125hp
My 2008 Mazda 3 - ~2930 lbs, 152hp (California)

I'm only comparing 1992 - now b/c that seems to be the generation of cars before everything blew up.


RE: nothing wrong with 4 bangers.
By dubldwn on 1/7/2010 4:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will go ahead an mention one exception: VAG's 2.0T FSI engine that recently was chosen as one of Ward's 10-best Engines of 2009.

Well, we have to make a distinction here between a 4-cylinder and a properly turbocharged 4-cylinder. The Evo X I drove a couple years ago felt like driving an 8-cylinder after it got going…and got similar gas mileage. Audi’s engine seems like a nice balance, but it’s way more enjoyable to drive than a typical four-banger.


Weight is the performance killer
By lightmessiah on 1/7/2010 4:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Engines are getting more efficient but cars are getting heavier (as they get safer and more comfortable), so I can't see four cylinder engines being ideal for large cars in the forseeable future. I think it is hard for mainstream manufacturers to keep weight and price down simultaneously, whereas BMW for example could justify using more exotic materials etc.




RE: Weight is the performance killer
By AnnihilatorX on 1/7/2010 4:43:54 AM , Rating: 1
Not sure if cars are getting heavier. If it is, then it'd offset the benefit of more efficient engines. Have to put more energy into motion and expel more when braking.


By Spuke on 1/7/2010 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not sure if cars are getting heavier.
Oh, they're most definitely heavier nowadays. Which is why you have larger engines with more power now. Although the larger engined, heavier cars of today are much quicker than the lighter, smaller engined cars of 15-20 years ago. Engines are starting to shrink because of CAFE but the power and weight of the cars are not.


Supercharging & turbocharging
By Emma on 1/7/2010 4:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
This is definitely the way to go in improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine.

The new Euro version Golf Mk6 is a 1.4 litre super and turbo-charged inline 4, producing 158 bhp, 177 lb·ft @ 1500–4500 rpm, 0-62 in 8 secs, top speed 137mph, 47.1mpg (euro cycle). This is equal to 14% more power, whilst reducing fuel use by 5% over the 2 litre turbo-only engine it replaced.

And the Golf R is a turbocharged 2 litre unit, producing 266 bhp, 258 lb·ft @ 2500-5000 rpm, 0-62 5.5 secs, top speed 155mph, 33.6mpg.




RE: Supercharging & turbocharging
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 3:08:38 PM , Rating: 1
Good for it. Now drive it through a foot of snow and see how well it does.

No one is saying don't build cars with turbo I4s. They can be a lot of fun. But these new CAFE standards all but take away a manufacturer's ability to build an affordable V8 powered car. That people like me will want to buy.

Do I need it? No. Do I want it and can I afford it? Yes. Is that wrong? No. Should you or my government tell me I shouldn't be allowed to buy it? No.


RE: Supercharging & turbocharging
By Emma on 1/7/2010 11:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
This can be applied to larger vehicles that require it. This needs to be viewed in the light of what is proposed; getting the same power and torque whilst reducing fuel consumption.

Given that the worlds oil resources are finite, cause geopolitical instability and as it has been well-documented that the rate of CO2 emmissions is causing climate problems, the attitude by many that "I can do whatever I like" is not sustainable for long-term prosperity.


Great
By djc208 on 1/7/2010 10:17:35 AM , Rating: 3
So now there will be more whiney little 4-banger cars in the fast lanes of some of the hills and mountains around here not actually going faster than the vehicle next to them, or trying to merge in front of me at 15 mph under the speed limit because their car does 0-60 in 6 or 7 hours.

Though many times that as much the driver as the car.




RE: Great
By ZachDontScare on 1/7/2010 2:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
You dont quite get it, do you? Dont you know that everyone lives in an apartment in the city and only uses their car to commute 2 miles to work? ;-)

Why do we need an SUV? Ever try driving a little piece o' crap car with a six inch clearence through two feet of snow? Or down an unpaved road? Or through a foot of water? There are many places in the US - and they dont have to be terribly rural - where such vehicles are just plain convenient to have. And that doesnt even bring into play the cargo space if you're transporting something big, or going on a long trip. I used to drive a little sports car, and would not dream of going back to them.

People need to stop getting into other people's businesses. You dont like big vehicles? Dont buy one. I dont like small vehicles... but it wouldnt even occur to me to tell people not to buy them.


Hello Captain Obvious
By superflex on 1/7/2010 11:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
"It has been a common convention among mid-sized vehicles for the four-cylinder models to greatly outsell its V6 counterparts."

No Shit Sherlock. When the 6 cylinder model costs $1000 or more than the 4 cylinder, the majority of the population will chose the cheaper model.

That's like saying 88% of the population choses integrated graphics, so therefore, discrete graphics must not be necessary.




RE: Hello Captain Obvious
By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 1:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
Cheaper initial cost, cheaper maintenance cost(v engines always cost more then inline engines when you take them to the mechanic)and cheaper fuel cost. Over a 100,000 miles this keeps a lot of money in your bank that otherwise would end up sunk into your car.


Singer powered
By owyheewine on 1/7/2010 10:33:01 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe no one remembers Singers, but I remember the '80s and the wimpy little sewing machine powered cars that got made in response to the Jimmy Carter induced fuel shortages. I guess those who don't read history are condemned to repeat the mistakes. Little underpowerd cars may be fine for you city dwellers that never get more than 20 miles from home, but in the west, hills are steeper, driving distaces are greater and the need for larger more powerful vehicles is greater. Enjoy your Singers!




I drive an Echo
By Mithan on 1/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: I drive an Echo
By dubldwn on 1/7/2010 3:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don’t give a sh!t about gas mileage and I only drive RWD sports cars. However, a week ago I was at the auto show and Ford had the Fiesta and Chevy had the Cruze. The Cruze was a very handsome little car, and the Fiesta had a ton of available features like SYNC. If you like the Echo, I think you would love the Fiesta. It really attracted a lot of people's attention.


Need vs. desire
By Targon on 1/7/2010 8:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
There will always be a demand for cars with more horsepower and acceleration. The real key comes down to improving the average mpg, which car companies really hadn't put much focus on up until three years or so ago, with Ford starting to focus on it more like eight years ago.

Remember, it will take YEARS before work on a project begins and when it is ready and approved for a production car model. The auto industry has quite a bit of regulation to make sure that products are safe for consumers, so even if it only takes two years from concept to prototype(and that is pushing it), it may take another four to six years of testing before a car company feels it is safe for release to the public.

Now, we WILL see a lot more four cylinder engines sold compared to six and eight cylinder engines, BUT, the fours will get more horsepower to compensate, and the six cylinder models will replace the eights. There will still be eight cylinder engines available in select models, and these will benefit from the newer technologies to provide more horsepower with better fuel efficiency going forward.

For those commenting on the Mustang, you may want to pay attention to the Detroit Auto Show this month to see if some of the new stuff will be released this year, or next. You may be surprised.




mountains!
By lazylazyjoe on 1/7/2010 10:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
People also forget about inclines. Anyone who lives in the mountains will tell you that extra power is needed. When I was in Hawaii, going thru some areas was next to impossible. I was literally full throttle in lots of areas just to be traveling 40mph. If that's not wasteful of fuel, then I don't know what is.




maybe it's about the cost
By sorry dog on 1/7/2010 11:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
Another reason that we may see more 4's is due to cost as much as fuel economy. The lower power people associate with 4 bangers is due more to smaller displacement rather that lack of cylinders. Case in point is that Porsche made 3 liter non turbo 4 in the 968 that made 200+ hp and had good torque... it's just hard to tame the noise/vibration in large 4's. As engines have advanced in the last ten years, things like balance shafts, advance electronic controls, and mechanical aides like variable valve timing have become standard and make 4 cylinders more appealing yet more cost effective due to the reduction in parts needed to build them.

I would bet that small displacement inline 6 (like 2 liters) with all the recent advances in mainstream tech would do every bit as well as a 4 in economy and be a super smooth runner too. But it's not likely we'll see one due to the cost and size considerations.




Freedom
By Rockinelle on 1/7/2010 11:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
This is all about freedom. I'm not going to convince anyone what to drive. We have the freedom here in America to make those kinds of choices for ourselves. It urks me everytime someone comments about what I should be driving because of what they feel. I really don't believe the trend towards 4 cylinder engines has anything to do with consumer demand. It's all about CAFE standards. I believe that if gas was cheap and the auto manufacturers would be free to make whatever cars people wanted to buy, we'd see more full-size vehicles on the road. Can anyone say SUV? There's a reason why they're so popular. It's hard to find a full-size car with a v8 anymore.

Now that we know that the evidence accumulated thus far in favor of man-made global warming is a hoax, this is strictly about politics.




Don't kill the 6'er....
By KDOG on 1/9/2010 7:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think they should kill off the 6 cylinder, just make it better to serve as the new "large" engine. I have a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo with the 4.0 I6 and I love it. While the mileage certainly isn't great, what is someone supposed to pull a mid-size camper, utility trailer, etc with? That would just KILL a 4-cyl. I think if they tweak the 6 cylinder some more and work on the transmissions they couple them with, they just may be the new big engines.




By merc2600 on 1/14/2010 4:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
4 cylinder no good for Falcon or Commodore
Stupid Ford America taking away our Falcon. Its one of Australia's top selling cars. It comes with a good strong straight 6 or a V8 and built for Australia. Now where getting a front wheel drive Taurus. Strange when Australia like there large cars to be real wheel driver. Bet there never been to Australia and seen the distances we drive. Its the US trying to tell every one what to do.
Thank God GM let Holden make there own cars and sell them oversees.
Good by fords Australia hello Holden . I'm converting.




Chevy Spark
By AstroGuardian on 1/8/2010 4:17:00 AM , Rating: 1
I am driving a 2008 Chevrolet Spark with german 0,8L 3 cyl engine from Opel and 55hp. It weight around 2000 lib and goes 0-60 in 10-12 secs. It has like 55-60 mpg highway.
Top speed of 100 miles for the hwy. What more could you wish for in Europe?

It drives like.. for free?




Personaly...
By Joz on 1/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Personaly...
By krenogin on 1/7/2010 2:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, to get this whole story straight, HP sells cars, Torque wins races. inline4 cylinders produce no torque. Therefore more gas to take off, and a greater chance of getting rearended. I drove a zq8 colorado quad cab with a I5, now thats a v6 replacement, 250ft lbs of torque through 90% of the RPM range, and great gas mileage. I have a v6 in my 2002 mustang. I can floor it and top out the front shocks. Do it most of my day, and get 20mpg. Citys have alot of stop and go, and to take off with minimal gas you would need a I5 v6 or better to do well. v8's are great on gas, look at the corvette, a americas ONLY true sports car, 30+mpg highway. Nobody can see its their driving habits. I will never succumb and drive a friggin ricer with a fart pipe all day that smells like pure garabge, and has 3000 cams over the 3000 valve engines just waiting to blow up. theres no reliability. 4cyls always will suck. Pushrod is where its at.


RE: Personaly...
By zerocool84 on 1/7/2010 3:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ok you obviously have ZERO idea about anything. People who are going to buy Camry's or Accords are not going to race it which is why they don't need the added torque. Also Saying V8's in general are good on gas is stupid. The engine in the Vette is entirely different than other V8's out there and getting 30MPG highway while attainable is not something everyone is going to get. So if you drive a car with 4 cylinders it automatically makes you a ricer? Seems like the bigger problem is you and not the cars or engines. Oh and I love how you say you floor it and top out your shocks all day. Sounds worse than the ricers you make fun of. Also I don't know anyone who'd think they are cool in a V6 Stang.


RE: Personaly...
By Heidfirst on 1/7/2010 3:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
no reliability with cams? That'll be why everybody uses pushrods these days then & virtually nobody uses cams - not ...

Btw that Buick Regal sure looks like an Opel/Vauxhall Insignia with a different face.


RE: Personaly...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/7/2010 9:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
Thats because it is a rebadged Insignia.


RE: Personaly...
By eddieroolz on 1/7/2010 6:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I5 v6


I lol'd at that one.


RE: Personaly...
By Jeffk464 on 1/7/2010 1:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
I'm guessing the I stands for inline, regardless chevy Colorados are junk compared to the tacoma and frontier. The only decent american trucks are full size, otherwise go foreign.


RE: Personaly...
By rudolphna on 1/7/2010 10:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Dude.. What planet you living on? You must have posted that as a joke or else you are pants-on-head retarded. Your right about one thing, hp sells and torque wins. The I5 in that colorado is the Vortec/Atlast 4.2L Inline 6 DOHC with a cylinder chopped off. Doubt you get 20mpg from a V6 mustang doing THAT either. Also, SOHC/DOHC have inherent advantages over OHV Pushrod design. Less mass in the valvetrain increases efficiency, it makes implementing VVT quite a bit easier, and reliability is just as good as with Pushrod engines. The Ford 4.6L SOHC Modular is a perfect example. That is the engine used in Crown Victorias. You know, the engines that see about 120K of police duty, then proceed to go over 250k as taxis, and still being completely usable and driveable for people who buy them. I know quite a few people with DOHC engines with high mileage. A buddy of mine has a 2000 Chevy Cavalier with the 2.4L DOHC I-4. He has over 350K miles on it, original timing chain and tensioner. Do pushrod engines have advantages? Sure. The 2.2L OHV in my 97 cav makes 120HP/140lb/ft of torque. Then you compare it to other 4 cylinders, and the 2200 makes pretty good torque compared to its DOHC counterparts. The problem is people DON'T TAKE CARE OF THEIR CARS. They go 120K miles on the original transmission fluid flooring it from every stop and then are shocked when it dies on them. They change the oil with Dino oil every 15K miles while towing heavy trailers and then are surprised when they have sludge. People don't take care of their cars because most don't have a clue. It's the sad truth of the matter.


RE: Personaly...
By AstroGuardian on 1/8/2010 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 1
God damn it dude.... you are so god damn right!
Thumbs up!


RE: Personaly...
By Meklaar on 1/7/2010 3:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, cars these days usually have inline fours...

If cars were smaller, then turbocharged inline fours would be stellar. Heck, I have a 2008 MINI Cooper JCW with a few modifications and a decent tune and it produces 244hp and 276lbft of torque at the wheels starting at about 1900rpm. More than enough torque for a vehicle that weighs roughly 2550lbs.

But then again, people wouldn't DARE drive cars as small as they were in the early nineties. Shoot, trucks have their places and all (I own an F250 Diesel), but for commuting purposes, you don't need a huge car. My MINI provides enough go and fun without having to floor the pedal like a typical Honda.


RE: Personaly...
By Anonymous88 on 1/7/2010 7:43:43 AM , Rating: 3
Personally, I think V6's were kind of a waste to begin with. Sure there are exceptions, but as for the jeep thats mentioned, are you sure thats not an inline 6 rather then a v6? The cherokee had a famously reliable and well built inline six that was easily one of chryslers better engines... The inlines typically produce more tourque and seem to be a bit more reliable on average, BMW is/was a major user of the inline 6 design. Going back to V6's being a waste-I just dont' the think the marginal (if any) fuel economy gains they typically provide justify em for most uses. There are exceptions, but if I want serious power, I'll take a v8 or mod up a 4 banger. I'll use the gm 4.3L v6 as an example-great engine in terms of reliability, but not for fuel economy- given the power/fuel economy, it would have made more sense just to get a 350 V8 (the v8 cousin of the 4.3) and take a hit of a couple mpg to get even more power then the 4.3 could produce. I've been kind of baffled why the automakers jumped all of a sudden from v-8's to v6's...they should have skipped the 6cyl's for the most part and jumped right to the 4's.

As for v8's not getting good fuel economy, that ol v8 in the crown vics may not be much for power, but they get mid-upper 20s on the highway-better then any v6 i've driven, another example is that good o'l chevy 350-find one in an early-mid 90s caprice/buick roadmaster and you'll get low 30s out of it on the highway as well-its not just a "corvette" thing. Granted, most v8s are fuel hogs, but not all of em..and theres more that arent then you may think...

Not all 4 bangers need to rev to the stars either to work effectively. My 93 saturn clicks along at 65 at about 2500rpm...the same rpm that the international diesel semi truck that i drive for work chugs along at at the same speed.....

Some of the 4cyl's problems can be overcome as well with proper transmission gearing, If i could re-gear my ranger cost-effectively I could get that thing over 30mpg, thankfully some automakers (ford comes to mind) have noticed that and have been doing more work on making 6speeds and the like more widespread along with making the computer that shifts the "slushboxes" much smarter...

But people tend to want it all-definitely agreed that most don't need a huge car for commuting, and most often don't need something thats going to induce fighter plane g-forces when you go to pass someone either.


RE: Personaly...
By knutjb on 1/7/2010 8:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
Jeep did use a v6 for a few years. V6s have placement advantages over i6 for the majority of vehicles. The Buick v6 has been used across many gm platforms delivering 28-30 mpg on the highway and isn't a simple lopping off of 2 cyl.

BTW Corvette had a 4 camer in the 80-90s(?)s. I forget the year. There are a lot of variables in engine design and some v8s have been quite efficient. To those who don't get push rod engines. They can take up less less deck height than camer motors, hence a lower hood height. They also have good airflow in most lower reving applications, are less complex, use fewer parts, and are very reliable.


RE: Personaly...
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 3:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're referring to the LT5. DOHC V8 making 400 hp and 400 lb ft. Excellent engine. But also insanely expensive.

And I drove a new V6 Chevy Impala last weekend in Texas for a rental car. Drove from San Antonio to Dallas. Averaged 31-32 mpg. I think thats plenty for a full size car.


RE: Personaly...
By Leper Messiah on 1/7/2010 10:18:01 AM , Rating: 3
There are other advantages to a V6 over an inline 4 that aren't just related to power and economy. V6's are naturally balanced motors, I4's aren't. Most V6's have a flatter torque/power curve and have more power available at lower RPMs, which contributes to a quieter, more luxurious driving experience, which is why they're used in the upscale models of sedans to begin with.

Sure you can make a 2 liter or so I4 get 250HP and decent torque numbers, but its going to be in a very narrow RPM range, unless you're using variable cams or dual inline turbos, all of which add to the cost of manufacturing/engineering the car, which wipes out much of the gain of using an inline 4 to begin with.


RE: Personaly...
By vshin on 1/7/2010 10:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
A V6 engine is NOT inherently balanced. Only the inline and flat configurations of the 6-cylinder engine are naturally balanced (like in BMW and Porsches). The main reason we see lots of V6 engines is because it is more compact.


RE: Personaly...
By rudolphna on 1/7/2010 1:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain to me why V6s are bad. I'll tell you why they are good. They fill the gap between I-4 and V8s. The average N/A Inline 4 makes about 175-200HP. Today's V8s make between 300 and upwards. V6s generally make up the 200HP arena, which is an important one.


RE: Personaly...
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 3:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
Only the sport compacts like the Civic Si and the like have I4s in the 180-200 hp range.

Most I4s are in the 120-160 hp range.


RE: Personaly...
By rudolphna on 1/7/2010 4:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, FIT I hate to break this to you...

Ford 2.5L DOHC: 175HP/172lb/ft
GM 2.4L DOHC: 169HP/158lb/ft
Honda 2.4L DOHC: 177HP/161/lb ft (Also available in N/A 190HP version)
Hyundai/Chrsyler DOHC 2.4L: 175HP/168lb/ft (The new version I believe makes 198ish)
GM 2.9L DOHC: 185HP/190lb/ft


RE: Personaly...
By vshin on 1/14/2010 9:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
VAG 2.0T FSI: 211 HP, 258 ft-lb torque.

Yes it's turbocharged, but isn't that the point of this article?


RE: Personaly...
By Konenavi on 1/7/2010 6:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, you got it right on the money. I'll say it again my 1991 Cherokee with the 4.0L I-6 gets better mileage than a new Liberty. It really is not fair comparison since I have a lift, 31" BFG all-terrains and 111K on the odometer, as well as a real 4WD system. I love it though, runs like new even though it has been beat on off-road. I-6s have so much torque it's insane, I can idle up hills and through mud that even Tahoes, Expeditions etc. and some new Jeeps can only dream of going through. Plus it beats most of my friends Civics etc off the line to about 40mph, then aerodynamics kick in. You were wrong about it being a Chrysler designed engine, until 91 it was an AMC engine with a Renix engine control system, only in 91 did Chrysler do anything to it. It was even later that they overhauled it to become a real Chrysler design. I will let that one slide though :P.


RE: Personaly...
By KDOG on 1/9/2010 8:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah the 4.0L I6 in those Jeeps were probably one of the best engines they ever made. I love it. And if I drive uber-conservatively, I can make it get around 24-ish mpg. Not stellar mind you, but liveable...


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki