backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Jan 30 at 1:14 AM

Ford makes big promises for small engines

Auto manufacturers are furiously working up ways to increase the fuel economy of their vehicles without compromising the consumer's current expectations of large, powerful vehicles thanks to new CAFE regulations.

General Motors recently unveiled the 2009 Saturn Vue Green Line with an improved two-mode hybrid system, and still hopes to push out the highly anticipated Chevrolet Volt by 2010. Toyota is merrily improving their popular Prius, while Honda is promising both a hot-hatch revival with the CR-Z concept and the "family diesel" in the 2009 Accord. Ford, on the other hand, is taking an entirely different approach, trying to make the adage "More From Less" apply to high-powered SUVs and sedans.

At the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, Ford was showcased a new family of four and six-cylinder engines, dubbed "EcoBoost" to highlight their improved fuel economy. While the words "new engine technology" were thrown around fairly often to describe the EcoBoost line, the cornerstone technologies behind the engines -- direct injection and turbocharging -- should be immediately familiar to anyone who's followed automotive powertrain development in recent years. As the name suggests, Ford is trying to give small, high-boost engines a market beyond the current demographic of performance junkies -- but they need to get their foot in the door somehow.

The first vehicle to receive an “EcoBoosting” will be the upcoming 2009 Lincoln MKS. Shown in 2007 as the "MKR Concept," the MKS will feature a 3.5L twin-turbo V6 said to produce approximately 340 horsepower, and 340 lb-ft of torque between 2,000 and 5,000 RPM. Those hoping for a four-door, rear-drive performance sedan will be disappointed to discover the transverse mounting of the engine, and the associated choices of FWD or AWD; however, the possibility of such a vehicle hasn't been entirely ruled out.

Returning to the economical side of the impeller, Ford also featured a 2.0L turbo four, claiming an impressive 275hp and 280lb-ft. While such an engine would seem a perfect fit for a sport compact, Ford had bigger ambitions for the "little engine that could" -- announcing that it would be the base engine for the Ford Explorer America concept.

Ford's VP of product development, Derrick Kuzak, had high hopes for the technology, praising its low initial cost in comparison to other engine designs. "Compared with the current cost of diesel and hybrid technologies, customers in North America can expect to recoup their initial investment in a 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine through fuel savings in approximately 30 months." That's not to say that hybrids and diesels will be abandoned -- some light-duty Fords will be receiving these options as well.

Strangely, no mention of an EcoBoost engine was made for the Mustang -- perhaps Ford still has some of the hundreds of thousands of letters they received the last time they suggested a replacement.



Comments     Threshold


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

About time...
By andrewsdw on 1/7/2008 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why is America so in the dark about the benefits of turbocharging motors?




RE: About time...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 2:14:18 PM , Rating: 4
Because, until gas prices rose, those advantages didn't outweigh the disadvantages for the average consumer. A turbo adds cost, complexity, and a minor amount of turbo lag. If gas is $1/gallon, its easier to just mount a larger engine.


RE: About time...
By Ringold on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: About time...
By Alexstarfire on 1/7/2008 5:26:47 PM , Rating: 4
Of course, they don't put out any numbers at all in these car articles. I've never seen an article that's posted anything about vehicle mileage. It's sad really. How can you tout something that's supposed to be better and you don't even give us estimates? A 20% increase sounds great, but if a 20% increase on 20MPG, that only goes to 24. It's better than nothing, but hell, you can increase your mileage by over 5% by not racing to the red light. Could be even more depending on how you drive.

They also don't tell you how much the car will cost, but tell you that it'll be 30 months to break even? How do they come up with these numbers? Do they look in a crystal ball? If they gave us a number like that then they should be able to tell us all the other numbers, since they'd have to know them to come up with the break-even period.


RE: About time...
By teldar on 1/7/2008 6:02:19 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I think some of the links provide considerably more information than this story does.
One of them I read says that diesel takes approximately 7.5 years to pay back and hybrid 12 years, of course it's going to depend on driving styles.
My brother's an engineer for a major parts manufacturer, Magna (world wide, not just NA), and he figures this was finally a step in the right direction. He works mostly with Ford and has been really impressed at the efficiency of these engines for their cost as compared to other technologies out there.

T


RE: About time...
By Alexstarfire on 1/7/2008 7:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
12 years for a hybrid? On what numbers? I can't believe the numbers you're giving me, that's just way too far off. I mean, if they compare the car to something like a Scion, then perhaps, but that's because Scions are cheap and get pretty decent mileage. Many people buy $15k cars or more, just from what I've seen. I got my Prius for $15.5k used, as opposed to new, and I have easily already made my money back, and it's barely been more than a year. I guess it really depends on how much people normally spend, how long they keep their car, how much that specific person spend on their car, the mileage that car gets, and how much they drive per year. I know that I probably spent less on my car than what many people spend on new cars, but I get over 2x the mileage they do.

This "new" technology is better than nothing, but technology can only overcome so much. You can't get cheap, bigger, more powerful, faster, and more fuel efficient all at the same time, at least not forever. We're nearly tapping out all we can from ICEs already. We are eventually going to have to change our habits, or have a major breakthrough in technology.


RE: About time...
By aeroengineer1 on 1/7/2008 9:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have not done a side by side comparison of the cost that it will take to run a Hybrid car vs a standard car. There are more things that factor into it than saving gas. Now you have an extra system that costs you money to repair. You must understand that these batteries that are being put into the Hybrids have a certain life. In other words they will need to be replaced. The average life of these batteries is between 7-12 years depending on the battery technology used. Figure at least a few thousand dollars to replace the battery. Now you start to see that it takes a really long time for a Hybrid to make economical sense.


RE: About time...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/7/2008 10:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
12 years for a hybrid? On what numbers?

Numbers might be a few years old, but probably not far off considering an average of 15,000 miles per year split 55/45 city/highway (EPA's "standard" driver). They're probably a bit better today with $3/gallon gasoline (vs. $2 or $2.50/gallon only a few years back) and slightly cheaper hybrids.

For a quick comparison, EPA lists the Honda Civic (1.8L I4, automatic transmission) for 29mpg and $1553/year for gas.

The Honda Civic Hybrid (1.3L I4 + electric motor, CVT transmission), for comparison is rated at 42mpg and $1071/year.

So, total savings for the Hybrid are estimated at $482/year. Now figure that the Hybrid costs about $4000 more than the a similarly equipped standard Civic and your payback time works out to between 8 and 9 years. Even then it's not really a true apples to apples comparison since the Civic has a 140hp engine while the Civic Hybrid has a combined engine power of 110hp. Had the standard Civic used a lower performance (and therefore probably both cheaper and more fuel efficient) engine a payback time of 12 years would not be out of the question.

The Prius is somewhat harder to compare as there is no direct non-hybrid counterpart. However looking at the European Toyota vehicles and comparing a Prius to the Avensis. The results are about the same.

Of course, this is based on the assumption that gas will stay at about $3.00/gallon before inflation.


RE: About time...
By jconan on 1/30/2008 1:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
$3.00 that's cheap. Elsewhere it's like $3.52+/- .15 and that's for premium.


RE: About time...
By RyanM on 1/7/2008 5:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Turbo lag is a nonissue these days thanks to proper turbo sizing and technologies like VNT.


RE: About time...
By Adonlude on 1/9/2008 5:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
Isnt this just a typical turbocharged engine? I don't see anything special about it unless this is the first time fuel injection was done in cylinder, which I doubt.

This is just another case of taking a "go faster" technology that was previously used to add power to an engine and adapting it to weaker engines to give you the same power for less gas. Honda did this when they first came out with VTEC to make their cars faster but then adopted it to weaker engines to make them more fuel efficient.

Whats VNT? Very Nice Turbo? Does it work better because it is Very Nice??? Ok, ill look it up...

Hey that is pretty nice: http://www.honeywell.com/sites/ts/tt/turbofactsben...


RE: About time...
By noxipoo on 1/7/2008 2:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
because marketing spent so much money telling people there is no replacement for displacement. plus all their engines were designed to be NA and not turbo. small turbo engines are always looked down upon as small japanese cars from the muscle engine crowd.


RE: About time...
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 5
And that moniker remains true today. You can't replace displacement. You can turbo a V8 just as easily as a 4-banger or V6. And GM has shown that big displacement doesn't equal poor fuel economy. Yes you can get the same horsepower from a smaller motor using a turbo as a bigger engine has without one. But often you're sacrificing the fuel economy just the same when you're using that power. Any time you get into high boost, you're using more fuel.

I'd really love to see the MPG numbers of these engines. They have impressive power I'll give them that. And as far as using a turbo-4 in a smaller SUV, it'll be fine for going around and getting groceries, but it ain't gonna be able to tow shit.


RE: About time...
By Chris Peredun on 1/7/2008 2:45:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And as far as using a turbo-4 in a smaller SUV, it'll be fine for going around and getting groceries, but it ain't gonna be able to tow ****.


I think that's the intent - those who just get groceries and never tow anything bigger than a tiny U-Haul will get by just fine with the I4. The 3.5L TT V6 will also be available in the Explorer as well for those who pull a bit more.

As far as an EcoBoost V8 ... well, hopefully they neglected to mention the Mustang for that reason.


RE: About time...
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 3:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know it won't be built for towing. Was just saying. Four cylinders just don't have the low end grunt they need to tow well. It might be physically able to, but you'll wear the motor out quickly.


RE: About time...
By lumbergeek on 1/8/2008 12:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
I would live to see a smallblock 8 that can operate on only 4 cylinders when the power isn't needed, but can run on 8 when it needs to in a mid-size SUV or the like. I know Chrysler has such animals, and more should be done there. I would also like to have it so the USER can decide - 4-banger, 8-rocket, or dynamic. I believe currently it's dynamic switching only. I've been wrong before though....


RE: About time...
By Adonlude on 1/9/2008 5:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
This would be a great option. Dynamic would have to be the most technically involved and expensive. I would'nt even mind having a low tech user controlled switch between 4 & 8 cylinders that could only be done when the engine is turned off.


RE: About time...
By mahax on 1/7/2008 3:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously there's only that much energy in fuel. The whole key benefit of turbo is the flexibility. Any engine will reach max power at high revs, yet normal everyday driving might only occationally peak at max power when accelerating. Like 1% of the whole milage. Unless you're flooring it at the German autobahn. So 99% percent of the time the turbo engine is saving fuel and still reserving the possibility for high power when needed.

VW (among others) is already selling very small 1400cc twin turbo engines in europe that pump up 140hp, a figure previously achieved at 2000cc. Yet the average MPG remains small, comparative to a 1600cc engine.


RE: About time...
By andrinoaa on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: About time...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 3:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are you denying that 20% greater fuel economy is a good thing?


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'd really love to see the MPG numbers of these engines.
I have a Pontiac Solstice GXP with 260hp/260lb-ft of torque from a 2.0L direct injection 4 cyl. I get 28 mpg on my mostly freeway commutes. That's with having some fun too. Best gas mileage was 33 on a longer freeway drive at around a 70mph average. Worst was 26 which was mostly city driving with a lead foot. Car is rated at 19mpg city/28 mpg highway by the EPA.

DI cars get great mileage in reality as well as on paper. A light foot could get better numbers for sure but that's not why I bought it.


RE: About time...
By Alexvrb on 1/7/2008 7:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
My buddy also has an 07 Solstice GXP. Those are fantastic engines. When they first came out with the 2.0L Turbo Ecotec in the US, I was speculating that it wouldn't be long until the 2.0L SC Cobalt SS recieved an upgrade. Sure enough, both Cobalt SS and HHR SS models are getting the engine. Of course, the FWD Cobalt won't be quite as quick as your Solstice, but its still a step in the right direction.

They've got room to grow with this engine design, too. It certainly hasn't reached its limit. The most amazing thing about it though isn't the numbers. 260HP and 260 ft/lbs of torque sounds pretty good already, but the torque curve is so amazingly flat for a 4-cylinder. So really, its even more powerful than the simple numbers.


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 11:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
The torque curve gives the car the feeling of larger engine for sure. The turbo spools very quickly and power delivery is very smooth. I must admit I've driven other 4 cyl cars at this displacement with small turbo's too and I find the power delivery on this car to be the least smooth out of the cars driven. The other cars were equipped with Garrett turbo's and this one is a Borg Warner. That could be the difference there.

I've driven a BMW 335i (DI 6 cyl twin-turbo) and I could not tell when the turbo's spooled on that car. It was friggin amazing! Silky, super smooth power delivery. If Ford can duplicate that, those Ecoboost engines will be awesome.


RE: About time...
By Amiga500 on 1/7/2008 6:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but a turbo'd engine will always give you more than a non-turbo'd one. If you drop the displacement a bit but use a VG turbo to keep your torque levels up, you'll end up with a more efficient engine.

A 4 pot turbo will still tow away, not as well as a big bore motor, but anything under half a tonne will be grand.


RE: About time...
By retrospooty on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: About time...
By retrospooty on 1/7/2008 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 3
LOL - well there are 3 good reasons for you :)


RE: About time...
By michal1980 on 1/7/2008 2:22:25 PM , Rating: 4
yes, because the american market is only based on USA manufactures.

all those forgein car compaines that have turbos for sale.

you know those small guys like toyota, or honda?

outside of subarus, audi's and saabs. the usa market is not swimming in turbos.

and finally. Its not like this is even new for ford. They had a tubro charges direct inject engine for 2 years now:

the 2.3l disi turbo that is used in the mazdaspeed 3/6


RE: About time...
By Circle T on 1/7/2008 2:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
outside of subarus, audi's and saabs. the usa market is not swimming in turbos.

Audi, Acura, Bentley, BMW, Chevy, Chrysler, Mazda, Mini, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Subaru, VW, Volvo...

Yea, hardly anyone in the US offers a turbocharged engine.


RE: About time...
By Chris Peredun on 1/7/2008 3:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's more the idea of the "family car" getting a turbocharged engine than the existence of a blower in one or two specific models.


RE: About time...
By Circle T on 1/7/2008 3:32:45 PM , Rating: 3
Audi, Acura, Chevy, Chrysler, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Saab, Subaru, VW, Volvo.....

All those brands offer a turbo in either a 4-door sedan or a small SUV, or both in some cases. I wasn't just naming brands that had high-performance turbo coupes.


RE: About time...
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ford F-150 doesn't have one, Camry doesn't have one, Accord doesn't have one -- almost no Toyota, Honda, GM, or Fords go out the door with them, to my knowledge.

That single handedly destroyed most of the market.

Thanks for quoting all the also-ran's in the US market, though. Almost forgot who they were. :P


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 4:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
One of Honda's SUV's has a turbo but not with direct injection.


RE: About time...
By Circle T on 1/7/2008 4:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
The question wasn't what percentage of the market they occupy. It was how many brands offer a turbo charged engine already. And you can see how many that is.

No, of course they aren't going to be neck and neck with the F-150 or Camry. I don't recall ever saying they were. But, these aren't exactly small manufacturers that I mentioned, or limited sellers.

I mean, basically every Audi, VW and Subaru model sold, give or take, has a turbocharged engine available, and is the biggest seller of the range. And, the exotics and sports cars aside, the rest of these vehicles aren't exactly rare cars. No one ever said they were top sellers, or besting the Camry in sales. But, this isn't a trivial amount of cars we are talking about.


RE: About time...
By othercents on 1/7/2008 7:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, basically every Audi, VW and Subaru model sold, give or take, has a turbocharged engine available, and is the biggest seller of the range.

So back on subject. What is the fuel economy of those turbocharged vehicles? I believe those vehicles won't pass the new CAFE standards.

Other


RE: About time...
By Circle T on 1/7/2008 8:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the way I understand that works is you just have to average 35mpg as an ENTIRE brand, not just per model. A model itself doesn't qualify or not, just the brand.

So, take Nissan for example. Even though the new GTR will almost certainly not achieve 35mpg anywhere, the Versa almost does at 33mpg, and will help offset that net loss. Obviously, they all have some work to do to get up to 35mpg average, but that is why they have 12 years to do so.

But, more specific to your question, I'll list highway mpg of the turbo versions for you...

Audi A3 - 29mpg
Audi A4 - 28mpg
Audi TT - 31mpg
VW GTI - 29mpg
VW GLI - 29mpg
VW Passat - 32mpg
VW Eos - 31mpg
Suby WRX - 25mpg
Suby Legacy - 25mpg
Suby Forester - 25mpg

I may have missed a couple in there, but you get the point. Many of those cars are already very close to the standard. And many of those are with old engines.

But with 12 years to go before those new standards are enacted, there is a lot of time for things to change and advance. I mean, with Honda's typical 4-year cycle for its cars, we will have seen 3 versions of the Accord before these standards go into effect.


RE: About time...
By radializer on 1/7/2008 8:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
The EPA ratings for the Subaru WRX are 20/25 for city/hwy. Through personal use and monitoring, I can claim about 21mpg during my regular work commute (no freeways, city streets only) and 28 ~ 30mpg on the freeways during intercity drives, where I maintain speeds in the range of 70 ~ 80mph.

Among all the turbocharged cars available in the US, the Subarus are probably on the lower end of mpg ratings - not sure if this stems from the standard AWD on them or if their hwy ratings are just conservative.


RE: About time...
By Circle T on 1/7/2008 9:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not sure if this stems from the standard AWD on them or if their hwy ratings are just conservative.

The age of the engine doesn't help much either. By todays standards, the EJ engines are getting VERY long in the tooth. Much like how Mitsu FINALLY stopped using the 4G63 engine in the Evo and moved on to a more modern engine, Suby really needs to do the same. You can only tweak and refine so much before you need to just start fresh.


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/8/2008 12:00:48 AM , Rating: 2
You have to use the combined rating for the new CAFE standards. Also, the EPA mileage sticker can't be directed equated to the mileage number that the CAFE uses. I just found this info. See this link: http://tinyurl.com/ynq4ol. One of the posters at the bottom explains it.


RE: About time...
By Circle T on 1/8/2008 12:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
Your linky no worky.

But, either way, I know what you are getting at. I was just showing the mpg of the cars in question.


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/8/2008 12:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
RE: About time...
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 3:05:23 PM , Rating: 3
American car manufacturers had turbo engines in some of their models before many of the import manufacturers even existed.

And I know plenty of people with 20+ year old American cars on original powertrains. It all depends on how you take care of it. I can beat an import into the ground in a year. Just as I can care for an American car and have it last 300,000 miles.


RE: About time...
By Boushh on 1/7/2008 5:09:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
American car manufacturers had turbo engines in some of their models before many of the import manufacturers even existed.

Let's see: Wikipedia says:

quote:
The first production turbocharged automobile engines came from General Motors in 1962

Import Brands founded:

Mercdes Benz: 1926 (1886 for Daimler & Benz)
BMW: 1913
Toyota: 1933
Honda: 1938
Saab: 1937
Renault: 1898

Do I need to go on ?

Surprisingly the first Turbo engine form General Motors was a V8 (for somebody saying that fitting Turbo's on a V8 would be difficult)...


RE: About time...
By djc208 on 1/7/2008 5:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but you think too small. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesenberg which debuted a supercharged model J (or SJ) in 1928. A company far ahead of their time.


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/8/2008 9:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Why did you get rated down? You posted facts that support that imports cars existed BEFORE American cars companies started using turbocharging. That's a fact.


RE: About time...
By PandaBear on 1/7/2008 3:17:08 PM , Rating: 3
Because unlike the rest of the world, people here frequently drive their cars for 10+ years and 200k Miles (not KM). You think a cheaply build turbo can last the abuse for 200k miles? Expensive Diesel maybe, but definitely not the ones for low end models.

Show me a reliable $20k US turbo inline 4.


RE: About time...
By PandaBear on 1/7/2008 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, forgot to mention that you can sell TDI in many of the states here because of the pollution. California has the toughest standard in the entire world in emission.


RE: About time...
By eye smite on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: About time...
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 4:46:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because they don't want to learn about things outside their little words.


Eye Smite's arrogance reigns supreme again.

Could be, perhaps, that it wouldn't make sense for a nation that adds roughly 25 square feet to the size of the average home per year over the last 40 years to suddenly want tiny, light weight European cars which were designed to travel through European cities smaller roads?

I also don't see the tiny little Mini Cooper outpacing larger cars, like the Camry, very often, and if there were demand for tiny cars they might get made, such as GM's failed Geo brand.

Direct from Wiki:
"Recent years have seen fading consumer interest in the economy compact market, and the last vehicle of the former Geo line, the Tracker, was discontinued in 2004."

American's know what the price of gas is at the pump, they're aware it's possible that it'll continue to sky rocket, and still are quite obviously willing not just to drive from their suburban home but to buy nice, roomy vehicles.

Individualism, by the way, was basically the very founding principle of the nation. Did you miss that part, or did a liberal government school teacher omit that?


RE: About time...
By Boushh on 1/7/2008 5:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also don't see the tiny little Mini Cooper outpacing larger cars, like the Camry, very often

You do watch to many movies. Like Lethal Weapon 2 where a BMW 630Csi is unable to outpace a Suburban Towncar (infact: it is not even able to outrun Riggs,, ON FOOT !!!)

The Mini is a small light car, so it doesn't need much to outpace your big american cars. It's small 1.6 V4 Trubo charged engine outputs 175hp, and does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds with a top of 141. I'm unable to find any relevant informations about the Camry 3.5 V6 (besides that it outputs 268hp). But I did find the Chrysler 300C 3.5 V6. Which outputs 249hp, does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds and has a top of 137 (both are european models). But where European cars really excel is on cornering. Also: europeans cars are generaly more fuel efficient than american cars because fuel is much more expensive.

I do however acknowledge that the american taste of cars is quite different from the european taste and that this has a lot (if not all) to do with America being a big country with very long and wide roads, while Europe is a continent with many small countries with short and small roads. Thus the average distance travelled in Europe is much smaller than in America.


RE: About time...
By d4a2n0k on 1/7/2008 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
I have an '07 Camry V6 and while it will smoke the mini in a straight line, when the first corner comes its over for the Camry. :) The magazines that tested the Camry ranged from 5.9 - 6.3 for the 0-60 and a 1/4 mile in the high 14's. It really is a rocket mostly because of the 6 speed auto transmission. Its always in the right gear and has a really short first gear so gets off the line very well. It is faster 0-60 than the BMW 330 and the Acura TL. All that and I still get about 30 MPG on 87 octane!

The 300C is a whale and is pretty useless unless you get the Hemi.


RE: About time...
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 6:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't mean outpace as in speed, I meant outpace in terms of sales -- my entire post was about supply & demand, not necessarily specifications.


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/8/2008 12:23:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sales? The Camry has been the best selling car for quite a number of years. And sales are up over 2006. The Mini is not even in the top 10 in sales in the US anyways.


RE: About time...
By Chris Peredun on 1/7/2008 7:09:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's small 1.6 V4

The Mini Cooper has an inline four-cylinder.

quote:
Trubo charged engine outputs 175hp, and does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds with a top of 141. I'm unable to find any relevant informations about the Camry 3.5 V6 (besides that it outputs 268hp).

2007 Toyota Camry V6
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 time: 14.3 @ 99mph
Top speed: 145mph (governor limited)

quote:
But where European cars really excel is on cornering.

Personally, I don't consider hyper-twitchy, suspension-unloading go-karts with intrusive stability control to "excel" in anything other than annoying me.

Cheers!


RE: About time...
By toyota on 1/7/2008 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me? Probably 90% of the sporty or performance cars on the road from the mid 80s to early 90s were turbocharged. Buick Regal; Toyota Supra, Celica and pickup trucks; Nissan 300ZX; all Dodge, Mitsubishi and Chrysler performance cars and even mini vans were standard with or had turbo options. Those are just the ones of the top of my head.

We have already lived through the turbo craze and hopefully we wont repeat it. Turbos have a lag and suffer greatly in the heat of the south where I live. I have never driven a turbo charged car with more than 50,000 miles that can retain most of its performance and driveability.


RE: About time...
By Chris Peredun on 1/7/2008 4:05:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
... even mini vans were standard with or had turbo options.


Long live the Dodge Caravan Turbo!


RE: About time...
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 4:28:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have never driven a turbo charged car with more than 50,000 miles that can retain most of its performance and driveability.
Like computers, car technology has changed. Turbo lag is non-existent and the reliability is as high as a normally aspirated car. I find it amazing that tech advancements in one area are the norm and accepted but in other areas it's a foreign concept.


RE: About time...
By Nanobaud on 1/7/2008 4:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Also, because said benefits require conservative driving habits. Small-displacement TDI is only significantly more economical than larger displacement if the upper power ranges are used infrequently. US drivers generally reach the upper-power ranges frequently, but for short durations. If you try to drive more steadily, you end up like that guy writing a check in the VISA commercial. The best compromise (excepting much lighter vehicles) is a mid-size engine with high compression, but those don't meet pollution standards (hence the interest in the new diesels).


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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