Cops and my new car

[carbonmotion]

Last week I returned my leased VW Jetta VR6 and leased out a Pontiac GTO which is a clone of the australian Holden....

Now I got this one buddy who also bought a '04 Honda s2000 a month earlier and he laughed that I got an "American" sports car. Well as it turns out, (both cars costing $32,000 even) my "American" GTO's 5.7 Litre V8 350HP engine beats his 2.2liter I4 VTEC 240HP engine. At first he didn't believe it when we raced in this deserted parking lost stretch. So we did it three times, when I beat him all three times he just left. Granted to some the GTO's styling may be a bit bland, I can see where they are coming from but I like the exterior and really like the color matched interior. Anyways, optimally I would've liked to have waited for the 05 Mustang to come out, but due to time contraints I think this car was the next best thing. S2000...laff. No, seriously though, the s2000 is a very nice sports coupe, its just that it's slower than my Holden -clone.

Oh yeah... got pulled over twice in a week since getting this car :o :mad: ...my fault though, I gotta start watching my lead foot.

[krimson]

You realise that all you've proven is that using the same essential V8 motor for multiple decades results in large horsepower production.

But seriously, I-4 vs a V8... come on...

[carbonmotion]

You realise that all you've proven is that using the same essential V8 motor for multiple decades results in large horsepower production.

But seriously, I-4 vs a V8... come on... I know, I know... but I was going for 'what you can get for the price tag' perspective. And this friend I have talks so much trash about every sports coupe except the s2000, so it feels good to finally stuff it in his face. Since my dad works for GM, I got my GTO for uber uber cheap because of employee discount (A-PLAN) so my GTO was alot cheaper than his s2k.

[strider42]

yeah, but do a slolom course and the honda will probably spank your GTO. Different cars do different things well. I mean, if its just about pure straigthawat speed, you can get faster cars for less money. Personally I'd rather have the s2000 because it appeals to be sense of style more, but not because its a better car. The GTO's got a lot going for it though. I'm interested to see the next iteration of it looks like.

a Subaru WRX STI may well spank you both with its 300 horsepower horizonatally opposed 2.5 liter 4 cylinder and cost the same or less. Certainly would on a dirt track of something like that. But what does that prove. Different cars for different folks, who have different tastes and different requirements.

[craigdawg]

a Subaru WRX STI may well spank you both with its 300 horsepower horizonatally opposed 2.5 liter 4 cylinder and cost the same or less. Certainly would on a dirt track of something like that. But what does that prove. Different cars for different folks, who have different tastes and different requirements.
I love the STI, Lancer Evo, and the R32! For me, small cars w/ lots of HP and AWD are the most fun. But that's just me.

[carbonmotion]

Well My friend is this die hard honda s2000 fan and thinks its the fastest track car in on earth. He wants a rematch when I get mine supercharged he gets his supercharged... He's so cocky cause he smokes Mustang GTs and thinks he's car is the **** on the track. To be beaten by my family sedan... hehehe

[craigdawg]

Well My friend is this die hard honda s2000 fan and thinks its the fastest track car in on earth. He wants a rematch when I get mine supercharged he gets his supercharged... He's so cocky cause he smokes Mustang GTs and thinks he's car is the **** on the track. To be beaten by my family sedan... hehehe
I would think you should be able to beat him every time, at least in a straight line. You have more HP and more torque (365 lb ft vs. 162!) and your max torque is available at a lower RPM.

I'm sure he's thinking he has a big weight advantage but you're only giving up about 900 lbs.

GTO power-to-weight ratio = 3725 / 350 = 10.6:1
S2K " " " " = 2835 / 240 = 11.8:1

:D

[dopefiend]

He's so cocky cause he smokes Mustang GTs and thinks he's car is the **** on the track.

Mustang GTs only run 14's...

Nothing great there, heh.

[krimson]

I have this video clip of a Civic Si hatchback taking down a Viper in a 1/4 mile.. it was rather funny... if i can find it, ill post it up.

[dopefiend]

I have this video clip of a Civic Si hatchback taking down a Viper in a 1/4 mile.. it was rather funny... if i can find it, ill post it up.

Buzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :p

[craigdawg]

I have this video clip of a Civic Si hatchback taking down a Viper in a 1/4 mile.. it was rather funny... if i can find it, ill post it up.
I think I saw that! Didn't the Civic have nitrous or something?

[dopefiend]

I think I saw that! Didn't the Civic have nitrous or something?

Well, there is no way it did it NA :p

[krimson]

I believe the Civic in the least a Turbo, but i will say that you can clearly hear the Viper miss 2nd gear, so that did help ALOT.

[krimson]

Buzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :p

uhh... :confused:

[dopefiend]

uhh... :confused:

That would be the audio from the video ;)

edit: and here is the video:

http://www.ouw1sh.com/php/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&lid=24&title=Hatchback%20vs.%20Viper

[edesignuk]

Your 5.7Ltr V8 engine will be helping to destroy the planet much more than your friends 2.2Ltr I-4. Why the hell does that thing need such a big engine to produce just 350BHP? TVR can pull 350BHP out of the bag with a 3.6Ltr (the "T350"), BMW, 333BHP from 3.2Ltr (the "M3"), or 395 from 4.9Ltr (the "M5"), and the list goes on. I've never understood why American cars have to have a massive engine to get any power, is no one capable of tuning cars over there??? :rolleyes:

[dopefiend]

I think everyone here will find it funny that the GTO gets better gas mileage than any of the cars edesignuk listed even with the larger displacement :p

edit: also, horsepower isn't everything, look at the torque of those other cars ;)

[carbonmotion]

I think everyone here will find it funny that the GTO gets better gas mileage than any of the cars edesignuk listed even with the larger displacement :p

edit: also, horsepower isn't everything, look at the torque of those other cars ;) Ohhhhh, owned.

[edesignuk]

I think everyone here will find it funny that the GTO gets better gas mileage than any of the cars edesignuk listed even with the larger displacement :p
Really? :eek: If so then count me as being told off! But, it always seems to me that in general American cars always just have bigger engines to get their power, have crap MPG, and rarely is anything refined. Anyway, I;m gonna stop digging holes for myself now...:)

[dopefiend]

Really? :eek: If so then count me as being told off! But, it always seems to me that in general American cars always just have bigger engines to get their power, have crap MPG, and rarely is anything refined. Anyway, I;m gonna stop digging holes for myself now...:)

Common myths started by Anti-American car peoples :p

[krimson]

That would be the audio from the video ;)

edit: and here is the video:

http://www.ouw1sh.com/php/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&lid=24&title=Hatchback%20vs.%20Viper


the one i have is 12mb, and is much clearer. Ill look for it when i get home :)

[carbonmotion]

Granted the big 3 let the ball drip all through the late 90's, but being a multi-billion dollar combined industry they're trying to make a competative comeback... its a hard, uphill struggle, but some of the new products are pretty impressive and not at all inferior to their german or japenese counterparts. The Chrysler M300 or the New for F150... In fact I have a friend that works for JD Power which ranks car quality... Among luxury cars, Lincoln LS is bottom of the bin for the price... however Caddy CTS is better the BMW 5 and Audi and MB E in both ride quality and long-term duribility. ...you can find this by doingthe jd power web compare thing yourself. Lastly, Lexus is at the top on nearly all of its products.

[edesignuk]

Common myths started by Anti-American car peoples :p
That's me! TVR baby, yeah! :d :p

:)

[krimson]

I think everyone here will find it funny that the GTO gets better gas mileage than any of the cars edesignuk listed even with the larger displacement :p

edit: also, horsepower isn't everything, look at the torque of those other cars ;)


I think everyone will also find it funny that the M3 is listed at 16/24 MPG, and the GTO is listed at 16/21 MPG.

[krimson]

The Chrysler M300 or the New for F150...

that new Chrysler is SOoOoOOoooOooooo.... fugly. IMO... my coworker just got one, and most of us are laughing at her behind her back... but she likes it.. so we dont say anything directly to her.

[edesignuk]

The M3 is actually better (all be it only slightly, but still...) than the GTO.

M3: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19465.shtml
GTO: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19648.shtml

:p

[edesignuk]

I think everyone will also find it funny that the M3 is listed at 16/24 MPG, and the GTO is listed at 16/21 MPG.
Thank u :) ;)

[dopefiend]

I think everyone will also find it funny that the M3 is listed at 16/24 MPG, and the GTO is listed at 16/21 MPG.


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19649.shtml

17/29

Just don't slam the gas and you will hit that 29 ;)

edit:bleh, use the manual!

[edesignuk]

edit:bleh, use the manual!
You have to use a manual...lazy yanks! :eek: ;) :D

It's hard to find any info on the TVR T350, but there are a few forums where people report 27-29 MPG on a good run, pretty impressive :cool:

[craigdawg]

that new Chrysler is SOoOoOOoooOooooo.... fugly. IMO... my coworker just got one, and most of us are laughing at her behind her back... but she likes it.. so we dont say anything directly to her.
You're talking about the 300 right? I think it's the sewer grate grill and bizarre angles that does it. Mind you, this is the same company (Daimler-Chrysler) that produces the absolutely gorgeous SL.

[carbonmotion]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19649.shtml

17/29


Boom, there you have it a V8 big block had better mpg than a v6.

[carbonmotion]

You're talking about the 300 right? I think it's the sewer grate grill and bizarre angles that does it. Mind you, this is the same company (Daimler-Chrysler) that produces the absolutely gorgeous SL. Its a matter of personal taste, you either like the styling or you dont. My dad's 03 7 series is so beloved by him and his old foggie friends, but I just want to vomit whenever I see it. EW EW EW, the exterior is bad but tolerable, but the interior is just attrociously bad... these guys can take some lessons from Audi A8L.... I mean that grey wood with the creamy grey leather is an interior decorator's nightmare... granted it was that color scheme that looked particularly bad, but the over all design of the interior is cr*p.

[edesignuk]

Its a matter of personal taste, you either like the styling or you dont. My dad's 03 7 series is so beloved by him and his old foggie friends, but I just want to vomit whenever I see it. EW EW EW, the exterior is tolerable, but the interior is just attrociously bad... these guys can take some lessons from lexus and Audi.

1. The 7 series is a beautiful car (IMO of course ;))
2. Lexus? Are you kidding, it's a jumped up Toyota FFS! :eek:

[krimson]

Boom, there you have it a V8 big block had better mpg than a v6.

Which V6 are we talking about? I think not the M3.

[dopefiend]

Which V6 are we talking about? I think not the M3.

He meant I6

but it does beat a few v6's out there ;)

[carbonmotion]

1. The 7 series is a beautiful car (IMO of course ;))
2. Lexus? Are you kidding, it's a jumped up Toyota FFS! :eek: Ok I take the lexus comment back, but regardless, the 7's been a big dissapointment. Looks like sh*t inside and out. BMW's new 7 strained my belief in german asthetics, but audi's A8L restored my faith... anyways, I avoid driving it when possible not because of the fact that it looks bad, but because I had a bad experience with the "iDrive Nav system"... oh yeah and it's only a year old and its been in the shop 3 times for stuff covered under the warentee... not sure what exactly, but just some mechanical crap that broke. Could just be a bad car, but still.... thats not what one should expect from a 68k usd car. right?

[krimson]

1. The 7 series is a beautiful car (IMO of course ;))
2. Lexus? Are you kidding, it's a jumped up Toyota FFS! :eek:

Bring back the 850! ;)

[edesignuk]

Bring back the 850! ;)
Oh yeah! Seen a couple of those around recently, they look great, though I'm not actually sure how *good* they actually are or are not.

[edesignuk]

Ok I take the lexus comment back,There's a good chap, you know it makes sense ;) :D
thats not what one should expect from a 68k usd car. right?Very true, for $68k you shouldn't have to put up with this. :(

[krimson]

Oh yeah! Seen a couple of those around recently, they look great, though I'm not actually sure how *good* they actually are or are not.

I think those were the worse (quality) built cars ever by BMW, in my lifetime at least, but they were rather pretty.
From what I know, it was a forced rush job to fill a niche some marketing people suggested... something like that..

[carbonmotion]

My mummy drives a IS300, really great car from 2000, 4 years and not a single problem aside from oil changes at the regular intervals. Although in my family there really isnt Mom's car or Dad's car, we just hang our car key in the garage and grab a set in the morning... although, since I drive a stick and neither of my parents do, it kinda leaves them and me with a somewhat limited choice.

[QCassidy352]

you see, the problem is, at the end of the day, you still have a Pontiac and he still has a Honda. American cars are built like crap and will fall apart, whereas the Honda will run a decade or more without so much as a hiccup. And I say this as the owner of an American car...

[carbonmotion]

you see, the problem is, at the end of the day, you still have a Pontiac and he still has a Honda. American cars are built like crap and will fall apart, whereas the Honda will run a decade or more without so much as a hiccup. And I say this as the owner of an American car...if buy in to ad hype about hondas... sure be my guest.

[krimson]

as opposed to anti-japanese ad hype about american cars? :rolleyes:

[carbonmotion]

as opposed to anti-japanese ad hype about american cars? :rolleyes:sure thats just as bad... judge car based on your need/wants as well as researched data... not media hype. Personally, I think the GTO is pretty quality ...not that it makes a difference as in 2 years I will return the lease and get something else. So longterm durability wasnt high on my list ... style and performance was. It was down to this or the RX 8 ... but the RX 8 was way more expensive and I couldnt make the lease payments.

[krimson]

GTO's here are listed at $34k, S2K's are also $34k, and the RX-8 is listed at $27k.

So what you're saying is that because the GTO was cheap, that's why you got it?
And if it wasn't for you parents discount, you would have gotten the RX-8? :)

That's some discount. :D

[Wes]

you see, the problem is, at the end of the day, you still have a Pontiac and he still has a Honda. American cars are built like crap and will fall apart, whereas the Honda will run a decade or more without so much as a hiccup. And I say this as the owner of an American car...

I don't know about that, I think the Pontiac GTO, or the Chevrolet Lumina SS as I knew it during my time in Saudi Arabia are originally Australian designed Holden's repackaged with the american engine. Some pictures for comparison:
http://www.21stcentury.co.uk/images/cars/holden_hsv_gts.jpg
Holden GTS
http://www.bigtex.com/2003/img/gto.jpg
Pontiac GTO
http://www.alghanim.com/Automotive/images/luminaSS2001sharqsept2003.jpg
Chevrolet Lumina, with Kuwaity plates, maybe they only sold the Chevrolet version in the middle east. All these cars have the same 5.7 but the price difference is amazing. In the UK last time I looked it up you would drop £45,000 to import the Holden but in Saudi Arabia you could get the Lumina SS for £14513.00 talk about rip off Britain. :mad:

[job]

that new Chrysler is SOoOoOOoooOooooo.... fugly. IMO... my coworker just got one, and most of us are laughing at her behind her back... but she likes it.. so we dont say anything directly to her.


Try driving the 300C first... :p

Apparently demand is so large for this car right now that nearly 60,000 orders were received in the first month it was available. Apparently people were turning in their Toyota's and Lexus' in droves. Apparently the 300C has become the next 'bling' thing after the Escallade (sp?).

Under 33K for a Hemi? In a retro-ganster/1930s design? Relatively decent mileage in relation to power? Sounds like a solid package to me.

[carbonmotion]

GTO's here are listed at $34k, S2K's are also $34k, and the RX-8 is listed at $27k.

So what you're saying is that because the GTO was cheap, that's why you got it?
And if it wasn't for you parents discount, you would have gotten the RX-8? :)

That's some discount. :D Well point is, since im not a rich boy with a limitless trust fun, I have to make economics part of the consideration. You see, if I were a trust fun baby, I wouldn't even think about the Holden-Clone or a RX8. I'd drop 80k usd on a fully loading Caddilac XLR or MB CLK55 AMG Coupe ...but

[bousozoku]

I don't know about that, I think the Pontiac GTO, or the Chevrolet Lumina SS as I knew it during my time in Saudi Arabia are originally Australian designed Holden's repackaged with the american engine. Some pictures for comparison:
...
Chevrolet Lumina, with Kuwaity plates, maybe they only sold the Chevrolet version in the middle east. All these cars have the same 5.7 but the price difference is amazing. In the UK last time I looked it up you would drop £45,000 to import the Holden but in Saudi Arabia you could get the Lumina SS for £14513.00 talk about rip off Britain. :mad:

The Chevrolet Lumina looks like an Opel/Vauxhall Vectra/Saturn SL, rather than the Holden model.

Of course, UK gets ripped off when left-hand drive models have to be re-engineered for right-hand drive. I'm sure the safety standards in the middle east are slightly lower than UK, though.

I'd like to see these huge 5+ litre engines compete with somewhat smaller engines on cross-continental drives at high speeds. I figure the smaller engined-cars will cross the finish line first, simply because they had to stop fewer times for fuel. :D

[sambo.]

the pontiac GTO is actually an Aussie made/designed Holden Monaro, rebadged and with a new front grill (something about seppos likeing "aggressive" vehicles according to Holden).

the Monaro is a two-door, souped up version of the Holden Commodore, which is a "typical" aussie family sedan.

the monaro name has only recently been ressurected, an original GTHO Monaro, in good nick is the aussie equivalent of an original ford mustang in the states.

personally - i'd give it a miss, puts a large neon target on your backs for the cops to aim speed-guns at and the cost of insurance (in Oz anyhoo) is prohibitive. besides, i live in the back of beyond and need a 4WD more than i need 300+ horsepower. been thinking of a Vitara soft-top actually....... :rolleyes:

[Wes]

The Chevrolet Lumina looks like an Opel/Vauxhall Vectra/Saturn SL, rather than the Holden model.


I'm 100% sure the Lumina and the Holden are the same car, I just thought the GTO looked the same, but after all the engine specs, it seems to be very closely related too.

Here we go: found a site. http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/collector_cars/2001/9/the_sad_truth/print.phtml

This puts a different spin on it as it seems that they consider these to be American cars, not Australian cars with an American engine.

"Chevrolet builds and sells V8-powered, 300-plus-horsepower, rear-wheel-drive sedans in the Middle East." Hmm... I never knew anybody made cars in the Middle East.

[wPod]

you see, the problem is, at the end of the day, you still have a Pontiac and he still has a Honda. American cars are built like crap and will fall apart, whereas the Honda will run a decade or more without so much as a hiccup. And I say this as the owner of an American car...

. . . only if you leave the honda in original condition. . . with all the crap people put on, blowers exhaust, plastic trim and stickers they fall apart FASTER than the average american car. i think the reason american cars 'fall apart' is not the manufacturing, but its the fact that NOONE takes care of their car. never clean it, never change the oil. just destroy it unil the 2 year lease is up then get a new car. if you spend the time to take care of any car it can last 100,000 miles or more without complaint!

[krimson]

Try driving the 300C first... :p

Apparently demand is so large for this car right now that nearly 60,000 orders were received in the first month it was available. Apparently people were turning in their Toyota's and Lexus' in droves. Apparently the 300C has become the next 'bling' thing after the Escallade (sp?).

Under 33K for a Hemi? In a retro-ganster/1930s design? Relatively decent mileage in relation to power? Sounds like a solid package to me.

Sorry, there's no way, unless it was given to me free, that I would drive a car that looks like a mule. :) I could care less if it had a Hemi, or a Circum, or a Quadrant. IMO, it looks like my girlfriends shoe. If you like it, great for you. And I dont have a racial identity problem that would require me to have some based on it's "bling"... :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Your 5.7Ltr V8 engine will be helping to destroy the planet much more than your friends 2.2Ltr I-4. Why the hell does that thing need such a big engine to produce just 350BHP? TVR can pull 350BHP out of the bag with a 3.6Ltr (the "T350"), BMW, 333BHP from 3.2Ltr (the "M3"), or 395 from 4.9Ltr (the "M5"), and the list goes on. I've never understood why American cars have to have a massive engine to get any power, is no one capable of tuning cars over there??? :rolleyes:

Why don't you just leave us speed freaks alone and go away?
No one asked you to preach to us about our cars, and no one here is preaching to you about walking barefoot. :eek:

[Frohickey]

I'd like to see these huge 5+ litre engines compete with somewhat smaller engines on cross-continental drives at high speeds. I figure the smaller engined-cars will cross the finish line first, simply because they had to stop fewer times for fuel. :D

It all depends on the terrain, elevation, and support crew of the driver.

Remember, a larger engined vehicle can haul more gasoline than the smaller engined vehicle, probably enough to offset or even surpass the need to be refueled as often as the smaller engined vehicle.

Its all about tradeoffs.

[vixapphire]

Your 5.7Ltr V8 engine will be helping to destroy the planet much more than your friends 2.2Ltr I-4. Why the hell does that thing need such a big engine to produce just 350BHP? TVR can pull 350BHP out of the bag with a 3.6Ltr (the "T350"), BMW, 333BHP from 3.2Ltr (the "M3"), or 395 from 4.9Ltr (the "M5"), and the list goes on. I've never understood why American cars have to have a massive engine to get any power, is no one capable of tuning cars over there??? :rolleyes:

oh, but the tuning is as much about the audio as the performance... have you ever stood behind a twin-tailpiped bruteforce big american v8? sweet sensation, indeed... i had a 1968 dodge charger for awhile (think "bullitt"'s chase scene) with a 340 cid v8, headers and twin 2.5 inch tailpipes. sadly, the first time i heard how great was the sound was as its new owner drove it away... and there my regrets began!

that said, my new jag s-type R's supercharged 4.2 v8 burls out about 400 hp and over 400 lb ft of torque at 1.5 liters less volume, and it sounds nearly as enthralling as my old charger did before i sold it. and it does plenty more than drive a straight line, too...

vixapphire

[vixapphire]

I think those were the worse (quality) built cars ever by BMW, in my lifetime at least, but they were rather pretty.
From what I know, it was a forced rush job to fill a niche some marketing people suggested... something like that..

the 850 with the 12-cyl engine is a complete load of bollocks, but the 840 that was identical but with the much better 8-cyl engine is actually a pretty solid car.

[craigdawg]

Apparently the 300C has become the next 'bling' thing after the Escallade (sp?).
I'll believe that when I see it. And when I see a 300C I will go "ugh". :D

[vixapphire]

. . . only if you leave the honda in original condition. . . with all the crap people put on, blowers exhaust, plastic trim and stickers they fall apart FASTER than the average american car. i think the reason american cars 'fall apart' is not the manufacturing, but its the fact that NOONE takes care of their car. never clean it, never change the oil. just destroy it unil the 2 year lease is up then get a new car. if you spend the time to take care of any car it can last 100,000 miles or more without complaint!

yeah, i don't buy this honda = good, american car = evil. aren't most of the people fronting that argument the same that decry all this good/evil stuff at the highest levels of government discourse nowadays? ;-)

i was cruising a few car dealerships a couple of weeks ago and a sales guy showed me the recent jd powers stats on reliability/build quality. Lexus is first (no surprise), but surprisingly it's followed by CADILLAC and ford-owned Jaguar. mercedes is way down the list, just above the median, and volkswagen is at bottom, above only some korean company.

so much for american-made equating to crap quality, eh?

having owned a handful of older american cars and a few volvo's over the past 15 years, i'll attest that with regular routine maintenance, they last as long as anything else out there (with the usual exceptions, of course, but who's perfect?). having owned a newer cadillac (2002 DTS), i'll also attest that cadi's have certainly come a very long way. it's not quite a mercedes feature-set yet, but the quality of components and fit 'n finish are as good as anything else. oh yeah, i owned a benz slk 320 before the cadi, so my comparison is based on direct, everyday, real-world recent experience. as a guy who was born and raised in windsor/detroit, i was pleasantly surprised that the cadillac quality has come as far as it has. and miffed that the daimler benz quality has fallen as they've cheaped out on parts (it all began with the '96 e-class redesign).

[carbonmotion]

yeah, i don't buy this honda = good, american car = evil. aren't most of the people fronting that argument the same that decry all this good/evil stuff at the highest levels of government discourse nowadays? ;-)

i was cruising a few car dealerships a couple of weeks ago and a sales guy showed me the recent jd powers stats on reliability/build quality. Lexus is first (no surprise), but surprisingly it's followed by CADILLAC and ford-owned Jaguar. mercedes is way down the list, just above the median, and volkswagen is at bottom, above only some korean company.

so much for american-made equating to crap quality, eh?

having owned a handful of older american cars and a few volvo's over the past 15 years, i'll attest that with regular routine maintenance, they last as long as anything else out there (with the usual exceptions, of course, but who's perfect?). having owned a newer cadillac (2002 DTS), i'll also attest that cadi's have certainly come a very long way. it's not quite a mercedes feature-set yet, but the quality of components and fit 'n finish are as good as anything else. oh yeah, i owned a benz slk 320 before the cadi, so my comparison is based on direct, everyday, real-world recent experience. as a guy who was born and raised in windsor/detroit, i was pleasantly surprised that the cadillac quality has come as far as it has. and miffed that the daimler benz quality has fallen as they've cheaped out on parts (it all began with the '96 e-class redesign). Yeah my mom's IS300 is a beaut to drive.

[krimson]

my cousin's Volvo 240xx has 1.35 million miles on it.
mostly the same major components.

[bousozoku]

I'm 100% sure the Lumina and the Holden are the same car, I just thought the GTO looked the same, but after all the engine specs, it seems to be very closely related too.

Here we go: found a site. http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/collector_cars/2001/9/the_sad_truth/print.phtml

This puts a different spin on it as it seems that they consider these to be American cars, not Australian cars with an American engine.

"Chevrolet builds and sells V8-powered, 300-plus-horsepower, rear-wheel-drive sedans in the Middle East." Hmm... I never knew anybody made cars in the Middle East.

Well, that link says that the Lumina was a different Opel--the Omega, but still not a Holden. That explains to me why the c-pillar looks so much like that of the Vectra.


Chevrolet Lumina

Also available in the Middle East is the Lumina, only it's not the Lumina that Chevy sold here a few years ago. No, this Lumina is a version of the Opel Omega, which we know in this country as the Cadillac Catera. Only our Catera isn't offered with a 325-hp 5.7-liter V8 like the Lumina SS, which also gets a sport suspension, an aggressive body kit, 17-in. wheels and a six-speed manual transmission. And if that's not insulting enough, we've learned that GM sells a 405-hp version of this car in Australia called the Holden HSV GTS-R. The other Lumina trim levels, the LTZ and the wagon, are powered by the same 215-hp V6 that motivates our Catera.


Wouldn't Cadillac owners be pleased to know that their cherised Catera was not only an Opel, but was also the sister to a Chevrolet model.

[Brian Hickman]

You want a real car for driving....try this...

0-60 in under 5 seconds
only 190 hp (toyota celica engine)

yummy...

Hickman

[vixapphire]

Yeah my mom's IS300 is a beaut to drive.

yep, that's a sweet little car. i especially like the lines of the sportcross wagon. finally, a hatchback to believe in... but what i can't figure out is why, when a sportcross costs about $32k and a bmw 325 wagon costs about $34k (my wife just bought one, and it's well-optioned at that price), anyone would buy the lexis over the bmw? i'm no bmw snob (definitely not), but having driven both cars, i'm struck by how much more substantial the bimmer feels on the road vis the light touch of the IS. i suppose it comes down to personal taste, then, eh?

[vixapphire]

I'll believe that when I see it. And when I see a 300C I will go "ugh". :D

i see the new chrysler 300's around quite a bit nowadays. two things: first, it looks like it's made of plastic, and thus like it would yellow if parked too long in the sun; and second, the hemi version has bigger wheels, which make all the difference in the world (well, as much as that look would allow, anyway) in the car's appearance. an improvement, but still no home run.

the steering wheel design is also a major cheap-out failure on that car. the faux-brushed metal trim pieces are too plastique in appearance to fool anyone but the most impressionable. but i guess that's what's behind the whole "bling" thing, eh? if they'd tried a little harder or just left the damn thing covered in black leatherette, it would've looked far better. but then, why buy a $90k s-class when a hemi 300 is just as nice...

and to think, after most cars come off lease, they get cubed and shipped to japan and korea as scrap steel, turned into lexus', toyota's and hyundais and sold right back at us! that is to say, at least some good may come of these new chrysler 300's!!! ;-)

vixapphire

[vixapphire]

You want a real car for driving....try this...

0-60 in under 5 seconds
only 190 hp (toyota celica engine)

yummy...

Hickman

super cool car, and finally apparently going to be imported into the US this year! living in LA/west hollywood, at least i'll get the benefit of seeing these things - people around here certainly don't let their wallets get in the way of what they're driving.

but, lotus elise v. ford explorer, soon to be appearing at an intersection near you. no thanks - i saw someone get in a simple side impact collision - vw new beetle v. explorer: flipped the explorer, killed the driver of the vw. the vw was standing still and the explorer wasn't going none too fast, either.

i'll take 4 tons and 400 horses over 900 lbs and 190 hp when it comes to doing 5 second 1/4 miles any day, in light of the foregoing...

[dopefiend]

You want a real car for driving....try this...

0-60 in under 5 seconds
only 190 hp (toyota celica engine)

yummy...

Hickman

That car is a joke...

$40,000 for 0-60 4.9 seconds, 1/4 13.5?

I guess you pay a lot for its looks :rolleyes:

[craigdawg]

You want a real car for driving....try this...

0-60 in under 5 seconds
only 190 hp (toyota celica engine)

yummy...

Hickman
Kind of looks like a praying mantis from the front no? :)

[G4scott]

Old American cars are crap. Most new ones are pretty decent, and I find them much more comfortable and upscale than Japanese cars. I drive a 98 Ford Escort (over 30 mpg on the highway!), which has had no major problems at all. I also drive a 91 Toyota Pickup, and I will say that Toyota's are built to last a long time (or at least the older ones.) This sucker has 150k + miles on it, we just got the transmission rebuilt, and the radiator had to be patched up, but other than a small leak in the steering gearbox, it still runs fine. My dad and my brother are in Arizona with it right now, and that's one heck of a drive (McAllen, TX to Arizona), not to mention the off roading they're going to be doing. The other other car I drive is a 01 Chevy Suburban. It's 5.7L V8 is a bit of a gas hog, but it has the power when you need it to tow stuff or move heavy stuff around. The other other other car that I rarely drive is my mom's Subaru Outback station wagon (03, I think). It's a fun car to drive, but doesn't get the mileage of my Escort.

My point is, almost any car can last a long time if you take care of it (except for the Eagle Vision... that car's just crap).

And on that "your V-8 is going to destroy the earth twice as fast as that honda", just realize that there are tons of older cars that aren't as well maintained as my V-8 that guzzle more gas, and put out more emissions. In America, we have stricter standards than most other countries, and we require cars to be maintained, and pass yearly inspections (at least in Texas...) Cars that aren't properly maintained can do more damage than cars with bigger engines that are.

And as far as sports cars go, I'd be content with a Mercedes Benz SL Convertible (I think that's the model... the one with AMG everything...)

[edesignuk]

Why don't you just leave us speed freaks alone and go away?
No one asked you to preach to us about our cars, and no one here is preaching to you about walking barefoot. :eek:
I have nothing against speed freaks :D I just think cars should be tuned to perfection to get power out of them, not simply make their engines bigger :rolleyes:

Bare foot? :eek: :D I don't think so...

[Counterfit]

That car is a joke...

$40,000 for 0-60 4.9 seconds, 1/4 13.5?

I guess you pay a lot for its looks :rolleyes: There's more to sports cars than acceleration: In our evaluation of the world's best-handling cars, the previous 160-bhp model ranked second behind the Ferrari 360 Modena and won the objective performance category (see our June 2002 cover story). And Lotus guarantees that the U.S.-spec Elise will outshine its predecessor. Here's (http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=221&page_number=1) some numbers. 73MPH in the 600 foot slalom! :eek:

[MacBandit]

There's more to sports cars than acceleration: Here's (http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=221&page_number=1) some numbers. 73MPH in the 600 foot slalom! :eek:

Check out the gas mileage as well.

[dopefiend]

There's more to sports cars than acceleration: Here's (http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=221&page_number=1) some numbers. 73MPH in the 600 foot slalom! :eek:

Yea, but for that price, handling AND speed should be great. :rolleyes:

and its not even a good daily driver!

So driving the Elise as a daily runabout on the street is not practical.

I bet the top end sucks as well.

I'd actually take a Corvette C6 z51 package over that :cool: (thought it would cost about $5,000 more Im sure)

Now, if that car came with a different engine and possibly a turbo, I'd be all over it :D

I wonder if you could squeeze a new ls2 in there :p (400hp in a 1900 pound car, yes please!)

[rt_brained]

Wow...that video is pretty sad. It doesn't look like the Viper driver used enough of 1st gear, then missed 2nd...probably shot both and didn't recover 'til 3rd. Pretty typical for someone not used to the Viper's size or clutch.

[iGav]

Well My friend is this die hard honda s2000 fan and thinks its the fastest track car in on earth. He wants a rematch when I get mine supercharged he gets his supercharged... He's so cocky cause he smokes Mustang GTs and thinks he's car is the **** on the track. To be beaten by my family sedan... hehehe

He's having a f**kin' larf if he thinks the S2000 is the fastest track day car on earth... it doesn't handle well enough for a start. :p

A Radical SR3 is the current production car daddy on the track.... yep faster than the Enzo, Carrera GT, Zonda, Koenigsegg, McLaren etc etc around the 'Ring (and all for £50k) ;)

Infact I reckon you could both Supercharge the t*ts off both your cars and I still don't think either would get within 50 seconds (and that's pushing it) of the Radical around the 'Ring. Just a thought ;)

[MacBandit]

Yea, but for that price, handling AND speed should be great. :rolleyes:

and its not even a good daily driver!



I bet the top end sucks as well.

I'd actually take a Corvette C6 z51 package over that :cool: (thought it would cost about $5,000 more Im sure)

Now, if that car came with a different engine and possibly a turbo, I'd be all over it :D

I wonder if you could squeeze a new ls2 in there :p (400hp in a 1900 pound car, yes please!)

Why isn't it a good daily? It gets nearly 40MPG.

[dopefiend]

Why isn't it a good daily? It gets nearly 40MPG.

From the website:

"Some may argue that the Lotus Elise is not really a road car. We have to agree. It does have two seats and a radio, and these are really all the amenities it has. So driving the Elise as a daily runabout on the street is not practical. There is only enough room for the driver and passenger, and not much else."

[iGav]

Why isn't it a good daily? It gets nearly 40MPG.

It's because the yanks love all the bells and whistles in their SUV's ;)

[iGav]

From the website:

"Some may argue that the Lotus Elise is not really a road car. We have to agree. It does have two seats and a radio, and these are really all the amenities it has. So driving the Elise as a daily runabout on the street is not practical. There is only enough room for the driver and passenger, and not much else."

And some might argue that SUV's aren't really a road car... heheheheh :p

[iGav]

For $40,000 ...of course!

ah, but for those 40 daddy G's you're getting one of the purist sports cars with (the exception of Ferrari and Porsche of course) the finest performance pedigree on the planet. ;)

[MacBandit]

And some might argue that SUV's aren't really a road car... heheheheh :p

I would. I think a good daily commuter is a simple sporty good gas mileage car or a motorcycle for that matter.

[dopefiend]

ah, but for those 40 daddy G's you're getting one of the purist sports cars with (the exception of Ferrari and Porsche of course) the finest performance pedigree on the planet. ;)

It uses a Celica engine......

an eco-car engine....

They should have thrown in something better than that. Seriously my only beef with the car.(the engine)

[iGav]

I would. I think a good daily commuter is a simple sporty good gas mileage car or a motorcycle for that matter.

Exactly... ;) the Elise is what it is, and that's whats appealing about it. Once all the bloat is added, and all the (unecessary) gizmos... you end up with something approaching a Corvette heheheh

Same goes for an modern SUV, none of the current crop would see which way a lo-tune Defender went off road... :eek: :p

I found it interesting that they don't classify it as a proper road car... :rolleyes: they've obviously never driven either a Caterham or Radical then heheh

http://www.caterham.co.uk/
http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/

[dopefiend]

Exactly... ;) the Elise is what it is, and that's whats appealing about it. Once all the bloat is added, and all the (unecessary) gizmos... you end up with something approaching a Corvette heheheh

wait wait wait...lol..

What gizmos are you talking about? Personally, I think the Corvette needs more! :confused:

[MacBandit]

wait wait wait...lol..

What gizmos are you talking about? Personally, I think the Corvette needs more! :confused:

In a sports car padded seats are a luxury.

[iGav]

It uses a Celica engine......

an eco-car engine....

They should have thrown in something better than that. Seriously my only beef with the car.(the engine)

Never driven the Toyota powered version, but the UK spec, rev happy K-Series (Rover) is a f***in' corker ;) (and the only reason the U.S. didn't get this puppy of an engine, is because of the U.S. emission laws)

Does it really matter what the engine is though?? drive one and your jaw will drop to the floor, as will the drivers of uber-cars when they totally fail to keep up with you on the tight and twisty stuff ;)

[bousozoku]

It uses a Celica engine......

an eco-car engine....

They should have thrown in something better than that. Seriously my only beef with the car.(the engine)

It's a better engine than it might have been.

Generic Motors (Lotus' owner) helped pick out a nice Isuzu engine for the Elan. Most people might remember than Isuzu stop sending cars to the U.S.A. a while back. It was Japan's first truck company and the engines in the cars were more truck-like than they should have been.

Imagine the prestige of having a Lotus with a truck engine.

[iGav]

wait wait wait...lol..

What gizmos are you talking about? Personally, I think the Corvette needs more! :confused:

Optional Magnetic Selective Ride Control System, heated mirrors, heads up display, remote keyless entry, cruise control, driver information centre, illuminated vanity visor mirror, power steering wheel adjustment, power seats... the list goes on. *yawns*

Does a properly engineered and developed sports car really need ANY of that??? ;)

You add all that sh*t and you end up with a GT.... hahahahaha :p

[takao]

Imagine the prestige of having a Lotus with a truck engine.

BMW get's it engines designed and built at steyr-puch a traditional tractor manufacturer
the X5 SUV completly...the mercedes G (also sold as Puch G) too

lamborghini is a tractor company

mercedes-benz is one of the biggest truck makers in europe

[bousozoku]

BMW get's it engines designed and built at steyr-puch a traditional tractor manufacturer
the X5 SUV completly...the mercedes G (also sold as Puch G) too

lamborghini is a tractor company

mercedes-benz is one of the biggest truck makers in europe

However, they don't put truck or tractor engines in their cars. Isuzu did.

[iGav]

However, they don't put truck or tractor engines in their cars. Isuzu did.

Porsche did once... :p

[bousozoku]

Porsche did once... :p

They also put Volkwagen parts into a few cars. Let's see--microbus rear torsion bars for the 924? That got them a few laughs they didn't want.

I drove a Porsche 914 and a Fiat X1/9. They were very similar in concept as well as execution. They couldn't have been more different.

The 914 had three things going for it--the name, the seats, and the optional 6 cylinder but it wasn't a very good car.

The X1/9, on the other hand, was what you would expect if Ferrari worked on a budget. However, the Fiat name had baggage and the car wasn't the most reliable.

We need a car like the X1/9 with reliability.

[Frohickey]

I have nothing against speed freaks :D I just think cars should be tuned to perfection to get power out of them, not simply make their engines bigger :rolleyes:

Bare foot? :eek: :D I don't think so...

I take it you do not have an automobile engineering degree, or are conversant in physics.

When you burn fuel, you get energy.
The more fuel you burn, the more energy you get out of it.
Power is energy per second.
The more fuel you burn per second, the more energy per second you get, and hence more power.

So, more powerful cars, faster accelerating cars, etc are by nature, burn more fuel per second than others. The other way to get more power with the same amount of fuel is by increasing the efficiency of the engine, and at the present state of the art, efficiency of the engine is at 32% already.
EFFICIENCY OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm)

Since you are the one that is harping about fuel consumption, why don't you go and invent a more efficient engine. I'll be the first one to buy one from you when you invent it. Heck, I'll even put up the money for subsequent capital funding in order for your invention/engine to be the dominant engine design in the world (for a piece of the profits of course). ;)

If only all the holier-than-thou anti-SUV, its-destroying-the-planet types were to put their money and brains where their mouths are at, we would have super-efficient engine designs that can run off of water vapor and fusion energy. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[craigdawg]

The 914 had three things going for it--the name, the seats, and the optional 6 cylinder but it wasn't a very good car.
That's an understatement. I do get nostaligic when I see one though.

[Wes]

I take it you do not have an automobile engineering degree, or are conversant in physics.

When you burn fuel, you get energy.
The more fuel you burn, the more energy you get out of it.
Power is energy per second.
The more fuel you burn per second, the more energy per second you get, and hence more power.
Yadda yadda yadda.

I understand your argument but what edesign is trying to say is why use 5.7 liters or some obscene engine size when the same result can be achieved with something much smaller and more efficient?

[trudd]

If only all the holier-than-thou anti-SUV, its-destroying-the-planet types were to put their money and brains where their mouths are at, we would have super-efficient engine designs that can run off of water vapor and fusion energy. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, because trying to preserve what we have left of nature is sooooo uncool. Please.

Put their brains/money where their mouths are? Where have you been?

[MacBandit]

They also put Volkwagen parts into a few cars. Let's see--microbus rear torsion bars for the 924? That got them a few laughs they didn't want.

I drove a Porsche 914 and a Fiat X1/9. They were very similar in concept as well as execution. They couldn't have been more different.

The 914 had three things going for it--the name, the seats, and the optional 6 cylinder but it wasn't a very good car.

The X1/9, on the other hand, was what you would expect if Ferrari worked on a budget. However, the Fiat name had baggage and the car wasn't the most reliable.

We need a car like the X1/9 with reliability.

It's called an 85-87 MR2.

[MacBandit]

Never driven the Toyota powered version, but the UK spec, rev happy K-Series (Rover) is a f***in' corker ;) (and the only reason the U.S. didn't get this puppy of an engine, is because of the U.S. emission laws)

Does it really matter what the engine is though?? drive one and your jaw will drop to the floor, as will the drivers of uber-cars when they totally fail to keep up with you on the tight and twisty stuff ;)

Toyota version has 40 more horses in a car that only ways 200lbs more.

[iGav]

Toyota version has 40 more horses in a car that only ways 200lbs more.

Which is 2hp less than the 192bhp K-Series in the S1 Exige in a car which weighs 200lbs less ;)

[phrancpharmD]

Common myths started by Anti-American car peoples :p


No actually it's true. Oversized, underpowered, inefficient, unrefined, and poorly dynamic is by far and away the rule rather than the exception for most "affordable" American cars. But yes, they're inexpensive; they have to be or GM and Ford stock would be trading for even lower than it has been the last two years or so. And actually, when you consider that the Ford F150 pick-em-up truck is and has been the most popular vehicle sold for the last 10 - 12 (I think) years it kinda tells me that most purchasers of "Detroit Iron" really don't care at all about anything other than straight line performance in a horribly fuel inefficent and impractical vehicle. The Monaro / GTO is about the closest any American car company currently comes to producing something I would consider, but for $32K, I'd probably end up buying a 5 -6 year old BMW M5.

[phrancpharmD]

Optional Magnetic Selective Ride Control System, heated mirrors, heads up display, remote keyless entry, cruise control, driver information centre, illuminated vanity visor mirror, power steering wheel adjustment, power seats... the list goes on. *yawns*

Does a properly engineered and developed sports car really need ANY of that??? ;)

You add all that sh*t and you end up with a GT.... hahahahaha :p

Ahh, but I think technically the Corvette IS considered a GT; seems to want to compete with 911's at least. . .

[dopefiend]

No actually it's true. Oversized, underpowered, inefficient, unrefined, and poorly dynamic is by far and away the rule rather than the exception for most "affordable" American cars.

Underpowered? Your joking right? From the 300hp that the mustang carries in its GT form to the 550hp of the Ford GT(not to mention, great styling and refinement!) How about the Corvette? Hmm.

You cannot say that every American car meets those characteristics!

A few, sure. But you can say that about every country that makes cars.

but for $32K, I'd probably end up buying a 5 -6 year old BMW M5.

You have fun with that 5 year old car ;)

Personally, I'd never pay that much for a car thats been used. Especially a BMW.

[takao]

Ahh, but I think technically the Corvette IS considered a GT; seems to want to compete with 911's at least. . .

http://www.nordschleife.no/

... you have to scroll _a lot_ to find the first corvette ;)

[MacBandit]

Which is 2hp less than the 192bhp K-Series in the S1 Exige in a car which weighs 200lbs less ;)

Seems that the 2004 Exige is basically a US spec Elise.

http://www.supercars.net/cars/2004@$Lotus@$Exigeg.html

[dopefiend]

http://www.nordschleife.no/

... you have to scroll _a lot_ to find the first corvette ;)

Chevrolet Corvette -98 344 hp, 1998.

Kinda old, hehe.

[bousozoku]

It's called an 85-87 MR2.

That could very loosely be said to be in the same category, but it was hardly that good.

[MacBandit]

You guys seems to be forgetting that most Toyotas and Hondas are made here and out of all the US made cars the Accord is the number one seller.

Out of all the traditional American made cars the Taurus is the number one seller. Doesn't the Taurus meet the traditional view of the American car as being a big underpowered ugly pig.

[iGav]

Seems that the 2004 Exige is basically a US spec Elise.

http://www.supercars.net/cars/2004@$Lotus@$Exigeg.html

tis, I've got an interview with the Lotus guys, and the S2 is the Yank tank (although the UK version is likely not to have all the sh*t in like the U.S. versions will undoubedly be ordered with)

I still think it's a shame they didn't spend the time and $$$ to tune up the K-Series, but as they said themselves the K-Series was just more expensive to produce the 190bhp they were targetting, and even then they couldn't guarantee it'd meet U.S. emissions.

The new car is rumoured to be around 2 seconds a lap quicker than the 177bhp Elise, but half of that time is down to the super-sticky semi-slick Yokohama's and the other half is down to the new suspension from the VX220 development.

I mucho prefer the original Elise, that was classic Lotus, I'm just not a big fan of the current cars snout, looks alittle tack to me... still it goes like the clappers though. :D

[dopefiend]

Out of all the traditional American made cars the Taurus is the number one seller. Doesn't the Taurus meet the traditional view of the American car as being a big underpowered ugly pig.


http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/glance/index.asp#Taurus_LX

Doesn't seem too bad to me :confused:

[MacBandit]

That could very loosely be said to be in the same category, but it was hardly that good.

With the right setup it was that good. I had one and I raced in Autocross against X1/9, 914s, 924s, 944s, 240-280z. It would win everytime.

[iGav]

http://www.nordschleife.no/

... you have to scroll _a lot_ to find the first corvette ;)

that'll be the 'Optional Magnetic Selective Ride Control System' then.... :p :p :p :p

I'd love to see what a current F1 car could pull around there... :D

[iGav]

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/glance/index.asp#Taurus_LX

Doesn't seem too bad to me :confused:

153hp from a 3litre V6 is shockingly bad though... :eek:

[oingoboingo]

The Monaro / GTO is about the closest any American car company currently comes to producing something I would consider, but for $32K, I'd probably end up buying a 5 -6 year old BMW M5.

As an Australian, I have to make the minor correction (already made several times in this thread), that the Pontiac GTO/Holden Monaro is Australian designed and Australian built (the engine may be sourced from another GM subsidiary, but the car as a whole is Australian).

That said, the day I'd own a Holden Commodore or a Holden Monaro would be the say I eat a bucket of my own cold vomit.

I'd also like to add at this stage of proceedings that if there is one thing more pointless than a Mac vs PC argument, it's an argument about cars. Keep up the good work! Very entertaining reading so far. Can someone figure out a way to combine a "10 litre cast-lead block V10 versus 600cc carbon fibre 2 cylinder turbocharged" argument with commentary on "IE 6 versus Safari handling of CSS2 compliance"? I would just about blow a wad of spooge across the room if someone could.

[MacBandit]

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/glance/index.asp#Taurus_LX

Doesn't seem too bad to me :confused:

155HP in a 3500lb car? It's bulbously ugly as well.

[dopefiend]

Can someone figure out a way to combine a "10 litre cast-lead block V10 versus 600cc carbon fibre 2 cylinder turbocharged" argument with commentary on "IE 6 versus Safari handling of CSS2 compliance"? I would just about blow a wad of spooge across the room if someone could.

Falling out of my chair laughing here ....lol... :p

[dopefiend]

155HP in a 3500lb car? It's bulbously ugly as well.

Its a freaking sedan....

[MacBandit]

Its a freaking sedan....


So are most BMWs and cars like the Mazda 6 and a about 5 dozen other cars in the world but have 250-500HP.

The difference is the car I mentioned is the big 3s number one selling auto. This is the type of car that most people judge American quality and performance by because it's the most plentiful. On the other hand the true number one selling American car is the Accord which weighs about 1000lbs less and has 100 more HP and is also a Sedan.

[phrancpharmD]

Underpowered? Your joking right? From the 300hp that the mustang carries in its GT form to the 550hp of the Ford GT(not to mention, great styling and refinement!) How about the Corvette? Hmm.

You cannot say that every American car meets those characteristics!



Please reread my post, and especially note the word MOST - I did not say that "every American car meets those characteristics." And yes you do get 300 hp and poor to fair dynamic control with that Mustang GT (not the more commonly purchased stock V6, by the way), but until very recently (the 2003 model I think?), you also got cutting edge 1979 family car automotive technology from it's fraternal twin, the Ford Fairmont - really distinguished pedigree, eh? Sorry, straight line performance taking off from a stop light is just NOT a priority for me. And as far as great syling and performance, that of course is purely objective and solely reflects your own humble opinion. Refinementwise, I'm pretty sure my '98 BMW 323 convertible at least ties your 2004 'stang, and I'd be willing to bet I could get through Atlanta traffic quicker with my 323 too, and beat your MPG (I average 24.7 - 26.3MPG per tank of 93 octane in heavy traffic driving). The Corvette does not fit into that category of "most," and probably is not "affordable" by Joe Sixpack. No, us gearheads are not normal car buyers and do not represent the greater American car buying public at large; otherwise Buick, Mercury, and probably Pontiac would join the recently deceased Oldsmobile and Plymouth. No, we all know there are more important components of our own purchasing decisions than "point A to point B." While I can TOTALLY appreciate when a tricked out '72 Nova (sorry, when it comes to domestics I prefer Chevys to Fords) with tall fat back tires blasts past me, you can never convince me of the merits of a modern Ford or Chevy regardless of "performance" specs just as I cannot pursuade you to see the brilliance of an Ultimate Driving Machine. :)

And for the record, the styling of new 7's, 5's, and Z4's ROCKS! Bring on the 3's and fix the frumpy X5's!

[dopefiend]

Well, Im not going to argue the taurus..Mainly due to the fact that I don't own/haven't driven one.

One of the few that I haven't, heh.

[dopefiend]

Sorry, straight line performance taking off from a stop light is just NOT a priority for me.

Anything thats not a straight line goes to the bike with me :cool:

sorry, when it comes to domestics I prefer Chevys to Fords

Im a Chevy guy myself, hehe.

The Corvette does not fit into that category of "most," and probably is not "affordable" by Joe Sixpack.

I don't know. These days you can stretch out payments 6+ years on a car, hehe. Craziness :eek:

Z4's ROCKS

In the looks department, yup. I love the looks of that car. (performance is lacking though :( but thats where the z8 comes in :D )

[phrancpharmD]

In the looks department, yup. I love the looks of that car. (performance is lacking though :( but thats where the z8 comes in :D )

The second thing we agree on! :)

[phrancpharmD]

Anything thats not a straight line goes to the bike with me :cool:

Ahhhh, I'm jealous. Unfortunately, there is a lower limit of "practicality" that my wife and (soon to be) two daughters dicate. . .

[MacBandit]

Ahhhh, I'm jealous. Unfortunately, there is a lower limit of "practicality" that my wife and (soon to be) two daughters dicate. . .

Getting 50MPG isn't practical? Bikes are great commuter vehicles.

[G4scott]

I understand your argument but what edesign is trying to say is why use 5.7 liters or some obscene engine size when the same result can be achieved with something much smaller and more efficient?

Because that smaller, 4 cylinder with 300 horsepower would absolutely die if you added 4000 pounds to the weight it has to pull...

That obscene engine size does have it's uses. Try getting a WRX STi or S2000 to pull a fully loaded trailer of any kind through the mountains. This is where that obscene 5.7 liter can come in handy. In fact, that smaller engine would probably use more fuel than the larger one trying to do something like that.

Larger engines have their uses, but it is true that not everybody who has one needs one.

[phrancpharmD]

Getting 50MPG isn't practical? Bikes are great commuter vehicles.

Practical regarding SAFETY - for my daily congested commute, at least. I can see how you couldn't read my mind since very few posts discussed the safety of our preferred vehicles at all.

[dopefiend]

Because that smaller, 4 cylinder with 300 horsepower would absolutely die if you added 4000 pounds to the weight it has to pull...

Not only that, but...
You will find that most I4's will have a very poor top end.
Also, if your into modification of any kind, a big ole displacement is greatly wanted/needed :p

There is no replacement for displacement :D

[dopefiend]

Practical regarding SAFETY - for my daily congested commute, at least. I can see how you couldn't read my mind since very few posts discussed the safety of our preferred vehicles at all.

Oh yea, for sure. Dangerous indeed, but I'm telling you, its a feeling like no other. I knew that if I would have stopped myself and never bought one, I would have regreted it for the rest of my life.

I'm sure that the wife would kill you if you bought one before the bike even could though :p

[takao]

i always wondered why those american car companies don't sell their sports cars over here (corvette,camaro,mustang) etc.

they don't even sell most of their sedans

i guess the best selling 'american' car here is the ford focus hatchback and then the chrysler voyager van (from time to time you see a PT cruiser)

[bousozoku]

...

That said, the day I'd own a Holden Commodore or a Holden Monaro would be the say I eat a bucket of my own cold vomit.
...


I was surprised to see that statement. :D

Everything I've ever seen about Holden told me that I didn't want anything to do with one. I was surprised to see so many positive comments about the brand. Besides, I wonder about how Generic Motors have influenced Holden and I cannot imagine it's been to the positive, esp. seeing how the other brands were affected.

[iGav]

Larger engines have their uses, but it is true that not everybody who has one needs one.

They do, they do... :)

I guess what some of the Euro folks are suggesting, is that alot of these cars with high capacity engines, don't actually make full use of that engines potential.

For example, that Ford Taurus has a 3 litre V6 (here 3 litres are considered BIG engines) yet only produces 153bhp or 51bhp per litre which is very a poor output for such an engine. Especially when BMW can get 170bhp from a 2 litre 6 cylinder @ almost 85bhp per litre.

The worst example I've yet seen, is the Cadillac Sixteen...(although the much vaunted Veyron isn't any better) makes a storming 1000bhp from.... 13.6 litres or 74bhp per litre, that's a terrible output, but even then both the Viper and Corvette aren't any better.

We should consider that had BMW developed such an engine, they'd have got similar outputs from maybe only 9-10 litres (for road use) when we consider that their finest come in at over the magic 100bhp per litre and the lower spec engines in entry models still push 85bhp per litre.

I can understand wanting a larger capacity engine for towing (although a well developed TDI can match and in some case exceed) the towing capabilities of cars with 2 extra cylinders, but what alot of Euro people can't understand is the need to have 3 litre cars, when there's alot of 1.6, 1.8 and 2 litre cars on sale here that offer greater performance and economy.

[bousozoku]

...
For example, that Ford Taurus has a 3 litre V6 (here 3 litres are considered BIG engines) yet only produces 153bhp or 51bhp per litre which is very a poor output for such an engine. Especially when BMW can get 170bhp from a 2 litre 6 cylinder @ almost 85bhp per litre.
...


My 1974 Mazda RX-3 did almost as well as that BMW engine with 83bhp per litre in a 1.1 litre rotary, which was somewhat constricted--the RX-2 with the same engine had 6 more HP. The latest RX-8 gets 151BHP/litre or 183BHP/litre in the auto and manual models, which are both normally aspirated.

American engines are usually considered to be less efficient, but when you consider that most people don't go through a regular maintenance routine (adding fuel and cleaning windows is not a maintenance routine), the reliability comes into play. Most big V8 engines from Ford, GM, and Chrysler can be abused and will still operate pretty well. Besides, when you're towing a boat that's bigger than your truck, you want to appear to be moving forward. :D

This statement does not in any way endorse the use of huge engines. With two cars, my combined engine capacity is 3.1 litres.

[Frohickey]

Yeah, because trying to preserve what we have left of nature is sooooo uncool. Please.

Put their brains/money where their mouths are? Where have you been?

Well, how many environmental groups do you see have 100% ownership of an energy company doing research&development and manufacture of renewable power sources?

All I see are environmental groups that have 100% ownership of law firms. :eek:

[Frohickey]

My 1974 Mazda RX-3 did almost as well as that BMW engine with 83bhp per litre in a 1.1 litre rotary, which was somewhat constricted--the RX-2 with the same engine had 6 more HP. The latest RX-8 gets 151BHP/litre or 183BHP/litre in the auto and manual models, which are both normally aspirated.

American engines are usually considered to be less efficient, but when you consider that most people don't go through a regular maintenance routine (adding fuel and cleaning windows is not a maintenance routine), the reliability comes into play. Most big V8 engines from Ford, GM, and Chrysler can be abused and will still operate pretty well. Besides, when you're towing a boat that's bigger than your truck, you want to appear to be moving forward. :D

This statement does not in any way endorse the use of huge engines. With two cars, my combined engine capacity is 3.1 litres.

HP per liter is not as relevent as HP per pound, as far as vehicle performance goes. Some engines have high horsepower per displacement, but the weight required for the support equipment is large, and ultimately, makes for a poor performing vehicle.

As said, you have to keep your engine/vehicle in proper maintenance to get the performance out of it. That is dependent on the owner.

With my 3 vehicles, my combined engine displacement is 12.7 liters. But, my aggregate miles per gallon for a whole year of driving would be around 40 miles to the gallon. :p

[oingoboingo]

i always wondered why those american car companies don't sell their sports cars over here (corvette,camaro,mustang) etc.

they don't even sell most of their sedans

i guess the best selling 'american' car here is the ford focus hatchback and then the chrysler voyager van (from time to time you see a PT cruiser)

The Ford Focus was designed by Ford Europe. I don't know if it is built in Europe also though.

[trudd]

Well, how many environmental groups do you see have 100% ownership of an energy company doing research&development and manufacture of renewable power sources?

I guess I should focus on one area and stick with it. I'm not an environmentalist as much as I try to be a realist. You won't see me stopping bulldozers from clearing out trees for a shopping mall, I just wish people were more conscious about the world around us.

I suppose growing up in the south messed with my mind the most - my peers drove trucks simply to drive trucks, not because they actually needed one. That sort of (and still does) tick me off. I've always been under the impression that someone should drive what meets their needs, but I guess it's hard for a super-sizing society to do so.

[iGav]

HP per liter is not as relevent as HP per pound, as far as vehicle performance goes. Some engines have high horsepower per displacement, but the weight required for the support equipment is large, and ultimately, makes for a poor performing vehicle.

but alot of American cars have poor outputs per litre and are far too heavy as well. Either way, that still doesn't begin to justify only getting 51bhp from a 3 litre V6, that's just plain lazy engineering.

the american attitude of 'there's no replacement for displacement' is all well and good, but using displacement as an excuse to get anything even approaching usable power isn't exactly an engineering feat when other companies can get more power, with less weight from less displacement.

[iGav]

My 1974 Mazda RX-3 did almost as well as that BMW engine with 83bhp per litre in a 1.1 litre rotary, which was somewhat constricted--the RX-2 with the same engine had 6 more HP. The latest RX-8 gets 151BHP/litre or 183BHP/litre in the auto and manual models, which are both normally aspirated..

The Rotary engine is a design marvel... it's a shame that it's never got the dev it needed or indeed deserves.

It's one major downfall is that they're simply tiresome to drive (unless one likes to travel everywhere at 8000+rpm to get any usable torque) and as such I found the RX-8 to be quite tiresome, especially in towns when everytime I required a quick launch, people presumed I was wanting to race them as I was having to hit 5000rpm to make sure that the Routemasters next to me weren't going to leave me for dead at the lights. :eek: :p

[bousozoku]

The Rotary engine is a design marvel... it's a shame that it's never got the dev it needed or indeed deserves.

It's one major downfall is that they're simply tiresome to drive (unless one likes to travel everywhere at 8000+rpm to get any usable torque) and as such I found the RX-8 to be quite tiresome, especially in towns when everytime I required a quick launch, people presumed I was wanting to race them as I was having to hit 5000rpm to make sure that the Routemasters next to me weren't going to leave me for dead at the lights. :eek: :p

They've had plenty of development, just very little in unit sales. What's funny is how Generic Motors was developing a rotary engine. Instead of a small engine such as Mazda and NSU have proven to work, they created a 5 litre monster. Now, if you use the figure for that 1.1 litre RX-3 engine, GM would have had over 400 hp from their engine, but they couldn't get more than 150, if I remember correctly.

[iGav]

They've had plenty of development, just very little in unit sales

but in comparison to conventional engines, they've had relatively little dev and the low torque outputs and all round driveability are still quite poor. Isn't Mazda the only company doing full on research and development with the Rotary now as other companies have abandoned the concept?

if they could get some decent torque outputs from the engines at low rpm's I could see them being much more popular, but the RX-8 doesn't come online till 5000rpm and it's really not a pleasant way of driving everyday, and if you never stumble above 5000rpm they're death slow, and when you do venture above 5000rpm in town centres, people think you're either wanting to race or have some kind of involuntary spasm of your right foot... heheh :p

[MacBandit]

but in comparison to conventional engines, they've had relatively little dev and the low torque outputs and all round driveability are still quite poor. Isn't Mazda the only company doing full on research and development with the Rotary now as other companies have abandoned the concept?

if they could get some decent torque outputs from the engines at low rpm's I could see them being much more popular, but the RX-8 doesn't come online till 5000rpm and it's really not a pleasant way of driving everyday, and if you never stumble above 5000rpm they're death slow, and when you do venture above 5000rpm in town centres, people think you're either wanting to race or have some kind of involuntary spasm of your right foot... heheh :p

The limitation in torque is not a lack of development but a limitation of the design. Also the motor gets very poor gas mileage for it's output. The reasons for this is the rotary motor that was turned into the Wankel Rotary Motor was originally designed to be a water pump for fire trucks. It's designed to pump vast amount of liquid so in this case it's pumping vast amounts of air. The reason it doesn't develop much torque is it develops very little compression. The only way to boost torque on a rotary is to boost cylinder pressure using a supercharger. The problem with this is the seal used to seat the rotor in the chamber isn't capable of taking high amounts of pressure and degrades rather quickly (less then 100k miles). Once this seal degrades you have to basically rebuild the motor. So the problems with the motor are multiple. Low compression equalling low torque, low fuel mileage, and low longevity.

[iGav]

The limitation in torque is not a lack of development but a limitation of the design. Also the motor gets very poor gas mileage for it's output. The reasons for this is the rotary motor that was turned into the Wankel Rotary Motor was originally designed to be a water pump for fire trucks. It's designed to pump vast amount of liquid so in this case it's pumping vast amounts of air. The reason it doesn't develop much torque is it develops very little compression. The only way to boost torque on a rotary is to boost cylinder pressure using a supercharger. The problem with this is the seal used to seat the rotor in the chamber isn't capable of taking high amounts of pressure and degrades rather quickly (less then 100k miles). Once this seal degrades you have to basically rebuild the motor. So the problems with the motor are multiple. Low compression equalling low torque, low fuel mileage, and low longevity.

I'm aware how they work... ;) but if they'd have had similar levels of development as conventional engines, their characteristics would be muchly improved.

Remember how poor Diesel engines were only 15 years ago (unrefined, lacking in torque, soooooo slooowwwwww etc) now compare them to todays Diesels (Pumpe Duse and Common-Rails) and now we have Diesel cars that are in the real world, significantly faster in ever day driving conditions than their petrol equivalents, and in some cases beginning to overtake their petrol siblings (think new BMW 5 series 530d Vs. 530i)

They worked around the limitations of the Diesel engine and continue to do so. Had the Rotary ever had similar levels of cash and development thrown at it, they'd be significantly better engines today.

[Abstract]

I take it you do not have an automobile engineering degree, or are conversant in physics.

When you burn fuel, you get energy.
The more fuel you burn, the more energy you get out of it.
Power is energy per second.
The more fuel you burn per second, the more energy per second you get, and hence more power.

So, more powerful cars, faster accelerating cars, etc are by nature, burn more fuel per second than others.


You're right, but oh so wrong. Why do you think that the better car manufacturers can do more with less? Why do you think so many cars at under 4.0L can perform as well as these 5-6L behemoths? That's what was meant, and its quite true. I leave that to the companies who spend a little more time on engineering.

And yes some cars need to tow stuff, but there are sports cars out there that barely beat out sports cars with smaller sized engines.


If only all the holier-than-thou anti-SUV, its-destroying-the-planet types were to put their money and brains where their mouths are at, we would have super-efficient engine designs that can run off of water vapor and fusion energy. :eek: :eek: :eek:

That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever read at this forum. Either that you don't know better, or you just chose to ignore the voice in your head that tried to remind you that what you were typing didn't make you out to be as bright as you probably are.

Oh, and torque is important too, people!

[jayscheuerle]

In terms that everyone here can understand.

If Macs were cars, they'd be Japanese.

It's about the fit and finish, the quality of the materials, the longevity and the resale value.

It's about handling, not speed.

American car companies have learned a lot from the Japanese and their cars have improved greatly over the past 20 years, but like Microsoft copying Apple, they usually don't "get it".

[jeffy.dee-lux]

man, i've been missing out on another car thread. i love the car threads.

k, first of all, you ever was dissing up the 2005 elise is a fool. Some smart guy was getting all into the energy involved, and how engine displacement doesn't matter all that much, you're accelerating a certain mass to a certain speed, so its the same amount of energy no matter what, and will be about the same amount of fuel. Well yeah, that makes a bit of sense from a fuel consumption point of view (of course, you have to look at the inherent efficiency of different motor types, like what are the energy losses involved in a big v8 vs a turbocharged i4). But as far as acceleration goes, you're concerned about how fast you can put that energy into what you're trying to move. How quickly can the engine convert that chemical energy stored in the gas into the kinetic energy of the car? That's the question when it comes to acceleration. But see, kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2, so its directly proportional to the mass of the car. The lotus' mass is less than 900kg, meaning that you don't have to put out nearly as much energy to get it moving at a certain speed as your average car. Also, you all know a=F/m, so since the car's mass is so little, the force at the tire patches required to accelerate it at a certain rate, (which translates back through the drive train to the torque put out by the engine [that's another thing, why does everyone want big wheels, rotational inertia of the wheel is proportional to the square of the radius of the rim, so increasing rim size from say 17" to 18", while thats only a factor of 1.06, it increases the rotational inertia by a factor of 1.12, and that slows you down a lot])... oops..... --> is significantly reduced.
So as far as straightline acceleration goes, you can either increase the power of your engine (which more than often involves increasing the total mass of the car, whether its the weight of a bigger engine or a blower) or you can reduce the weight of the car. But since pretty much all aspects of a car's performance involve an acceleration of sorts (whether it be from a stop, to a stop [deceleration], or turning), reducing the weight of the car improves every one of these aspects. Increasing the power of the engine improves one, and generally has a negative side effect on the others, due to the added weight (unless of course you increase the output of the engine without adding any weight, which some people are very good at.)
Making the car light weight makes it accelerate faster, stop faster, turn harder, all while using less gas. its the smartest and simplest concept, although not all that easy to achieve. Thats why this thing costs $40K, but considering this thing is expected to break production car handling records and so forth, i think its a bargain.

Those who say i'm gonna buy a big car so i don't get hurt in an accident. good for you. I'm simply reminded of that itchy and scratchy cartoon where one pulls out a gun, the other pulls out a bigger gun, and the other pulls out an even bigger one, and so forth. Kinda like the nuclear arms race, and how we're at the point now where there are enough megatons in one country to blow up the entire planet several times over. If we all drove sensibly small cars, and drove them sensibly, we'd all be a lot better off, in countless ways.

iGav, i thought the veyron got that 1000hp out of an 8 liter, quad turbo w16. That's pretty good isn't it? Although i know the car has several other problems, besides the fact that i don't know many roads where you'd be able to drive for very long at 250mph. Say there's some guy passing a truck, and he's passing at 150mph, which is crazy enough in my opinion, you'd still be approaching him at 100mph. They gotta stop working on cars like these and start working on cars like in "back to the future 2". I mean come on! its gonna be 2015 in like 11 years! I've based my entire out look on life on the predictions made by that movie.

Oh yeah, and people should stop assuming that anybody who's concerned with the environment and hates suvs is an idiot. I'm pretty sure it works the other way around.

[dopefiend]

jayscheuerle,

Ah, someone else generalizing about all American cars :rolleyes:

But hell, I'll play the same game...

American cars are fun...Japanese cars are slow and boring.

American cars sound great...Japanese cars sound like a pack of angry bees.

American cars are raw muscle..Japanese cars are the "skin and bones"

[iGav]

iGav, i thought the veyron got that 1000hp out of an 8 liter, quad turbo w16. That's pretty good isn't it? Although i know the car has several other problems, besides the fact that i don't know many roads where you'd be able to drive for very long at 250mph.

I couldn't for the life of me remember what the Veyron's specs were... heheh the only thing that came to mind was 1000bhp quad turbo and W16. :p For some reason I was thinking it had much more than 8 litres though.... the 16.4 might have thrown my memory :eek: :p hmmm I need to brush up on all my car specs again. ;)

[jeffy.dee-lux]

jayscheuerle,

Ah, someone else generalizing about all American cars :rolleyes:

But hell, I'll play the same game...

American cars are fun...Japanese cars are slow and boring.

American cars sound great...Japanese cars sound like a pack of angry bees.

American cars are raw muscle..Japanese cars are the "skin and bones"

man, any generalizing is stupid, including yours. Some american cars are awesome, and some aren't so awesome. Lets say, the ford gt and the ford taurus. Yeah, the gt i'm guessing would be crazy fun to drive, it sounds crazy, and it has lots of muscle. The taurus on the other hand doesn't really fit that description, not that i think its trying to anyways.
Lets look at some japanese cars. can you honestly say an sti or an evo would be slow and boring to drive and that there's no muscle under the hood, or say the 350z or the acura tl? I can agree that big engines make a much cooler sound than a screaming 4 banger. I think the 350z or the g35 coupe sounds pretty good. Frankly, i think it would be cooler if the whole lot of them were completely silent. When you live in a city, the soundscape is completely dominated by the sound of internal combustion engines, and that f***ing sucks. That sound is energy too, its energy that could otherwise be going into moving your fat car.

I'm sorry, bikes just make so much sense. Pay $30K for something that's gonna cost you tons in gas and maintenance, something that's adding wonderfully to that beautiful yellow cloud hanging over your city that just smells so nice, and something that's gonna make you fatter cause you spend all your time sitting in it instead of using your own energy to get anywhere.
Why don't you pay $2000 to get a sweet ass bike, save on the maintenance costs (well, depending on what you put your bike through), and save on the gym membership (i wonder how many people drive to the gym and hop on an exercise bike and pedal without going anywhere).
Some bikes look more badass than any car i've ever seen, so you can satisfy your ego too, if you want.

[dopefiend]

Heres some Bugatti Veyron info for ya:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/bugatti1.htm

[dopefiend]

man, any generalizing is stupid, including yours.

Ya dope, thats why I said it. :p

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Ya dope, thats why I said it. :p

ah, k, sweet, sorry for thinking you're an idiot.

[bousozoku]

but in comparison to conventional engines, they've had relatively little dev and the low torque outputs and all round driveability are still quite poor. Isn't Mazda the only company doing full on research and development with the Rotary now as other companies have abandoned the concept?

if they could get some decent torque outputs from the engines at low rpm's I could see them being much more popular, but the RX-8 doesn't come online till 5000rpm and it's really not a pleasant way of driving everyday, and if you never stumble above 5000rpm they're death slow, and when you do venture above 5000rpm in town centres, people think you're either wanting to race or have some kind of involuntary spasm of your right foot... heheh :p

Mazda is the only company continuing research since the 1970s. They've come a long way but they will never be the perfect engine for big cars because of the low end torque. The 1.1 litre torque peak occurred at 4000 on my original RX-3 and I believe it's at 3600 rpm on my 1985 RX-7, which has a different but very similar engine. With the 1.3 litre that's been available since 1974, the torque profile is slightly better because of the volume.

I can't imagine how bad the traffic is in your area, but I've driven both machines in heavy traffic in metropolitan areas and never found the need to really push it tremendously hard to get around a mess. Putting proper noise control on the exhaust will keep those stares away. :D

As far as someone's view on low longevity, it's improved. My RX-7 has 156,000+ miles on it and the engine doesn't seem to be fading although some non-drivetrain parts are.

[Frohickey]

Research on the Wankel engines have been slow compared to conventional piston engines. Kinda like the R&D on Macs vs PCs. :eek:

I like the small parts count and light weight of the Wankel engines.

Now, if you want high horsepower engines, go for gas turbines, like on the M1A tank. :eek:

[takao]

Now, if you want high horsepower engines, go for gas turbines, like on the M1A tank. :eek:

or the comparable V12 turbocharged diesel/raw-oil/whatever-you-have engine with 47.6 liter displacement from the leopard
:p

[Frohickey]

or the comparable V12 turbocharged diesel/raw-oil/whatever-you-have engine with 47.6 liter displacement from the leopard
:p

The Leopard? Is that the French tank with the built-in white flag of surrender? :p

[bousozoku]

or the comparable V12 turbocharged diesel/raw-oil/whatever-you-have engine with 47.6 liter displacement from the leopard
:p

Obviously, not a Nissan Leopard. :D

[oingoboingo]

The Leopard? Is that the French tank with the built-in white flag of surrender? :p

The Leopard is a German tank. They are the guys the French were waving the white flag at. The Leopard and Leopard II tanks serve in a number of armed forces around the world, not just the German Army.

[rhpenguin]

With the right setup it was that good. I had one and I raced in Autocross against X1/9, 914s, 924s, 944s, 240-280z. It would win everytime.


must have been some pretty slow 240/280z's.... try doiung that against a nicely tuned 240z -> Nissan straight six motor (supercharged) nismo comp gerbox msd ignigion system tripple webber carbs etc... more than $40,000 into the driveline / electronic stuff.

[carbonmotion]

The Leopard is a German tank. They are the guys the French were waving the white flag at. The Leopard and Leopard II tanks serve in a number of armed forces around the world, not just the German Army. I'm going to put my two cents in about tanks since I just got done with a major shindig on international arms dealing... IR is my other major :) ...as far as tanks go the two best capabilit vs reliability vs price ratio goes there are only two champions the Russian T80,82,90,94 or the M1A2 ...these are the only two long-term combat proven chassis available on the market as far as Main Battle Tanks are concerned.The M1 comes out on top because it has been truth trial by fire the most out of any other MBT in the world. Which is why the countries that don't go to war much buy german or french tanks because they are pretty much for show. The countries that do go to war alot buy american or russian tanks.

[BaDBoY]

Not only that, but...
You will find that most I4's will have a very poor top end.
Also, if your into modification of any kind, a big ole displacement is greatly wanted/needed :p

There is no replacement for displacement :D

Well, actually it also depends on the quality of the engine and the way its built. An S2000 has pretty good engine. Putting it in such a low weight car will definately have its benefits on acceleration, but a V8 or more powerful engine definately has the higher ends.

Sure i like having a car that can go fast, but in drastic measures, wouldnt you like to have full control of the car?

What i like about the I4 engines is the responsiveness of the engine. I like to know that i have full control of the car, specifically a Naturally Aspirated engine. Turbos mess up the control of the car, and if you were going through a corner and the turbo kicks in at the wrong time, you can suffer from understeering and crash or go off course.

The S2000's engine is great, but actaully, any engine tuned correctly can be monstrous. For example, the 4A-GE engine found in most older toyota corollas are weak... and when i mean weak, i mean, 128-140 weak. There are 16V and 20V versions... Bringing up the idea that if an engine is tuned correctly, it can be amazing. TRD has actually tuned a "silvertop" 4A-GE 20V motor that can rev to an insane 11,000 RPM which can dish out 255 HP. Aint that somethin. (If you played GT3 on the PS2, the toyota corolla sprinter trueno Shigeno version has this engine.) Not to mention the EXTREMELY light body of the corolla, depending on the drivetrain as well. Im getting a toyota corolla sprinter trueno and i actually plan to make this modification in the future. Sure driving down 1/4 quater mile drags are cool and nice to watch, but i think driving through tight corners and controlling your car the way you want through a corner is certainly more stimualting and thrilling. I also like knowing that going through a corner as fast as possible and cutting time by controlling your car is more thrilling than just mearely holding the streeing wheel striaght hoping yoru turbo kicks in faster than your opponents'. (how else would you ditch a cop? you definately cant ditch a cop without knowing how to go through turns as fast as possible. RAW power definately wont have advantages here. Ive talked with a cop before, and the engines they have in their patrol cars are definately supercharged. The cop didnt tell me anything, but he was hinting the power was WAYYYY over 300 HP.)

Back on topic with the "big engines"
If you think about it, any car can be faster than any other car. Money will always be an issue in that. Say, you have a enzo race a toyota supra with a stage 4 turbo, who you think would win? I think the supra with the stage 4 turbo that can punch over 1000 HP would leave it in the dust.

My two cents.

[iGav]

Back on topic with the "big engines"
If you think about it, any car can be faster than any other car. Money will always be an issue in that. Say, you have a enzo race a toyota supra with a stage 4 turbo, who you think would win? I think the supra with the stage 4 turbo that can punch over 1000 HP would leave it in the dust.

it'd murder the Enzo in a straight drag, but could it match it around the 'Ring??? horsepower is all good and well for a straight line drag *yawn* but it's how that car manages to utilise that power that can make the difference. ;)

the Radical SR3 has only 330BHP, but is easily the fastest production car around the 'Ring.

just a thought. ;)

[dopefiend]

the Radical SR3 has only 330BHP, but is easily the fastest production car around the 'Ring.

just a thought. ;)

And that thing would still never give you the thrills a $9,000 motorcycle will :p

[iGav]

And that thing would still never give you the thrills a $9,000 motorcycle will :p

well... that's a matter of opinion. ;)

[evoluzione]

(how else would you ditch a cop? you definately cant ditch a cop without knowing how to go through turns as fast as possible. RAW power definately wont have advantages here. Ive talked with a cop before, and the engines they have in their patrol cars are definately supercharged. The cop didnt tell me anything, but he was hinting the power was WAYYYY over 300 HP.)

Back on topic with the "big engines"
If you think about it, any car can be faster than any other car. Money will always be an issue in that. Say, you have a enzo race a toyota supra with a stage 4 turbo, who you think would win? I think the supra with the stage 4 turbo that can punch over 1000 HP would leave it in the dust.

My two cents.

yeah them cop "pursuit engines" are nice...not much will outrun them, s'why you need a car that corners well too :) welcome to my world :cool: :p :D nothing like looking where you're going from the side window hehe

[dopefiend]

Those cop cars probably only top out at 160 or so Im sure.

[evoluzione]

Those cop cars probably only top out at 160 or so Im sure.

will they even hit that??? not exactly the most aerodynamic of cars are they?

i remember my Lancia Delta HF Turbo, shaped like brick, anything over 105mph and the window wipers would go up, but wouldn't go back down as the air resistance was too high. but it did corner, i remember beating an RS Turbo cabriolet on the A1 (sorry if you don't follow, english bit this is), going between 100 and a 120mph, come to a long sweeping dipping right hander, he lets off the power on the utide, i just keep it mailed and fly past on the inside. still never got a speeding ticket in that car! (just to get things back on track)

[MacBandit]

I'm aware how they work... ;) but if they'd have had similar levels of development as conventional engines, their characteristics would be muchly improved.

Remember how poor Diesel engines were only 15 years ago (unrefined, lacking in torque, soooooo slooowwwwww etc) now compare them to todays Diesels (Pumpe Duse and Common-Rails) and now we have Diesel cars that are in the real world, significantly faster in ever day driving conditions than their petrol equivalents, and in some cases beginning to overtake their petrol siblings (think new BMW 5 series 530d Vs. 530i)

They worked around the limitations of the Diesel engine and continue to do so. Had the Rotary ever had similar levels of cash and development thrown at it, they'd be significantly better engines today.

That's not quite true as Diesels have always output more torque/liter then their petrol counter parts.

As for a rotary they might be improved but you can't eliminate their design flaws only work around them.

[iGav]

That's not quite true as Diesels have always output more torque/liter then their petrol counter parts.

It's true that the Diesels of the '80's and early '90's (even the French ones, who were considered to be the best manufacturer of Diesels) were crap.

We had several and they were appalling. 1.7d Cavalier or 1.8 petrol Cavalier?? the petrol was some 9 seconds faster to 60. Even the 1.6 smoked it by a good 7 seconds. It was a similar situation in the Ford camp as well.

Early Diesels lacked torque in comparison to todays Diesels and their hp outputs were incredibly low in comparison to the petrol cars of the time, never mind the emissions. Ultimately the early Diesels were no where near a match for performance or refinement of an equivalent petrol model. This was down to the limitations of their 'pre-chamber' (swirl chamber) engine design.

These limitations were overcome when the car companies changed direction completely working on Unit Injection (VW's Pumpe-duse') and Common-Rails, and the subsequent improvent in refinement, emissions, fuel economy (and with the addition of a turbo charger, performance) have really made them a viable alternative to petrol cars.


As for a rotary they might be improved but you can't eliminate their design flaws only work around them.

There's no question of 'might' be improved, to say that is to assume that the current design is as good as it can get, and that is simply not the case.

Every engine design has it's limitations and flaws, but with enough time, money and development behind them, alot of the problems can, if not be fixed, then suitable work arounds can be found... prime example is how the Diesel has and is evolving.

I have no doubt at all, had the Rotary engine had had a similar amount of development work done on it as the Diesel has over the last 2 decades that the the lack of low down torque would have been greatly improved in comparison to the current state of the engine.

[BaDBoY]

yeah them cop "pursuit engines" are nice...not much will outrun them, s'why you need a car that corners well too :) welcome to my world :cool: :p :D nothing like looking where you're going from the side window hehe

Lol, exactly what im saying, not to mention, drifting a car is fun as hell, but get ready to spend all the money you got

[BaDBoY]

it'd murder the Enzo in a straight drag, but could it match it around the 'Ring??? horsepower is all good and well for a straight line drag *yawn* but it's how that car manages to utilise that power that can make the difference. ;)

the Radical SR3 has only 330BHP, but is easily the fastest production car around the 'Ring.

just a thought. ;)

well of course, sorry with the confusion, i was just hinting that RAW power of the car will leave in its dust, but the handling of the car will definately be crap.

personally, i would choose a super charger over a turbo any day when it comes to handling. turbo lag is one thing i truly hate. it kicks in when your engine is in the higher RPM range. Not to mention, since the turbo can give off excessive lag and without a wastegate, the lower end RPM torque will suffer drastically. (All you people with aftermarket turbos know what i mean, but some of you like that boost. yes its "stimulating" as well.)

... man i love these car talks. :D

[evoluzione]

well of course, sorry with the confusion, i was just hinting that RAW power of the car will leave in its dust, but the handling of the car will definately be crap.

personally, i would choose a super charger over a turbo any day when it comes to handling. turbo lag is one thing i truly hate. it kicks in when your engine is in the higher RPM range. Not to mention, since the turbo can give off excessive lag and without a wastegate, the lower end RPM torque will suffer drastically. (All you people with aftermarket turbos know what i mean, but some of you like that boost. yes its "stimulating" as well.)

... man i love these car talks. :D


haha, on my aforementioned HF Turbo, i had the "executive pack" (no idea what that was doing on a Lancia Delta mind) but it did include a digital turbo boost gage (it was a 1986 Delta, last of the carbs)...this gauge showed negative boost, then slowly climbed to 0 and above....everyone used to look at that gauge and when they saw it rise rapidly, they'd hold on. i love the kick a fat turbo can give, it's obscene...superchargers are too smooth, they're no fun ;) of course, hitting the turbo in reverse is a little scary :eek:

of course diesel engined cars usually use these low pressure turbos, which i think are much like the feel of a supercharger...basically what the engine should be doing anyway, with no help

iGAV...my stepfather always buys peugeot estates (stationwagons) and has had the diesel version since they came out....now he has the turbo'd version but i doubt it's ever kicked in...but back in the day, i'd say a 30% bigger displacement french diesel was about right for a petrol comparison...1.8 petrol v 2.4 diesel...

[MacBandit]

It's true that the Diesels of the '80's and early '90's (even the French ones, who were considered to be the best manufacturer of Diesels) were crap.

We had several and they were appalling. 1.7d Cavalier or 1.8 petrol Cavalier?? the petrol was some 9 seconds faster to 60. Even the 1.6 smoked it by a good 7 seconds. It was a similar situation in the Ford camp as well.

Early Diesels lacked torque in comparison to todays Diesels and their hp outputs were incredibly low in comparison to the petrol cars of the time, never mind the emissions. Ultimately the early Diesels were no where near a match for performance or refinement of an equivalent petrol model. This was down to the limitations of their 'pre-chamber' (swirl chamber) engine design.

These limitations were overcome when the car companies changed direction completely working on Unit Injection (VW's Pumpe-duse') and Common-Rails, and the subsequent improvent in refinement, emissions, fuel economy (and with the addition of a turbo charger, performance) have really made them a viable alternative to petrol cars.




There's no question of 'might' be improved, to say that is to assume that the current design is as good as it can get, and that is simply not the case.

Every engine design has it's limitations and flaws, but with enough time, money and development behind them, alot of the problems can, if not be fixed, then suitable work arounds can be found... prime example is how the Diesel has and is evolving.

I have no doubt at all, had the Rotary engine had had a similar amount of development work done on it as the Diesel has over the last 2 decades that the the lack of low down torque would have been greatly improved in comparison to the current state of the engine.

Your comparing generalizations of diesels based on how they were built for cars 20 years ago? Think about big trucks. They've always run diesels for one reason and one reason only. They put out tons and tons of torque. Torque will not get you that awesome 0-60 time alone though. The problem with diesels in the past was developing HP. The biggest improvement to that came from turbo charging and improvements in diesel fuel refinement.

It is true that you can work around a inherent flaw but you can never overcome it without coming up with a new design. When you come up with a new design it's not the same motor anyway. All current piston driven motors have a major flaw in that every rotation of the crank the piston has speed up slow down stop and then do the same in the other direction. This is why internal combustion motors are so inefficient. Turbines having only to spin freely are much more efficient and that's why they can produce much much more horsepower. The problem with them is since they have little to no rotating mass they can't develop much in the way of torque. The most efficient transportation known to man of all things is a bicycle.

[Frohickey]

I'm going to put my two cents in about tanks since I just got done with a major shindig on international arms dealing... IR is my other major :) ...as far as tanks go the two best capabilit vs reliability vs price ratio goes there are only two champions the Russian T80,82,90,94 or the M1A2 ...these are the only two long-term combat proven chassis available on the market as far as Main Battle Tanks are concerned.The M1 comes out on top because it has been truth trial by fire the most out of any other MBT in the world. Which is why the countries that don't go to war much buy german or french tanks because they are pretty much for show. The countries that do go to war alot buy american or russian tanks.

Um... when was the last time you have seen a Russian T80/82/90/94 be used by a country in war? Erp.. let me rephrase that.

When was the last time you have seen a Russian T80/82/90/94 used in war, when it wasn't being used as targets by M1A Abrams tanks? :p :D :eek:

[Frohickey]

Those cop cars probably only top out at 160 or so Im sure.

Cop cars, at least in the Camaro/F-body case (option BC4) do not have any more engine work that the other cars that are sold. The only thing they have is a longer final gear, which gives them top speed instead of acceleration.

BC4 option Camaros used by police departments come with a 2.93 (or 2.94) final gear ratio. When the Camaro was still being made, anyone could order a Camaro with a 2.93 gear ratio, and it was no big deal. In fact, that is the standard gear ratio.

Police pursuit tactics call for the use of radio and air units. You can't outrun the radio.

[Frohickey]

Okay, doing a bit of a thread veer, but...

...you hear the standard mantra of the anti-car busybodies, that we need to get people out of polluting cars and into mass transit instead. They seem to think that its a given that mass transit would be more fuel efficient than the private transportation. But what about the times when you have mass transit that is under-utilized. Haven't you seen busses and trains running with less than 100%, heck, even less than 50% of their capacity? How is that more efficient than a smaller car?

Plus, in mass transit, you have to run a car/bus on schedule, everytime. You can't just decide to stop and wait for more passengers before you pull away from the station.

[MacBandit]

Cop cars, at least in the Camaro/F-body case (option BC4) do not have any more engine work that the other cars that are sold. The only thing they have is a longer final gear, which gives them top speed instead of acceleration.

BC4 option Camaros used by police departments come with a 2.93 (or 2.94) final gear ratio. When the Camaro was still being made, anyone could order a Camaro with a 2.93 gear ratio, and it was no big deal. In fact, that is the standard gear ratio.

Police pursuit tactics call for the use of radio and air units. You can't outrun the radio.

You can if they don't know where you are going and you are out of sight. Some places in the world aren't just one big long highway.

[iGav]

Your comparing generalizations of diesels based on how they were built for cars 20 years ago?

No I was merely making a point of how the Diesel engine has evolved for passenger car use over the last 2 decades. ;) This has only happened because of thorough research and development on the Diesel engine to overcome it's shortcomings for passenger car application.

All I suggest, is that had the Rotary engine received similar levels of research and development by many different manufacturers as the Diesel has over the last 2 decades, is that the Rotary engine would be a much better engine, and that of it's current shortcomings would have been somewhat improved upon.

The problem with diesels in the past was developing HP. The biggest improvement to that came from turbo charging and improvements in diesel fuel refinement.

No... the biggest improvement to Diesel engines came when they switched from the early inefficiency of the 'pre-chamber', to unit injection and common-rail technologies (both are very, very different). This has improved the Diesel engine characteristics by improving power, refinement, fuel economy and reduced emissions.

Adding a Turbo charger is the 2nd biggest improvement. ;)

[MacBandit]

No I was merely making a point of how the Diesel engine has evolved for passenger car use over the last 2 decades. ;) This has only happened because of thorough research and development on the Diesel engine to overcome it's shortcomings for passenger car application.

All I suggest, is that had the Rotary engine received similar levels of research and development by many different manufacturers as the Diesel has over the last 2 decades, is that the Rotary engine would be a much better engine, and that of it's current shortcomings would have been somewhat improved upon.



No... the biggest improvement to Diesel engines came when they switched from the early inefficiency of the 'pre-chamber', to unit injection and common-rail technologies (both are very, very different). This has improved the Diesel engine characteristics by improving power, refinement, fuel economy and reduced emissions.

Adding a Turbo charger is the 2nd biggest improvement. ;)

Those changes were only made possible by the change in the fuel quality. Yes, direct injection is a massive leap forward and could even make 2-stroke engines viable for mass production automobile applications.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Okay, doing a bit of a thread veer, but...

...you hear the standard mantra of the anti-car busybodies, that we need to get people out of polluting cars and into mass transit instead. They seem to think that its a given that mass transit would be more fuel efficient than the private transportation. But what about the times when you have mass transit that is under-utilized. Haven't you seen busses and trains running with less than 100%, heck, even less than 50% of their capacity? How is that more efficient than a smaller car?

Plus, in mass transit, you have to run a car/bus on schedule, everytime. You can't just decide to stop and wait for more passengers before you pull away from the station.


Running with less than full capacity?! OF COURSE! that's exactly the point! Not enough people are riding these things, and that needs to change! Why are all these people sitting in their cars, not going anywhere in traffic while a half full bus tears past them in the bus lane? "ooh, i'm afraid to sit next to people i don't know! i wanna listen to the radio. its my alone time" jesus, people are so f***ing selfish, don't they realize that environment is more than some elusive thing that "tree huggers" care about. I've heard people say i couldn't care less about the environment. I don't think they understand what that word actually means.

Now i realize you actually do care about the environment, and you're just questioning one of our most common goals in making a cleaner world, that's cool, its good not to just accept things as they're given to you. Like hydrogen, bush is trying to impress people by paying attention to that stuff. Right now though, with the way electricity is generated in your country, hydrogen powered cars would probably only make things worse, since you need electricity to get the hydrogen out of the water. Only after you've set up large scale clean electricity generation systems will you be able to produce anywhere near the required amounts of hydrogen without causing too much damage. Anyways, let me try to make the point for public transit.

A city bus nowadays gets about 5 mpg. That sounds pretty crappy compared to cars, but lets make a new unit, call it a person-mile, the product of a person and the distance they travel. The buses in my city have a capacity of 80 people, giving such a bus a person-mileage of 400 person-mpg. Of course the gas mileage is probably significantly reduced with the mass of all those people. Lets exaggerate and say with 80 people, the bus only gets 3 mpg, that's still 240 p-mpg. Now lets say a honda civic is running with 5 people in it, that might give you 150 p-mpg. Practically all the cars i'm seeing on the road nowadays, though, have only 1 person inside, so maybe 30-35 p-mpg. To equal that, our bus needs to have maybe 7 people riding on it.
my city is pretty good about using public transit fortunately, and just about every rush hour bus fills up to the top, some less popular routes maybe filling up to about 50 people, or about 60% or so full. Lets say all 80 of those people in the full bus, get off and hop into honda civics. That's 80 4-cylinder engines, most likely idling in the traffic jam that has now ensued because of the added volume of vehicle.
That's the other wonderful thing about buses: they take a lot of cars off the road. A bus takes up the space of 3, maybe 4 cars on the road. If the bus is full, that's as much as 80 cars compressed into the space of 3 or 4. Think of the positive affect that has on traffic flow. And think of how much fuel is wasted, how much pollution is created, and how much time is wasted with traffic jams, especially since there might be maybe 1 out of a 1000 cars at this point which shuts its engine off instead of idling. Imagine looking down at a traffic jam, and taking groups of 80 cars, okay, lets say 50 just for comfort's sake, and replacing them with a single bus each. Traffic congestion would be a thing of the past, and that helps in so many ways. An idling car doesn't get very many miles to the gallon.

But hey, if that's not enough of a gain for you, a bicycle, like someone said, is the most efficient machine in the world. To me, it makes a lot of sense when the vehicle weighs less than what its transporting. This thing is a perfect example. And hey, for me, its a hell of a lot faster than busing and even driving downtown, and you can save on the gym membership too.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

oh yeah, and there's a lot being done to make buses cleaner and more efficient too. Seatle just got that fleet of 235 hybrid buses from GM, they're supposed to reduce fuel consumption by 60%. Up here in montreal, we just ran a pilot project with buses running on 30% bio diesel, a cleaner and renewable fuel.

[edesignuk]

So relevant to this conversation, he was going on about how the American cars get naff all power out of enormous engines, I had to laugh when thought of this thread :D

[dopefiend]

he was going on about how the American cars get naff all power out of enormous engines

naff ?

[edesignuk]

naff ?
Sorry, must be a (UK) english only expression :eek:

naff = crap / sh*t :D

[dopefiend]

Sorry, must be a (UK) english only expression :eek:

naff = crap / sh*t :D

Ah, I've downloaded some of those shows before. That guys a moron IMO when it comes to bikes/cars though :p

I like what he said about the Ford GT.

clicky (http://www.topgear.com/servlet/tg?DEST=/content/jsp/individualRoadTest.jsp&EVENT=1010&MAKE=Ford:B4&MODEL=GT:XX&roadTestNumber=01.html)

But what matters most is that as it disappeared off the motorway, I craned my neck for one last look at that phenomenal rear end. I never do that. Normally, I leave a car thinking only of the review to be written. But the GT was different. It had been a brief encounter. And the effect was just as powerful. Even now, weeks later, I simply cannot get the Ford GT out of my head.

[edesignuk]

Ah, I've downloaded some of those shows before. That guys a moron IMO when it comes to bikes/cars though :p
He is the man!
I like what he said about the Ford GT.
He's buying one ;)

[dopefiend]

He's buying one ;)

Lucky rich bastard lol

[MacBandit]

So relevant to this conversation, he was going on about how the American cars get naff all power out of enormous engines, I had to laugh when thought of this thread :D

I would kill to have that show on tv.

[dopefiend]

I would kill to have that show on tv.

Check out Spike TV, Speed Channel, ect. if your in the U.S. They have plenty of these shows on.

[takao]

hm normally i live in a city with 40.000 inhabitants..we have a 9 line bus system (coming every 15 minutes only)running biodiesel.. is it profitable: yes

here where study(130.000 people) there is a complex systems with 3 types:
1. a lot of normal diesel powered bus lines (those are rather a minority) every 10 minutes
2. 7-8 electric bus lines powered like a train with electricity from above every 5 minutes during the day and extra vehicles during rush hour (they have a diesel backup engine) kind this one (http://www.obus.info/obus/solingen/fahrzeuge/premier_at_18/sws_prem-at18_173_kronprinz.jpg)
3. 4 electric tram lines... arriving at the stations every 7 minutes
is it profitable: yes

and in one german city they are testing fuel cell powered vehicles

[MacBandit]

Check out Spike TV, Speed Channel, ect. if your in the U.S. They have plenty of these shows on.

I watch all of those channels and more but none of them have a show that compares to Top Gear IMO.

I've downloaded a quite a few Top Gear episodes and have never been disappointed. Granted they aren't always the best reviews but they are always informative and entertaining.

[iGav]

I've downloaded a quite a few Top Gear episodes and have never been disappointed. Granted they aren't always the best reviews but they are always informative and entertaining.

Ironically it's not always been like this... back in the '80's to mid '90's when William Woodard, Tony Mason etc used to present it was actually an informative and serious motoring show. It's only when Clarkson came on the scene in the early '90's that more humour began to creep in.

Clarkson left again in the late '90's and that's when Tiff, Quentin and Viki took over. Then a few years ago Channel 5 stole the above presenters and started their own motoring show called '5th Gear', which is fundamentally the same as how Top Gear was in the '90's, the BBC then axed Top Gear.

After a change of programming personnal at the BBC, Clarkson was bought back to host a new format of Top Gear, the Beeb had to come up with a new format to separate and distinguish it from the '5th Gear' clone, and the more chat show style was employed, along with a more freestyle and humours approach to content which arguably makes for more enjoyable TV, but less informative for real petrol heads.

And then there's 'The Stig'... heheheh ;)

I'm surprised that BBC America doesn't show it though.

[MacBandit]

.................I'm surprised that BBC America doesn't show it though.

I too am surprised. There is a poll at BBC.com that you can select any show they don't present in your market in the hopes that they will see enough demand to branch whatever show it is into your market. I've signed the one for Top Gear and had all of my friends do the same.

[mooshoo]

Talking about cops and my car....


I recently purchased a speed yellow 996 Turbo. I figured grey was too common, so I decided on the yellow just to be different. Well, it turns out that yellow is also a favorite of the highway patrol! I get followed a lot more often now by the 5-0. The next thing that I bought was a Valentine One, as an extra layer of protection. I've thought about getting a jammer, but it's illegal in most states. Plus, it sets off other detectors. The V1 has got to be the one of the best detectors out there. Saved my skin several times.

With the 996 I get a lot of the older folks with custom cars and vintage style cars wave at me and rev their motors. But honestly the torque in my car just outclasses them. I still wave back though. And once in a while, the give me the finger when I do take off! :rolleyes: