Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
vixapphire said:
I thought the Focus was originally built for/marketed in Europe as the Ford "Ka"? What a great name that is, by the way. Loads cooler/funnier than "Focus", and probably would attract some of the hipster cache currently owned by cars like the mini and the "new" beetle...

This is the Ka (my mums one actually)..

Ford_Ka_Front.jpg

Ford_Ka.jpg


And its dinky little 1.3 litre engine..

Ford_Ka_Engine.jpg
 
Great discussion! I'm enjoying reading all of your thoughts on this issue. I am going to graduate this next spring with a BS in Chemical Engineering, and I'm thinking about getting into the petrochemical sector.

Some of you really struck the core issue, that is, the amount of fossil fuel is finite. My hope is that with OPEC controlling more than 50% of the world's light crude, US oil companies will be forced to innovate or die, as it will be increasingly expensive to produce oil.

This will be hopefully be a great time for emerging fuel technologies, such as biodiesel.
 
As far as I'm aware biodiesel is charged the standard rate of tax on fuel in the UK - and therefore is pretty much guaranteed to never take off here.

LPG was promoted for a while, but even that seems to have become less advertised now.

The car makers really need to push one standard as then we can change to less environmentally damaging fuels quicker.
 
jiv3turkey748 said:
i love the new mustang

the gto is just ugly.... fast, but ugly
i like the charger, but why the heck is it a four door???

Finally, somebody else with a Mustang. Dare to race against my 65' GT Fastback?
 
The GTO is only ugly cause the Americans took an understated sleek design and messed it up with a more aggressive nose and stupidly-over-the-top bonnet scoops.

Now our Monaro looks like a bits and pieces rice boy racer instead of looking good.

And that's not a ute, this is a ute...

1148_30x09x2004111903AM.jpg


The Ford Tornado, turbocharged 4L straight six. Very F**king Quick.
 
I think it's funny, american cars and their horsepower - six litre engine to produce 300 odd brake, when my 2.5 litre V6 produces 355bhp OH YEAH!
 
SharksFan22 said:
Seriously though, I don't understand why people get so cranked up at gas guzzling vehicles. In my opinion (and it's only an opinion), if someone wants a car that gets 14mpg of $3+/gallon of gas then they're paying (dearly) through their wallet.

I think more people are bothered by the fact that these are dangerous vehicles that turn good drivers into bad drivers and bad drivers into killers.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

Focus is a decent car (I'm buying my girlfriend's next month), far from great and has nowhere NEAR the fit and finish of Hondas or Toyotas (no American cars do). It gets the job done, and I'm selling my Acura Vigor for the pleasure to drive it, but SERIOUSLY...
 
The US version of the Focus is the most recalled car in history, no?

I guess the Focus is a great car, but outside of North America. ;)

Lets see what happens with the transition towards the new Focus model in Europe and Australia. It's already starting to look like every other car on the road. I actually got used to the old Focus hatchback, and started to like it after a while.
 
Chundles said:
The GTO is only ugly cause the Americans took an understated sleek design and messed it up with a more aggressive nose and stupidly-over-the-top bonnet scoops.

Now our Monaro looks like a bits and pieces rice boy racer instead of looking good.

And that's not a ute, this is a ute...

1148_30x09x2004111903AM.jpg


The Ford Tornado, turbocharged 4L straight six. Very F**king Quick.

El Camino... Redeux...
 
jayscheuerle said:
far from great and has nowhere NEAR the fit and finish of Hondas or Toyotas (no American cars do)...

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Generally I won't defend US car build quality but in the case of the Foci I've driven the quality was very good, maybe not 100% up to the Japanese, but very good.

bigandy said:
I think it's funny, american cars and their horsepower - six litre engine to produce 300 odd brake, when my 2.5 litre V6 produces 355bhp OH YEAH!

What is it? a Noble? In which case it's a turbo'd Mondeo engine, so of course it's going to have a high specific output. Take that six liter engine you're talking about and slap a couple turbos on it and you'll have some very nice numbers - look at Lingenfelter Corvetttes, for example. The Ford 2.5L V6 from the Contour/Mondeo is a really nice engine though.

Anyway the huge truck engines the OP was talking about are designed for big fat torque at low RPM - not high specific output. A more appropriate engine for comparison would be Chevy's LeMans-proven LS7. In road car form this 7 liter engine produces 505hp and spins up to 7000 RPM. In race form it produces 100+ more horsepower and revs significantly higher. It might not win any battles over specific power but it is very reliable with an excellent torque curve. In contrast the Ford GT uses a supercharged 5.4L, 550hp V8 that has over 100 hp per liter.
 
jayscheuerle said:
El Camino... Redeux...


Actually, Noooo, it's the evolution of the world's first ute, the Ford Coupe Utility from back in the 30's.

We've never had the El Camino here.

This is the baby of the range, the daddy comes with a 5.4L V8 but I reckon the Turbo 6 is cooler.
 
Chundles said:
Actually, Noooo, it's the evolution of the world's first ute, the Ford Coupe Utility from back in the 30's.

We've never had the El Camino here.

This is the baby of the range, the daddy comes with a 5.4L V8 but I reckon the Turbo 6 is cooler.

An ute with those wheels? Are spinners an option along with a Bazooka sub?

That looks squarely aimed at the gangsta boy market...
 
jayscheuerle said:
An ute with those wheels? Are spinners an option along with a Bazooka sub?

That looks squarely aimed at the gangsta boy market...

This is Australia - hardly the place for the "gangsta boy" market. This is more built for tradesmen who don't need to carry a huge load but want something they can go do some serious circle work with in the paddock after work. That or try and pull the chicks at the Deniliquin Ute Muster.

One thing I can guarantee, you're more likely to hear Slim Dusty on that stereo than Slim Shady.
 
I still think the current Prius models are pretty cool looking...:)

And that isn't too "new" in my opinion. Just some new plastic, blah blah blah. :rolleyes:
 
EJBasile said:
You know you can say that but unless gas gets over $5 SUVs won't be going anywhere. Some SUVs get the same fuel economy as minivans. What about pickup trucks. Think of how many people buy them and don't use the pickup function of them.

The popular pick-ups are MUCH cheaper than the popular SUVs and are only popular in rural areas where they are much more likely to be useful... dirt roads, more snow and less plows, etc. They also are real trucks built on a much more solid truck frame.

As far as minivans go, lets look at an example (data from fueleconomy.gov):
Honda Odyssey 2005: 28mpg highway, 20 city annual fuel costs: $1820
Honda Pilot 2005: 22mpg highway, 19 city, annual fuel costs: $2201
Both cars seat seven, but the odyssey uses 20% less fuel on average. Furthermore, maybe not in the case of the pilot, but in the case of many SUVs, the drivers are more likely to be driving alone when compared to minivans. I'm gonna take a guess and say the average # of people riding in the average large SUV is about 1.5, and in a minivan it's like 2.5. Now the avg mpg/person is about 30 for the SUV and is like 60 for the minivan. That makes the minivan twice as economical a car.

SUVs, especially the most glamourous ones like the big infinitis, H2s, Land Cruisers, all get horrid gas mileage, and are mostly bought in more urban areas where they don't even have the potential to be used for their off-road capabilities. People buy them not only because they are a fad, but because they feel safer and they ARE safer - the reason that they are safer is because there are other SUVs on the road that will slaughter any regular car in a collision. they feel safer because you are up high and can see the road. When you are in a car, that giant suburban in front of you blocks your entire field of vision, but if you are in that suburban you can see right over those tree huggers in their prius. You could get in an accident with an insight and the insight could be totalled while you only have a dented bumper.

The bottom line is that the gas guzzler tax needs to be doubled so that SUVs are priced like the unnecessary glamourous wastes that they are. In addition to that, car safety ratings should put equal weight on the damage a vehicle can do to other vehicles and the actual safety that vehicle provides for its passengers. Those dangerous vehicles need to be clearly labelled as such and, a tax should be applied to cover all money that is lost from the damage that vehicle can potentially do.

No SUV that gets less than 20mpg should cost less than 40k.

EDIT: I realize that was a rant and a rather off-topic one at that. The GMC are more work vehicles I suppose. Anyway, take it for what it is.
 
cheekyspanky said:
This is the Ka (my mums one actually)..
Haha, that's kinda cute. 55mpg on the highway too. Probably would only cost like 11k in the US too. I'd buy one.
 
SharksFan22 said:
Wow, I understand you're passionate with your opinion, but I humbly ask why someone should pay an arbitrary amount just because they get less than 25mpg. I think I see where you're going and agree with it, I just disagree with the methodology. And, while I'm not a real SUV fan myself, I believe that if soemone wants to use a vehicle that consumes more energy per mile than another, they should only pay for that incremental use. Doing so keeps things level and spreads the pain out equally.

I would suggest that through the gradual tax on gasoline that goes back into roads and only roads. Once the automakers lose all their sales of low-mileage cars due to the rising gas taxes, forcing them to figure out how to make fuel efficient "saleable" cars. I think at that point, we'll see your goal of ridding the roads of SUVs due to attrition as well as alternative energy sources coming to market due to demand.

edit - fixed typos

It seems to me that you think a free market will lead us down the right path. Labor laws, meat quality laws, Anti-monopoly laws are here for a reason. 100% free market doesn't work! Corporations will abuse in any way they can to make money and they need government to guide them down a slightly more moral path. Oil is destroying our environment and without a doubt has played a large part in much of america's foreign policy over the last 15 years. A lot of people with a lot of money are invested in the oil business and they will use their influence to keep the US dependent on their product. The only reason we don't have these laws is because of this influence and the only thing that's going to change things is if people stop being passive about things and fight for the future of our planet and our nation and for what is good sound sense.
 
maxterpiece said:
It seems to me that you think a free market will lead us down the right path. Labor laws, meat quality laws, Anti-monopoly laws are here for a reason. 100% free market doesn't work! Corporations will abuse in any way they can to make money and they need government to guide them down a slightly more moral path. Oil is destroying our environment and without a doubt has played a large part in much of america's foreign policy over the last 15 years. A lot of people with a lot of money are invested in the oil business and they will use their influence to keep the US dependent on their product. The only reason we don't have these laws is because of this influence and the only thing that's going to change things is if people stop being passive about things and fight for the future of our planet and our nation and for what is good sound sense.


well said max...
 
quagmire said:
Ok, before I begin; yes this is a gas guzzling SUV. It is just a sweet design. The 4800 gets 290 HP, the 5300 iron and aluminum block gets 320 HP, the 6.0 iron block gets 350 HP, the aluminum block 6.0 gets 355 HP, and the 6.2 gets 400 HP. The 6.2 engine will gain GM's new 6 speed auto.

http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=34

http://gm-trucks.com/home/content/view/235/1/1/0/



looking at those interior pictures i dont see how my girlfriends suppose to lean over and a....well, rub my shoulders.
 
WTF?

All you people are crazy! The new Tahoe is leaps and bounds over the old one. I mean hell, look at the interior of both of them. I know it looks better than my mom's GMC Yukon XL inside and out. But I personally think the GMC version will look better.

BTW, some mom's do not want a van and have 3 kids like mine does, so she needs a Yukon XL. So lay off!
 
Wow.. don't you guys realize that not everyone can survive in a itty bitty Prius! Some people need the utility and the capacity that these "ugly gas guzzlers" provide. How can you be so close minded? People need them, its not like people who drive SUVs drive them to Guzzle gas and to ruin the enviroment. And since we're on an Apple Fan site, GM has the most models with iPod compatability due to the addition of the AUX line in on all models. Granted its not a full integration, its a great step forward.
I think you guys need to do a little research about your beloved japanese companies that are building those "green" hybrids. If you look at the MPG of the Toyota highlander, its around 15 mpg average. Look at the new Tahoe, over 20 mpg with a hybrid coming. and the hybrid will add around 25% to that already good fuel economy.
Pull your heads out.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.