But that doesn't mean cars the size of a VW Golf, a Citroën Xsara, or of an Alfa 147 wouldn't be a reasonable option in North America (only one out of those three is available there), it's simply that they tend to prefer bigger cars with bigger engines, and they can afford them.
Nothing wrong with that.
I take exception to that actually. There is something wrong with that. Bigger cars = more petrol = more wastage of oil = greater CO2 = enhanced environmental degradation.
That is quite causal, I realise, but I hope it gives over the general gist of the point I am trying to make.
The problem? If this kind of attitude remains with US car buyers, then any hopes of reducing CO2 emissions, any hopes of trying to reduce environmental degradation go right out of the window. Hopefully the fuel increases in the US will bring into sharp focus many of the environmental issues that face the world at the moment.
MarcUk. Here in the US we've been brainwashed that BIGGER is better. When you get on one of our freeways on a typical week day, you will see MANY people driving huge SUVs....1 person in the car.
There's a couple reasons for that. Gas is cheap, and bigger is better/safer.
I have a feeling you'd be horrified by the number of raised trucks(monster trucks)with enormous wheels you'd see here in SoCalifornia.
And I agree with low-fi. We won't have oil forever. We need oil for a shit load of products besides gasoline. It's borderline irresponsible to keep building fuel INefficient "tanks" that most don't really need. And I won't even touch the environmental aspect.
When I went to the Dallas Auto Show it was hard for me to find an American car that was compelling to buy. The American manufacturers have spent the bulk of their efforts on the Trucks and SUV's. So when looking for a small car that makes good sense one is left wishing for more from the American providers. It seems the American providers with the exception of truck's, mustangs, firebirds, etc. have strictly focused on making a large number of boring sedans that for what ever reason appeal to "older" senior citizens. Where are the smart, sleek, VW GTI / Golf, mini cooper-s type of cars from American Providers? I am sorry but the Chevrolet Cavalier is a piece of plastic crap with awful fit and finish. GM has no clue how to offer a car with class in the compact size. Ford has done much better with the Focus. At least it is an effort. But on the whole I think the market has such a void from American providers in the way of small cars that many like myself will have to look to other sources.
But that doesn't mean cars the size of a VW Golf, a Citroën Xsara, or of an Alfa 147 wouldn't be a reasonable option in North America (only one out of those three is available there), it's simply that they tend to prefer bigger cars with bigger engines, and they can afford them.
Nothing wrong with that
I take exception to that actually. There is something wrong with that. Bigger cars = more petrol = more wastage of oil = greater CO2 = enhanced environmental degradation.
?Enhanced degradation??
Next: ?greatly improved deterioration, now in a redesigned package, it's ozone-firendly, gentle on the dolphins, and feels your pain?.
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
Quote:
That is quite causal, I realise, but I hope it gives over the general gist of the point I am trying to make.
The problem? If this kind of attitude remains with US car buyers, then any hopes of reducing CO2 emissions, any hopes of trying to reduce environmental degradation go right out of the window. Hopefully the fuel increases in the US will bring into sharp focus many of the environmental issues that face the world at the moment.
Environmental issues aren't all that different on both sides of the Atlantic, which suggests that the matter of ?bigger or smaller cars? plays a minor part in them.
But perhaps driving a Perodua Nippa might make one feel less of a ?sinner?, but wouldn't change all that much.
Admonishing another for being a ?sinner? driving a Buick Park Avenue, might make one feel even better, not that it would change anything either.
Next: ?greatly improved deterioration, now in a redesigned package, it's ozone-firendly, gentle on the dolphins, and feels your pain?.
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
Please cut the sarcasm.
Yes, and it is up to the economically more developed countries (EMDCs) to help 'guide' (for want of a better way of putting it) economically less developed countries (ELDCs) through the stages of their development, having hopefully learned the lessons from rapid industrialisation of the 1920s onwards.
As far as figures go, here are some per capita tonnes of carbon dioxide released in 1988:
USA: 5.6t/per capita/year
UK: 2.7t/per capita/year
China: 0.6t/per capita/year
India: 0.2t/per capita/year
So the US does have an issue with their CO2, whatever the source. As does the UK. Old data, but hey, it makes my point.
From that above image, it looks like ELDCs are quite good by comparison. Affluent countries use the most energy, but they also have the means to move to less polluting sources too.
Quote:
Environmental issues aren't all that different on both sides of the Atlantic, which suggests that the matter of ?bigger or smaller cars? plays a minor part in them.
No, they are not that much different. Except for the fact that Bush pulled the USA out of Kyoto, and decided to renegade on a lot of the environmental policies put in place by Clinton. A minor part they play, yes, but still an important one.
Quote:
But perhaps driving a Perodua Nippa might make one feel less of a ?sinner?, but wouldn't change all that much.
No, but it is a start, right? Or at least trying to reduce the MPG has got to be a good thing in the long run.
Quote:
Admonishing another for being a ?sinner? driving a Buick Park Avenue, might make one feel even better, not that it would change anything either.
It doesn't make me feel better - mainly because I'm not a religious person I just hope that people start to question the need for larger cars that really are not required for travelling around cities. I just don't see a need. It is an issue over here - people drive Range Rovers for a status thing, but it is really impractical, and concerns are voiced regularly.
An attitude that environmental concerns aren't of concern just isn't practicable, that is all I'm trying to say.
As far as figures go, here are some per capita tonnes of carbon dioxide released in 1988:
USA: 5.6t/per capita/year
UK: 2.7t/per capita/year
China: 0.6t/per capita/year
India: 0.2t/per capita/year
So the US does have an issue with their CO2, whatever the source. As does the UK. Old data, but hey, it makes my point.
That ?there is something wrong with big cars?? No it does not make such point.
Quote:
From that above image, it looks like ELDCs are quite good by comparison. Affluent countries use the most energy, but they also have the means to move to less polluting sources too.
As can be seen on this map, Norway is of the same colour as the U.S.A., and yet Norwegians drive smaller cars.
Quote:
No, they are not that much different. Except for the fact that Bush pulled the USA out of Kyoto, and decided to renegade on a lot of the environmental policies put in place by Clinton.
Except that it doesn't make ?bigger cars? such culprits, whatever the other ?trasngressions? committed by those American renegades, may be.
Quote:
A minor part they play, yes, but still an important one.
How is that minor part important?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But perhaps driving a Perodua Nippa might make one feel less of a ?sinner?, but wouldn't change all that much.
No, but it is a start, right? Or at least trying to reduce the MPG has got to be a good thing in the long run.
?At least trying? might soothe a conscience feeling guilty for all that unrighteous degrading of the environment (which is why I talk of ?sinner?, because such attitude is basically a religious one, and a puritan one at that).
Quote:
It doesn't make me feel better - mainly because I'm not a religious person?
Yet you are sermoning that ?big cars are wrong? and blame them for the problem of air pollution although their part in it is minor.
Quote:
I just hope that people start to question the need for larger cars that really are not required for travelling around cities. I just don't see a need.
?Need? is quite a subjective thing. While we could agree on the basic needs required for decent living, that doesn't mean anything above it should be proscribed.
Quote:
It is an issue over here - people drive Range Rovers for a status thing, but it is really impractical, and concerns are voiced regularly.
Some people do.
And some people may drive 2CVs for status as well; back in the nineteen-sixties or seventies the Volkswagen company capitalised on it with adverts in North America calling people to ?live below their means?.
Quote:
An attitude that environmental concerns aren't of concern just isn't practicable, that is all I'm trying to say.
There are scientific, political, social, technological means with which the problem of air pollution can be addressed. Making cars above a certain size an evil symbol of that problem and then attacking the symbol is not one of those means.
Immanuel Goldstein will only realise that it isn't necessary to drive such big cars when he needs to pay the same price for Gasoline as we in europe already do.
Doing 50,000 miles in an American Car at 10MPG at $2.00 a gallon will cost $10,000
Doing 50,000 miles in a Euro Car at 40MPG at $2.00 a gallon will cost $2,500
If you're doing 50K a year, thats a saving of...well its too simple to print.
For every million American cars thats an extra $7.5 billion spent on fuel.
If there are 100 million cars in America, thats $750 billion going to waste. At $40 an oil Barrel, thats 18,750,000,000 (over 18 billion) barrels that you don't use.
Who exactly is the cause of the oil shortage anyway?
So now my person is to become the subject matter, apparently.
Quote:
Originally posted by bka77
Immanuel Goldstein will only realise that it isn't necessary to drive such big cars when he needs to pay the same price for Gasoline as we in europe already do.
If you haven't read or have trouble understanding, I am not arguing that ?it is necessary to drive such big cars? (obviously, since I don't own a car at all and prefer public transportation), but that it is not wrong to drive them.
I also tend to address what people say rather than what I want to believe they say, and I tend to address people themselves rather than talk about them.
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
I'd like you to support this hypothesis, at least with relation to the United States. Are you sure bigger cars isn't a major contributor to pollution in the United States?
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
I'd like you to support this hypothesis, at least with relation to the United States.
In the course of this discussion, a map was kindly provided (not by myself, mind you) which displays countries coloured according to their ratio of Carbon Dioxide emission per person.
There, both the U.S.A. (notorious for its land yachts) and Norway (where most cars driven are of small and medium sizes as in the rest of Europe), are shown in the ?over fifteen tonnes per annum? category.
Quote:
Are you sure bigger cars isn't a major contributor to pollution in the United States?
I observe that countries where smaller cars are driven can pollute about as much (per person) as countries where bigger cars are driven.
I'd like you to support this hypothesis, at least with relation to the United States.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
In the course of this discussion, a map was kindly provided (not by myself, mind you) which displays countries coloured according to their ratio of Carbon Dioxide emission per person.
There, both the U.S.A. (notorious for its land yachts) and Norway (where most cars driven are of small and medium sizes as in the rest of Europe), are shown in the ?over fifteen tonnes per annum? category.
I observe that countries where smaller cars are driven can pollute about as much (per person) as countries where bigger cars are driven.
Neither example supports your claim. I saw them both initially but I've asked for clarification because there's no correlation between the maps that have been posted and what you claim.
Hell I thought there were two major technologies coming to cars that I can't find anything about now.
1. There was supposed to be some bus or something that signlas would traverse. Everything would link to this bus and some devices could communicate with other devices. I thought it was called I8 or ID bus or something.
2. I heard that cars are moving to a electrical system based on 48 volts to support the extra components now being put in cars like GPS, powered devices etc.
There isn't an engine of similar output that gets close to it's mileage in an application like the Corvette.
of 375-450HP engines:
current M5 V8
Various turbo Porsche flat 6
Select Ferrari flat crank V8 or V12's
and even some 300HP "turbo" cars
All get handily beaten by the good'ol 5.7OHV's fuel consumption numbers, and this was before cylinder de-activation.
An engine is a pump, there are other means to fuel economy besides shrinking displacement.
Also don't forget the LS6. Anyway, as far as reported mileage numbers go, they are usually quite a bit off. Always refer to the number posted by car reviewers or personal testing.
Someone earlier (I think bka77) asked for numbers. Do your own research, using the method above. But look for example at the Camaros, GTOs first and then the Corvette and CTS-V second. The latter two use the LS6 engine, which is frickin' awesome. While it's large volumetrically, it has better power-to-weight than a BMW V8 or 12, makes ludicrous amounts of low-end torque, and it gets to max power faster (lower redline). It's very large and has more surface area, so it can dissipate heat better, and there's no complex timing belts or anything to add friction. It can run a very lean fuel-air mixture when you're cruising down the highway, and gets quite good mileage.
It also does fairly well in the C5R as a race engine, and makes the CTS-V one of the fastest luxury sedans on the road. The supercharged V8 in the E55 makes more power, but gets worse mileage N/A, and, beyond that, whenever you add forced induction to an engine you have to be a bit liberal with the fuel-air mixture because premature detonation is not cool. Turbo-ing is a bit better since it's more thermally efficient than supercharging (gets energy from exhaust), and doesn't spool up linearly. So turbo cars only suck gas when you pound on the pedal. But Daimler a'int using turbos anywhere. The "Kompressor" they speak of is what we call a supercharger.
As far as more normal cars go, from personal experience I can tell you that a BMW 325 gets worse mileage than most GM offerings using the 3400, 3500, or 3800 blocks. It also needs 92+ octane fuel, whereas the GM 6's can drink regular. I would rather have a BMW 3 series than most GM V6 cars since it's more of my kind of car, but it DOES get worse mileage and requires more refined fuel. (hence more total crude yet).
As far as more normal cars go, from personal experience I can tell you that a BMW 325 gets worse mileage than most GM offerings using the 3400, 3500, or 3800 blocks. It also needs 92+ octane fuel, whereas the GM 6's can drink regular. I would rather have a BMW 3 series than most GM V6 cars since it's more of my kind of car...
That's the rub, isn't it? The problem hasn't ever really been the engines, just the cars they put them in.
Now GM makes plenty of good reliable vehicles, but sport cars have been a weak area for the past 20 odd years.
There's a new 3900 V6 coming to replace the 3800. This will be a three valve pushrod engine good for about 270hp.
If it runs as reliably as the 3800, and with the 15% improvement in fuel economy that has been promised, that's going to be a very good engine. Good power, excellent reliability, smaller and lighter than an equivalent DOHC engine, and class leading mid-large car fuel economy.
But where will they use it?
It's only about as long as an inline 4. Why not put it in a small car, like the upcoming solstice? Instead of a 200ish hp supercharged ecotec, why not a torque monster 3.9?
I'm willing to bet that the overall fuel economy would be about the same. Part of the rationale of making it bigger was so that most of the time 3 cylinders would deliver enough power/torque for cruising and low speed driving.
That's the rub, isn't it? The problem hasn't ever really been the engines, just the cars they put them in.
Now GM makes plenty of good reliable vehicles, but sport cars have been a weak area for the past 20 odd years.
There's a new 3900 V6 coming to replace the 3800. This will be a three valve pushrod engine good for about 270hp.
If they start to make more Holden's state side I'll be much more enthusiastic about the vehicles themselves. The problem is that GM thinks that they don't have the image to go out and release an FR compact sedan with, say, the 3900 in it, get a good california company to design it, and then have me buy it without even considering foreign options.
We'll see what happens, but I'm not really that impressed with the whole "American Revolution" thing. Why are they wasting time with crap like the SSR when they could just as well build a car like the one above? Nobody is going to buy the SSR, and yet they went ahead and made it, damn well knowing that no one will buy it.
Comments
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But that doesn't mean cars the size of a VW Golf, a Citroën Xsara, or of an Alfa 147 wouldn't be a reasonable option in North America (only one out of those three is available there), it's simply that they tend to prefer bigger cars with bigger engines, and they can afford them.
Nothing wrong with that.
I take exception to that actually. There is something wrong with that. Bigger cars = more petrol = more wastage of oil = greater CO2 = enhanced environmental degradation.
That is quite causal, I realise, but I hope it gives over the general gist of the point I am trying to make.
The problem? If this kind of attitude remains with US car buyers, then any hopes of reducing CO2 emissions, any hopes of trying to reduce environmental degradation go right out of the window. Hopefully the fuel increases in the US will bring into sharp focus many of the environmental issues that face the world at the moment.
There's a couple reasons for that. Gas is cheap, and bigger is better/safer.
I have a feeling you'd be horrified by the number of raised trucks(monster trucks)with enormous wheels you'd see here in SoCalifornia.
And I agree with low-fi. We won't have oil forever. We need oil for a shit load of products besides gasoline. It's borderline irresponsible to keep building fuel INefficient "tanks" that most don't really need. And I won't even touch the environmental aspect.
Fellowship
Originally posted by low-fi
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But that doesn't mean cars the size of a VW Golf, a Citroën Xsara, or of an Alfa 147 wouldn't be a reasonable option in North America (only one out of those three is available there), it's simply that they tend to prefer bigger cars with bigger engines, and they can afford them.
Nothing wrong with that
I take exception to that actually. There is something wrong with that. Bigger cars = more petrol = more wastage of oil = greater CO2 = enhanced environmental degradation.
?Enhanced degradation??
Next: ?greatly improved deterioration, now in a redesigned package, it's ozone-firendly, gentle on the dolphins, and feels your pain?.
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
That is quite causal, I realise, but I hope it gives over the general gist of the point I am trying to make.
The problem? If this kind of attitude remains with US car buyers, then any hopes of reducing CO2 emissions, any hopes of trying to reduce environmental degradation go right out of the window. Hopefully the fuel increases in the US will bring into sharp focus many of the environmental issues that face the world at the moment.
Environmental issues aren't all that different on both sides of the Atlantic, which suggests that the matter of ?bigger or smaller cars? plays a minor part in them.
But perhaps driving a Perodua Nippa might make one feel less of a ?sinner?, but wouldn't change all that much.
Admonishing another for being a ?sinner? driving a Buick Park Avenue, might make one feel even better, not that it would change anything either.
?Enhanced degradation??
Next: ?greatly improved deterioration, now in a redesigned package, it's ozone-firendly, gentle on the dolphins, and feels your pain?.
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
Please cut the sarcasm.
Yes, and it is up to the economically more developed countries (EMDCs) to help 'guide' (for want of a better way of putting it) economically less developed countries (ELDCs) through the stages of their development, having hopefully learned the lessons from rapid industrialisation of the 1920s onwards.
As far as figures go, here are some per capita tonnes of carbon dioxide released in 1988:
USA: 5.6t/per capita/year
UK: 2.7t/per capita/year
China: 0.6t/per capita/year
India: 0.2t/per capita/year
So the US does have an issue with their CO2, whatever the source. As does the UK. Old data, but hey, it makes my point.
From that above image, it looks like ELDCs are quite good by comparison. Affluent countries use the most energy, but they also have the means to move to less polluting sources too.
Environmental issues aren't all that different on both sides of the Atlantic, which suggests that the matter of ?bigger or smaller cars? plays a minor part in them.
No, they are not that much different. Except for the fact that Bush pulled the USA out of Kyoto, and decided to renegade on a lot of the environmental policies put in place by Clinton. A minor part they play, yes, but still an important one.
But perhaps driving a Perodua Nippa might make one feel less of a ?sinner?, but wouldn't change all that much.
No, but it is a start, right? Or at least trying to reduce the MPG has got to be a good thing in the long run.
Admonishing another for being a ?sinner? driving a Buick Park Avenue, might make one feel even better, not that it would change anything either.
It doesn't make me feel better - mainly because I'm not a religious person
An attitude that environmental concerns aren't of concern just isn't practicable, that is all I'm trying to say.
Originally posted by low-fi
As far as figures go, here are some per capita tonnes of carbon dioxide released in 1988:
USA: 5.6t/per capita/year
UK: 2.7t/per capita/year
China: 0.6t/per capita/year
India: 0.2t/per capita/year
So the US does have an issue with their CO2, whatever the source. As does the UK. Old data, but hey, it makes my point.
That ?there is something wrong with big cars?? No it does not make such point.
From that above image, it looks like ELDCs are quite good by comparison. Affluent countries use the most energy, but they also have the means to move to less polluting sources too.
As can be seen on this map, Norway is of the same colour as the U.S.A., and yet Norwegians drive smaller cars.
No, they are not that much different. Except for the fact that Bush pulled the USA out of Kyoto, and decided to renegade on a lot of the environmental policies put in place by Clinton.
Except that it doesn't make ?bigger cars? such culprits, whatever the other ?trasngressions? committed by those American renegades, may be.
A minor part they play, yes, but still an important one.
How is that minor part important?
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But perhaps driving a Perodua Nippa might make one feel less of a ?sinner?, but wouldn't change all that much.
No, but it is a start, right? Or at least trying to reduce the MPG has got to be a good thing in the long run.
?At least trying? might soothe a conscience feeling guilty for all that unrighteous degrading of the environment (which is why I talk of ?sinner?, because such attitude is basically a religious one, and a puritan one at that).
It doesn't make me feel better - mainly because I'm not a religious person?
Yet you are sermoning that ?big cars are wrong? and blame them for the problem of air pollution although their part in it is minor.
I just hope that people start to question the need for larger cars that really are not required for travelling around cities. I just don't see a need.
?Need? is quite a subjective thing. While we could agree on the basic needs required for decent living, that doesn't mean anything above it should be proscribed.
It is an issue over here - people drive Range Rovers for a status thing, but it is really impractical, and concerns are voiced regularly.
Some people do.
And some people may drive 2CVs for status as well; back in the nineteen-sixties or seventies the Volkswagen company capitalised on it with adverts in North America calling people to ?live below their means?.
An attitude that environmental concerns aren't of concern just isn't practicable, that is all I'm trying to say.
There are scientific, political, social, technological means with which the problem of air pollution can be addressed. Making cars above a certain size an evil symbol of that problem and then attacking the symbol is not one of those means.
Doing 50,000 miles in an American Car at 10MPG at $2.00 a gallon will cost $10,000
Doing 50,000 miles in a Euro Car at 40MPG at $2.00 a gallon will cost $2,500
If you're doing 50K a year, thats a saving of...well its too simple to print.
For every million American cars thats an extra $7.5 billion spent on fuel.
If there are 100 million cars in America, thats $750 billion going to waste. At $40 an oil Barrel, thats 18,750,000,000 (over 18 billion) barrels that you don't use.
Who exactly is the cause of the oil shortage anyway?
\\iknowitsgrosselyoversimplified
Originally posted by bka77
Immanuel Goldstein will only realise that it isn't necessary to drive such big cars when he needs to pay the same price for Gasoline as we in europe already do.
If you haven't read or have trouble understanding, I am not arguing that ?it is necessary to drive such big cars? (obviously, since I don't own a car at all and prefer public transportation), but that it is not wrong to drive them.
I also tend to address what people say rather than what I want to believe they say, and I tend to address people themselves rather than talk about them.
There isn't an engine of similar output that gets close to it's mileage in an application like the Corvette.
of 375-450HP engines:
current M5 V8
Various turbo Porsche flat 6
Select Ferrari flat crank V8 or V12's
and even some 300HP "turbo" cars
All get handily beaten by the good'ol 5.7OHV's fuel consumption numbers, and this was before cylinder de-activation.
An engine is a pump, there are other means to fuel economy besides shrinking displacement.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
I'd like you to support this hypothesis, at least with relation to the United States. Are you sure bigger cars isn't a major contributor to pollution in the United States?
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
There are many factors contributing to air pollution, ?bigger cars? is hardly the overwhelming one, as any short walk in any Third-World metrolpolis' main thoroughfare might indicate.
I'd like you to support this hypothesis, at least with relation to the United States.
In the course of this discussion, a map was kindly provided (not by myself, mind you) which displays countries coloured according to their ratio of Carbon Dioxide emission per person.
There, both the U.S.A. (notorious for its land yachts) and Norway (where most cars driven are of small and medium sizes as in the rest of Europe), are shown in the ?over fifteen tonnes per annum? category.
Are you sure bigger cars isn't a major contributor to pollution in the United States?
I observe that countries where smaller cars are driven can pollute about as much (per person) as countries where bigger cars are driven.
Originally posted by Bunge
I'd like you to support this hypothesis, at least with relation to the United States.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
In the course of this discussion, a map was kindly provided (not by myself, mind you) which displays countries coloured according to their ratio of Carbon Dioxide emission per person.
There, both the U.S.A. (notorious for its land yachts) and Norway (where most cars driven are of small and medium sizes as in the rest of Europe), are shown in the ?over fifteen tonnes per annum? category.
I observe that countries where smaller cars are driven can pollute about as much (per person) as countries where bigger cars are driven.
Neither example supports your claim. I saw them both initially but I've asked for clarification because there's no correlation between the maps that have been posted and what you claim.
1. There was supposed to be some bus or something that signlas would traverse. Everything would link to this bus and some devices could communicate with other devices. I thought it was called I8 or ID bus or something.
2. I heard that cars are moving to a electrical system based on 48 volts to support the extra components now being put in cars like GPS, powered devices etc.
Originally posted by Matsu
LS1.
There isn't an engine of similar output that gets close to it's mileage in an application like the Corvette.
of 375-450HP engines:
current M5 V8
Various turbo Porsche flat 6
Select Ferrari flat crank V8 or V12's
and even some 300HP "turbo" cars
All get handily beaten by the good'ol 5.7OHV's fuel consumption numbers, and this was before cylinder de-activation.
An engine is a pump, there are other means to fuel economy besides shrinking displacement.
Also don't forget the LS6. Anyway, as far as reported mileage numbers go, they are usually quite a bit off. Always refer to the number posted by car reviewers or personal testing.
Someone earlier (I think bka77) asked for numbers. Do your own research, using the method above. But look for example at the Camaros, GTOs first and then the Corvette and CTS-V second. The latter two use the LS6 engine, which is frickin' awesome. While it's large volumetrically, it has better power-to-weight than a BMW V8 or 12, makes ludicrous amounts of low-end torque, and it gets to max power faster (lower redline). It's very large and has more surface area, so it can dissipate heat better, and there's no complex timing belts or anything to add friction. It can run a very lean fuel-air mixture when you're cruising down the highway, and gets quite good mileage.
It also does fairly well in the C5R as a race engine, and makes the CTS-V one of the fastest luxury sedans on the road. The supercharged V8 in the E55 makes more power, but gets worse mileage N/A, and, beyond that, whenever you add forced induction to an engine you have to be a bit liberal with the fuel-air mixture because premature detonation is not cool. Turbo-ing is a bit better since it's more thermally efficient than supercharging (gets energy from exhaust), and doesn't spool up linearly. So turbo cars only suck gas when you pound on the pedal. But Daimler a'int using turbos anywhere. The "Kompressor" they speak of is what we call a supercharger.
As far as more normal cars go, from personal experience I can tell you that a BMW 325 gets worse mileage than most GM offerings using the 3400, 3500, or 3800 blocks. It also needs 92+ octane fuel, whereas the GM 6's can drink regular. I would rather have a BMW 3 series than most GM V6 cars since it's more of my kind of car, but it DOES get worse mileage and requires more refined fuel. (hence more total crude yet).
Originally posted by Splinemodel
As far as more normal cars go, from personal experience I can tell you that a BMW 325 gets worse mileage than most GM offerings using the 3400, 3500, or 3800 blocks. It also needs 92+ octane fuel, whereas the GM 6's can drink regular. I would rather have a BMW 3 series than most GM V6 cars since it's more of my kind of car...
That's the rub, isn't it? The problem hasn't ever really been the engines, just the cars they put them in.
Now GM makes plenty of good reliable vehicles, but sport cars have been a weak area for the past 20 odd years.
There's a new 3900 V6 coming to replace the 3800. This will be a three valve pushrod engine good for about 270hp.
If it runs as reliably as the 3800, and with the 15% improvement in fuel economy that has been promised, that's going to be a very good engine. Good power, excellent reliability, smaller and lighter than an equivalent DOHC engine, and class leading mid-large car fuel economy.
But where will they use it?
It's only about as long as an inline 4. Why not put it in a small car, like the upcoming solstice? Instead of a 200ish hp supercharged ecotec, why not a torque monster 3.9?
I'm willing to bet that the overall fuel economy would be about the same. Part of the rationale of making it bigger was so that most of the time 3 cylinders would deliver enough power/torque for cruising and low speed driving.
Originally posted by bunge
Neither example supports your claim.
Or so you say, as your saying so shows.
Originally posted by Matsu
That's the rub, isn't it? The problem hasn't ever really been the engines, just the cars they put them in.
Now GM makes plenty of good reliable vehicles, but sport cars have been a weak area for the past 20 odd years.
There's a new 3900 V6 coming to replace the 3800. This will be a three valve pushrod engine good for about 270hp.
If they start to make more Holden's state side I'll be much more enthusiastic about the vehicles themselves. The problem is that GM thinks that they don't have the image to go out and release an FR compact sedan with, say, the 3900 in it, get a good california company to design it, and then have me buy it without even considering foreign options.
We'll see what happens, but I'm not really that impressed with the whole "American Revolution" thing. Why are they wasting time with crap like the SSR when they could just as well build a car like the one above? Nobody is going to buy the SSR, and yet they went ahead and made it, damn well knowing that no one will buy it.