User Name
Password

Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Car Talk
Page 34 of 68 First Previous 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38  Next Last Thread Tools
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-12-04, 10:58

I disagree with some of what you state here, Xaqtly. Much is open to opinion, which is shaped by culture. When it comes to car culture, opinion is shaped more than anything by the cost of fuel. It's easy to say small cars aren't suitable for highway use when you can afford to use 3x more fuel for the same journey in a large car with an oversized engine.

I doubt American traffic flows faster than European traffic, except within cities. French drivers are a little bit crazy. They always drive about 20% faster than I consider safe for the conditions. This is the main reason why the road death rates in France are higher than in the UK, for example (note: even in France they're considerably lower than in the US, where safety was relatively good in the 1960s, but hasn't kept pace with improvements in Europe. In the last decade alone, road safety has massively improved across Europe. This is purely because of smart regulation).

The speed limit on French autoroutes is 130 km/hr (81 mph). The fast lane traffic cruises at about 150 km/hr (90+ mph). It contains lots of small cars. According to the statistics, these small cars that frequently do 90 mph kill their occupants less often than the larger cars in the US. Large does not necessarily equal safe.

In France, these small cars share the road with some of the world's highest density of heavy goods vehicles. The argument that small cars are unsafe in the US because other vehicles are bigger doesn't hold water.

The Smart ForTwo is of course far smaller than a C1 (though nearly as heavy). It truly isn't ideal for highway use, though I'd stop short of declaring it unsafe. In the few months I've had it, my C1 has sat four adults in comfort at 130 km/hr for six hours. It didn't complain.

US road safety regulations are antiquated and ineffective, as proven by the relatively poor improvement in road safety in the US compared to other countries in recent decades. The regulations are used primarily as a form of protectionism, not to improve safety. If I remember correctly, pedestrian safety is barely considered by the US regulations. It's all about vehicle crashworthiness in unrepresentative tests. US road safety statistics are pretty damning whatever way you look at them.

The best argument against small cars is that larger cars are more fun. I happen to disagree, but I can respect that view.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-12-04, 12:34

Poor road safty in North America has more to do with recless drivers using excessive speed (not moving with the flow of traffic) than the size of the cars. There are a lot of heavy transport trucks and soccer moms in SUVs on our highways (in Vancouver anyway) and I would not feel safe in a smart car, not for a second.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-04, 17:03

Fortwos never looked dangerous to me on freeways...When that fully loaded tractor trailer hits your full-sized SUV, you're going to be just as dead.

I just don't understand how they only manage 41mpg (87mpg for the all-electric version). That makes it a tough sell in a country where bigger is better and the only green number they care about is fuel economy (rather than recycleability, CO2s, etc.)

Last edited by Eugene : 2011-12-04 at 17:21.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2011-12-04, 22:30

Is that 41 city or highway?
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-05, 00:56

41mpg highway, 33mpg city.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-05, 09:31

Does it have enough torque? I think the top speed is given as 130kph, or some such. So combination of revs, gearing and aerodynamics killing the fuel economy?
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-12-05, 09:36

The ForTwo is a bit of distraction, I feel, since it isn't a small car of the type I'm advocating: cheap, light, very efficient, small on the outside, big on the inside. The ForTwo's appeal veered into areas like its urbane image, extreme parking flexibility, low tax bands, etc. Its aerodynamics were always poor and the petrol engines (M-B and Mitsubishi alike) had low thermal efficiency. The micro hybrid drive version (branded "mhd" in Europe, don't know about North America) is a bit better. The diesel models get far greater fuel efficiency, but there's only so much you can do with bad aerodynamics, surprisingly high weight, fat rear tyres, dodgy gearbox, etc.

Small cars don't have to be like the ForTwo. In fact, the ForTwo is unique even in Europe. That said, it's obviously been very successful in places like Paris, where its unique attributes do appeal.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-05, 11:48

Is the gearbox a sequential unit? The car must have lots of driveline loss, poor thermal efficiency, and bad aerodynamics to get beaten the way it does by more conventional and larger cars. It's probably really neat for winding through small narrow alleys though, like a much safer Piaggio Ape. Maybe they should make commercial cargo and vendor versions of the Smart...

.........................................
  quote
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-05, 19:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
I disagree with some of what you state here, Xaqtly. Much is open to opinion, which is shaped by culture. When it comes to car culture, opinion is shaped more than anything by the cost of fuel. It's easy to say small cars aren't suitable for highway use when you can afford to use 3x more fuel for the same journey in a large car with an oversized engine.
That's an exaggeration. There are plenty of small cars suitable for highway use here, but none of them weigh 1700 lbs or are as small as a K-class car. Also, my preference would be to still get a small to medium size car with a turbo diesel engine if fuel economy were my first priority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
The speed limit on French autoroutes is 130 km/hr (81 mph). The fast lane traffic cruises at about 150 km/hr (90+ mph). It contains lots of small cars. According to the statistics, these small cars that frequently do 90 mph kill their occupants less often than the larger cars in the US. Large does not necessarily equal safe.
Yep, and I don't think anybody was claiming it did. We're kind of off topic now. Your original argument was that cars should weigh 1700 lbs, something that is impossible in the US because of safety standards, desired amenities, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
In France, these small cars share the road with some of the world's highest density of heavy goods vehicles. The argument that small cars are unsafe in the US because other vehicles are bigger doesn't hold water.
Well, I'm not talking about all small cars. I'm talking about two things: Cars that weigh 1700 lbs, like you mentioned, and the smallest car available in the US which is the Smart. They are really terrible. Your C1 is the same thing as the Toyota Aygo, another car that isn't sold in the US, but it would probably be fine here, if it had a little more power. 67 HP with a curb weight of 2300 lbs is not exactly brisk, and frankly I don't think anybody would buy one here. They're having enough trouble selling Smart cars. But I do understand why you would buy one in Paris, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
US road safety regulations are antiquated and ineffective, as proven by the relatively poor improvement in road safety in the US compared to other countries in recent decades. The regulations are used primarily as a form of protectionism, not to improve safety. If I remember correctly, pedestrian safety is barely considered by the US regulations. It's all about vehicle crashworthiness in unrepresentative tests. US road safety statistics are pretty damning whatever way you look at them.
I agree, but that's neither here nor there. The point was that these regulations exist in the US, and to conform to them, a lot of weight has to be added to any given car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
The best argument against small cars is that larger cars are more fun. I happen to disagree, but I can respect that view.
I don't think anybody's making that argument either. There are plenty of small cars that are fun. In fact technically the BRZ can be classified as a subcompact car here, because it's only 167 inches long. I don't think the C1 or the Smart cars fall into the "fun" category, but they're designed to be fuel efficient commuters. Cars designed for good fuel economy usually sacrifice all other aspects of the driving experience that makes it fun.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-12-06, 04:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqtly View Post
Your original argument was that cars should weigh 1700 lbs, something that is impossible in the US because of safety standards, desired amenities, etc. [...] Your C1 is the same thing as the Toyota Aygo, another car that isn't sold in the US, but it would probably be fine here, if it had a little more power. 67 HP with a curb weight of 2300 lbs is not exactly brisk, and frankly I don't think anybody would buy one here. [...] The point was that these regulations exist in the US, and to conform to them, a lot of weight has to be added to any given car.
You've hypothetically added 600 lb to the C1 to make it meet US regulations. Why do you think a US model would have to weigh fully 600 lb more than the existing 4-star Euro NCAP model? The car is already more rigid and crashworthy than almost anything older than ten years. It has the same safety rating as a 2009 Subaru Impreza.

To ask the question differently, what in the NHTSA regulations makes cars weigh so much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqtly View Post
Cars designed for good fuel economy usually sacrifice all other aspects of the driving experience that makes it fun.
I disagree. Light weight, for example, is something shared by my C1 and a Formula 1 car. And increasingly, high fuel efficiency will legitimise the continued use of cars for fun.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-06, 18:45

Besides light, efficient and fun, another challenge for car makers will be to make those vehicles sized for regular sized people. It is possible to make a sports car with head and leg room, especially something with only two seats instead of four!

.........................................
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-06, 22:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
I disagree. Light weight, for example, is something shared by my C1 and a Formula 1 car. And increasingly, high fuel efficiency will legitimise the continued use of cars for fun.
Caterham!
  quote
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-07, 01:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
You've hypothetically added 600 lb to the C1 to make it meet US regulations.
No, the 2300 lb figure I got was from wikipedia. Apparently that's wrong, as other sites say it's either 1903 lbs or 1764 lbs. Using the 1764 lb number, the C1 is at about 26.32 lbs per HP, which is very slow. But that's why it gets good gas mileage, low HP and small engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
I disagree. Light weight, for example, is something shared by my C1 and a Formula 1 car. And increasingly, high fuel efficiency will legitimise the continued use of cars for fun.
What? Light weight is not even close to the only thing manufacturers use to get good gas mileage. Formula 1 cars get terrible mileage, so why would you even use that as an example? You're sort of defeating the point you're trying to make. You're making it sound like I have something against light weight, and I don't.

You originally said a car that weighs 2600 lbs was "too heavy for the road", which makes no sense and is not quantifiable. You also said 200 HP was "too powerful for the road" and I don't know what that means either. It really just sounds at this point like you're trying to justify your C1 rather than make reasonable arguments for why the BRZ is terrible. I don't disagree with you that light weight is good, not sure how many more times I'm going to need to say that.

I think the BRZ is a great car, personally. It handles really well and it's quick enough. And the simple fact is that in the US, a 2600 lb. car is not very common, especially not one that's actually fun to drive. It's good that Subaru's main focus was on getting the weight down because that will make this car better to drive.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-07, 02:01

Fun ~driver's~ cars are light...you can't really argue against that. Just look at the Ariel Atom, Caterham Superlights, etc. And what's going to have better fuel economy between two otherwise identical cars...the one with 300 pounds of weights added to it or the lighter one?

See the evolution of the BMW 5-series (and the utterly pointless 5-Series Gran Turismo) as a prime example of cars getting bigger and bigger.

Last edited by Eugene : 2011-12-07 at 02:55.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-12-07, 08:45

I think cars should be lighter, that's all (including the new BRZ). I've held that position for as long as I understood the core engineering principles involved in making cars. It's not a recent change of heart to justify my C1.

Granted, the BRZ is a step in the right direction, inasmuch as a 200-horsepower plaything can be a good thing. It's just that it's a baby step. In fairness, at least it's not another obese and overpowered GT (see Eugene's comment above).

The question that remains is whether the NHTSA regulations do in fact dictate higher weight than the ECE regulations used outside North America, or whether instead the North American market dictates higher weight (i.e. more space, more comfort, more electrics). Until I gather up the courage to look into the documents myself, I'm going to guess the market plays a bigger role than the regulators!
  quote
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-07, 13:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
Fun ~driver's~ cars are light...you can't really argue against that.
I can if you're trying to use it as an absolute. There are fun driver's cars that weigh more than an Atom, like the GT-R, or the Z06 Carbon, or the 458 Italia. You can't really argue against that.

What you meant to say was that driver's cars that are light are fun to drive. That makes sense and is quantifiable. But you and Dorian both seem to be under the impression that a car MUST be light in order to be fun to drive. Nope. And apparently I need to say this again, I don't disagree that light weight is a good thing. Light weight is obviously a good thing. That's not the point.

I'm getting the feeling that people who are claiming that the only way a car can be fun to drive is if it's ultra light weight have never driven a 500 HP Corvette. I dare you to drive one of those around a road course while trying to keep the smile off your face. We are obviously talking about compromising light weight in order to meet other demands like safety equipment, amenities, sound deadening etc., but as long as the appropriate design steps have been taken to ensure a good driving experience, like appropriate spring rates and suspension geometry, good weight distribution, low center of gravity, larger wheels and tires etc., then what's the problem?

And no sports car gets good gas mileage. Period. Doesn't matter how light it is. It has more to do with power output, gearing and how it's driven than weight. The more HP you put out, the lower your MPG will be. And yes, I realize that you can achieve good power to weight ratios with a lower power engine by reducing weight, but then you make the other compromises I mentioned above, i.e. safety equipment, sound deadening, amenities, etc.

And if you buy a car because it's fun to drive, do you really care about MPG? I don't. If MPG were my first priority I would have gotten a different car, like a VW TDi that gets 42 MPG or something like that. You can't buy a car that performs like an Atom that gets 40 MPG.

Dorian, for example, you said you think the BRZ should be lighter. How, exactly, would you accomplish that? What would you sacrifice to make it lighter? If you use lighter weight materials like carbon fiber, it becomes much more expensive. You can't remove safety equipment like airbags, the crumple zone, etc and still sell it in the US. The engine is only a 2 liter 4 cylinder, if you make that much smaller you will lose significant amounts of HP, far more than the weight you would drop, and the power to weight ratio would actually be worse, not better.

Saying you think the BRZ should be lighter is easy. Explaining how that would actually be possible is a lot harder. Subaru says the weight was the number one priority when building this car. If they could only get it down to 2689 lbs, then what is that telling you? It should be telling you that in order to make a car that people actually want to buy, in the US, with a power to weight ratio and handling that's good enough to make it fun to drive, and with all the standard equipment, amenities and safety equipment that we expect and is required by law, they couldn't get it any lighter than this.

There are lighter cars for sale here, like the Scion IQ for example. There's no US curb weight listed yet but Motor Trend says it's 2150 lbs. Compare that to the EU version, the Toyota IQ, which is 1896 lbs, and you might have a reasonable yardstick as to how much weight must be added to a small car like this in order to meet US standards. In any case, is the IQ fun to drive? Well in a word, no. It's a cheap econobox designed to get decent MPG. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not go crazy and compare it to cars that are designed to be fun to drive like the BRZ. The BRZ weighs more, and it's more fun to drive.

I agree, as I've said, with the idea that cars in general need to be lighter. But there is a difference between that and the reality of making it happen. You know automative engineers that work for major auto companies aren't stupid. I'm pretty sure they understand the importance of weight with regards to handling, acceleration and gas mileage. It's not good enough to just sit there and say "all cars should weigh less", because that's not realistic. There are reasons why cars weigh what they do, and the lightest ones are giving up a lot that the heavier ones have to offer. At the same time I believe cars that are excessively heavy like the Challenger could lose a lot of weight without giving up very much. Their priorities are obviously different than Subaru's or Toyota's, for example.
  quote
NosferaDrew
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to NosferaDrew Send a message via AIM to NosferaDrew Send a message via Skype™ to NosferaDrew 
2011-12-10, 23:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
Fun ~driver's~ cars are light...you can't really argue against that.
Here's an absolute: Manual transmission.
If you think you have a ~driver's~ car and it's an automatic, you are mistaken.
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-12-10, 23:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by NosferaDrew View Post
Here's an absolute: Manual transmission.
If you think you have a ~driver's~ car and it's an automatic, you are mistaken.
What if it's an electric car that only has one gear?
  quote
NosferaDrew
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to NosferaDrew Send a message via AIM to NosferaDrew Send a message via Skype™ to NosferaDrew 
2011-12-10, 23:48

I thought we were talking about a "drivers car".

While there may be an electric car that fits the bill, the best and most capable cars that I have driven have been rear wheel drive and manual transmission.

Nothing like that combo. So fun.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-11, 00:05

What about when 'manual' transmissions die out in the next decade when dual-clutch systems become the new standard?
  quote
NosferaDrew
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to NosferaDrew Send a message via AIM to NosferaDrew Send a message via Skype™ to NosferaDrew 
2011-12-11, 01:03

Once again, we are talking about a "drivers car".

Dual-clutch transmissions will become popular and likely ubiquitous, but that system still removes the tactile feel and driver input that many enthusiasts require.

Once you've gone there you have forfeited your claim to have a "Drivers car".

Manual transmission will not die out, IMO.
I believe that the great marks will always provide a manual transmission to those who desire it.

Lesser manufacturers will default to the populace and provide automatics, the great makers will play to the people who can afford and appreciate manual transmissions.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-11, 02:18

Lamborghini only provides an H-box and driver operated clutch on a single special edition Gallardo, AFAIK. Ferrari's newest cars are all DCT based. The McLaren MP4-12C as well.

Maybe these aren't necessarily driver's cars, but cars designed to shave every possible millisecond off lap times.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2011-12-11, 03:18

I have difficulty putting much stock in any definition of "drivers' cars" that excludes Lamborghini and Ferrari. Same goes for "the great makers" of cars.

Cars will change, drivers will change, and drivers' cars will change. The only constant will be each generation thinking that newer drivers/cars aren't true drivers/cars. It's sort of like how "kids these days" have always had it too easy, and how "music today" has totally sucked for at least sixty years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NosferaDrew View Post
While there may be an electric car that fits the bill, the best and most capable cars that I have driven have been rear wheel drive and manual transmission.
Operative words.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-12-11, 04:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by NosferaDrew View Post
I thought we were talking about a "drivers car".

While there may be an electric car that fits the bill, the best and most capable cars that I have driven have been rear wheel drive and manual transmission.

Nothing like that combo. So fun.
K... What if someone develops a gasoline-fueled engine that can put out near max-torque across a wide enough RPM range that it doesn't need more than one forward gear? Does that still count as a manual transmission?

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
  quote
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-12-13, 12:48

The manual vs. dual clutch flappy paddle gearbox issue is a good one - it's visceral driving pleasure with the manual vs. a flat out better gearbox. There's a reason the GT-R is a paddle-shifted manual and not a traditional 6-speed.

I also grew up with the understanding that automatics were for lazy commuters and manuals were for driving enthusiasts, and that was true for a while, but autos, or at least the paddle shifted dual clutch boxes, are now better at the business of making the most use of the power from your engine.

I still prefer a traditional manual, but I recognize that it's no longer the best way to drive a car fast. Even VW's DSG is pretty good, and you can get that in some pretty decently priced cars. I've driven some autos with paddle shifters, but they were just regular autos. It didn't make the driving experience any more fun.

I'm not sure what my cutoff point will be, but I'm sure there will be a day when I'll opt for a dual clutch flappy paddle over a standard manual. At some point, the benefits will outweigh the downsides.
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-12-13, 15:26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqtly View Post
I'm not sure what my cutoff point will be, but I'm sure there will be a day when I'll opt for a dual clutch flappy paddle over a standard manual. At some point, the benefits will outweigh the downsides.
Objectively speaking, they already do. But hey, if you prefer a stick shifter there's no reason not to use one. It's just a car — your car, in fact — set it up however you want.

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-12-13, 17:35

A computer-controlled single-clutch gearbox is will still probably be the best at laying all your horsepower down, but we're talking fractions of a fraction of a second. Even a modern slushbox like a ZF 8HP and brand new 9HP is supremely efficient.

City driving with a computerized single-clutch does make you feel like a novice driver though. Every time you lift off the brake at a stoplight and lurch forward...
  quote
addison
Formerly “AWM”
 
Join Date: May 2009
 
2011-12-31, 09:52

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the final demise of Saab. Kind of sad but completely predictable. They were doomed on their own but once GM bought them it was only a matter of time. I'm surprised they made it this far.

For those of you who are adventurous you can check out the liquidation sales going on. You can get a 9-3 for $20K or a 9-5 for $30k. Those are some steep discounts from sticker but probably closer to the real value than the sticker. Warranty is up in the air and it seems financing is almost impossible to get.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-01-08, 14:01

Pictures of the 2013 Cadillac ATS has leaked. All I have to say about it is......... MEH!!! It's way too bland.....











Though I dig the interior.









My personal choice, but not sure on the pattern work on the brushed aluminum......




giggity
  quote
Maciej
M AH - ch ain saw
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-01-08, 14:03

The body reminds me of the newer Buicks for some reason...
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 34 of 68 First Previous 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3G talk time BlueApple Apple Products 4 2009-04-14 15:23
Let's Talk Stimulus ezkcdude AppleOutsider 180 2009-02-16 15:54
Let's talk... hot sauces Wrao AppleOutsider 19 2006-12-03 10:53
OS 7.5.3 not able to talk to OS X.3.7 boris Genius Bar 4 2005-01-27 14:12


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova