If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schäfer" > wrote in message ... > Why forcing the customers to take a big engine, even the smallest > is good enough for 168kph!? Horsepower becomes a bullet-point that can be used in advertisements. American cars rarely have anything else going for them besides the horsepower. Good taste/style (Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum? yuck)handling, and fuel economy are not high on the list. Also, American drivers just suck. They need the horsepower to race each other to the next stoplight, and most also speed. Alot of them don't have the "left lane passing only" thing down, that's part of the problem. Left lane becomse the fast lane, and the right lane becomes the other passing lane. > > > the early VW Beetles had 25 horsepower, > > Really? We have the modell "Beetle" in Germany too, but it is a quite new > one > with much more hp. Or do you mean its archetype "Käfer" from 1946? The "early" Beetle being the circa WWII compact designed by Ferdinand Porsche that had the rear air-cooled gasoline/petrol engine. I would have liked to have bought a new Beetle with the TDI engine, but those are even harder to find. It's not the most practical car but it looks fun (a local dealer has a 2001 TDI model with automatic transmission for $12,000- but it's yellow). Here in the US they have a reputaton for being "chick cars"- driven mostly by women, or cars that women find cute (the Chrysler PT Cruiser is another one). But of course almost all of them are gasoline powered. It seems the Bug in the US has more nostalgia than in Europe. Maybe a factor is because the original Beetle was commissioned by Adolf Hitler, wanting to imitate the success of Henry Ford's Model T. Legend has it, he gave it it's distinctive front end (original called the "Kraft durch Freude Wagen", which morphed into the KDF-Wagen, the German equivalent of the US Jeep). It comes from a time period that alot of Europeans have worked hard to overcome. In the US, the Beetle is assosciated with 60's hippies, frugality in the 70's, and inexpensive fun, there's no Fascist overtones (my aunt used to drive a VW Bug- and it was incredibly cramped in the back, that's all I remember). |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > "N8N" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > "Assuming this is a serious comment, the older cars were also a hell of > a lot lighter. This is in part due to the mandatory safety equipment > that's been added (airbags, bumpers, etc.) and in part to the creature > comforts buyers now demand that weren't dreamed of years ago." > > And yet, some folks claim that new cars are lighter than older cars due > to CAFE standards. In absolute terms, yes. However, they are also generally smaller than the average car of 20-30 years ago - whereas older cars of the same size were often a lot lighter. > > "To illustrate, my '55 Studebaker coupe probably weighs less than your > new Jetta example - and has a 225HP V-8. By contrast, your early Civic > maybe weighed 2200 lbs. soaking wet (a guess, but I bet I'm not far > off.) So power-to-weight ratios are actually fairly comparable Civic > vs. Jetta, although the Jetta has a slight advantage. " > > My Jetta weighs about 3100 pounds. About the same as a Toyota Camry. > Some of that is no doubt due to the diesel engine having more weight. Not really. VW didn't "beef up" the engine casting any for the diesels, it was strong enough to begin with. > But > even a gas VW Beetle (the new one) weighs near 3000 pounds. Yeah, my point. You can't buy a much smaller car than that, and yet an old Stude (or Valiant, Nova, or other old "compact" car) weighed the same or less, while often offering more interior and trunk space. > > The original civic weighed 1500 lbs. That's less than a Honda Insight, > but I believe more than a VW Lupo (Euro minicompact, gets 80 mpg). Exactly (although I didn't realize it was that light.) About the only car available in the US in that weight range would be a Lotus. > > So the hp to weight ratio would be, with the MPG consumption: > > Jetta TDI wagon 0.03 45 mpg > Early Honda Civic 0.03 40+ mpg > 1988 Honda Civic CRX-HF 0.03 40+ mpg > 2005 Honda Civic: 0.05 36 mpg > 2005 Honda Accord: 0.06 29 mpg > 2005 Ford Focus 0.05 28.5 > 2005 Toyota Camry: 0.06 25 mpg > Dodge Viper: 0.14 16.5 mpg > > You can see a generalized trend towards more power and acceleration = > lower fuel economy. > > "Imagine both the > performance and economy that would be possible with a TDI-style engine > in a light body, like say an early Scirocco or Rabbit. But of course > people wouldn't buy such a minimalist vehicle, practical and economical > though it would be. " > > The problem with light cars- how to make them safe enough, and how to > ensure they handle well. Handling well is not a problem. It's easier to make a light car handle than it is a heavy one (it's fairly easy to make a heavy car generate good skidpad numbers, but transitional maneuvers like a slalom or autocross course become more and more difficult as weight goes up.) A Scirocco or Rabbit with GTI springs and struts and good tires handles more than well enough to embarass many more modern cars. "safe enough" - well are we concerned with active or passive safety? If by "safety" you mean good handling, acceleration, and braking that allows you to avoid an incident, then the light car wins hands down. If you are more concerned with NHTSA crash test ratings, then the heavy car has an advantage - but not as much as you'd think, there have been some very good small car designs in the past few years (example: the recent story on the comparitive crash performance of a Mini vs. an F-150) Now *ride* is where the heavy car shines - you can get away with softer (comparitively) springs in a heavy car while still maintaining acceptable handling, but to achieve the same ride in a light car you would have to lower the spring rate to the point of dangerous cornering performance. > That means you have to find materials and designs > that are both light and strong. Suppossedly the all-aluminum Audi A2 and > VW Lupo have good-to-acceptable crash ratings for their respective classes- > by European standards (which in some ways are better than the US's, in some > ways, more forgiving). yeah, but they'd never sell here. Why, I don't understand. I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to buy a Lupo GTI for instance. nate |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"N8N" > wrote in message oups.com... > Handling well is not a problem. It's easier to make a light car handle > than it is a heavy one (it's fairly easy to make a heavy car generate > good skidpad numbers, but transitional maneuvers like a slalom or > autocross course become more and more difficult as weight goes up.) .... If by "safety" > you mean good handling, acceleration, and braking that allows you to > avoid an incident, then the light car wins hands down. One thing I like about the European cars is the handling. Not the softest ride but you feel in control. My brother's mid-80's Volvo is the same way (I only wish he didn't treat it like crap, it's a nice car). OTOH, I was learning to drive with my dad's Ford Ranger and the thing feels like a nightmare with its springy, loose handling and high ride. I guess if you put alot of crap in the back, it rides better. But personally, I think it's a crap vehicle in general- I wish my dad would just dump it, he almost never uses it for anything practical and my brother ends up using it mostly to haul stuff for his deadbeat friends (no truck, no mooching). My dad used to have a little Mazda pickup (manual, the first manual car I ever remember) that, in practical terms, hauled as much stuff, and it also seemed to hug the ground a bit better. That's why I don't understand why people actually like to drive SUV's and trucks, the handling is miserable. It's only "safe" if you plan on crashing all the time. I recently took the road test and got my license (and I was disappointed in how patheticly easy it was, no wonder Florida drivers suck... I spent months practicing). What was scary was the number of teens taking the test driving old Chevy Tahoe's and Ford Explorers. I don't know what makes parents think that's a good car for a new driver. It's as stupid as giving your kid a Viper and hoping he doesn't wrap it around a tree. Car Talk on NPR had a joke a while back about Jetta drivers being the biggest maniacs on the road, the worst drivers, etc. I think it's jealousy. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:08:32 -0500, "Magnulus" >
> Today me and my mom drove about 120 miles overall. During the first >part of the trip, I drove around town doing a few things (going to lunch, >having the tires checked... tires are apparrently brand new), and it seemed >to consume not much fuel at all, I drove about 20 miles total. The diesel >car doesn't seem to suffer much at all in stop and go and short trips, the >fuel tank needle didn't move hardly at all for about the first 40 miles of >the tank. > > I went about 55 mph tops within the speed limit, and used cruise control >on a few small highways, going 45 mph. The engine RPM stayed around 1800 >RPM most of the time. On the way out to Patrick AFB (my dad is retired >Airforce), my mom drove and we took the toll road/expressway and got up to >about 75 mph for most of the trip. It seemed to suck up alot more diesel >and the RPM's were about 3500 at highest. Still, the combined mileage for >200 miles when we topped up the tank was 39 mpg, but I think the 75 mph >driving ate into the fuel a bit, and with slower driving it would have been >lower. The wind resistance seemed to pick up too, the wind was louder than >the engine. > > So I do think 55-60 mph is the fasted this car can go before the fuel >economy starts dropping off. Any thoughts? In the EPA fuel economy tests, >their highway driving is 60 mph tops. If it weren't for so many folks >being ticked off for driving 55 mph, I'd repeat the test at a later time >driving 55 mph on the expressway. > Well, I wouldn't put ANY stock whatsoever in the fact that your needle didn't move at all for the first 40 miles. I've seen this behavior in cars before. I suppose it could be that 75 is too much for your car and that its mileage at that speed really is worse than stop-and-go driving, but I doubt it. Stop-and-go driving really sucks down the gas mileage usually, although it does help if you don't stop all the way and your go is very slothful. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:03:40 -0500, "Magnulus" >
> >"Paul" > wrote in message ... >> Considering what most cars get in fuel milage these days, 39MPG in >> combined city/highway driving is pretty damn good, IMO. > > I suppose it's OK. I'd be curious to know what a Honda Civic Hybrid or >Prius gets doing the same route. I've heard that the trip computers on >these cars can be off, so the numbers I experienced during test driving >might not reflect the "real world" fuel economy. I don't have a fuel >economy computer in my Jetta, so I just use the old fashioned method. My fuel economy computer consistently overstates fuel economy - When I really want to know what I'm getting, I calculate it myself |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Z. Helm" > wrote in message ... > I suppose it could be that 75 is too much for your car and that its > mileage at that speed really is worse than stop-and-go driving, but I > doubt it. > Stop-and-go driving really sucks down the gas mileage usually, although > it does help if you don't stop all the way and your go is very slothful. Diesels suppossedly don't consume as much fuel at idle (the engine idles at around 400 rpm). I think a small engine consumes around a half gallon per hour. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Magnulus" wrote
> It seems the Bug in the US has more nostalgia than in Europe. Maybe a > factor is because the original Beetle was commissioned by Adolf Hitler,... My family and some of my friends also had an early Beetle. But I've never heard about Hitler in this emotional context, only about the unreliability. And they switched to Audi and Mercedes Benz etc. There are several things Hitler had promoted, like the "Autobahn". Although designated not for the public, but for the military, we nevertheless like to use those highways. There is no bad thought even about the "Me 109". Whe can distinguish between the engineers, the product and politicans. > In the US, the Beetle is assosciated with 60's hippies, > frugality in the 70's, and inexpensive fun, there's no Fascist overtones > (my aunt used to drive a VW Bug- and it was incredibly cramped > in the back, that's all I remember). Our "hippie car" is the even smaller Citroen 2CV, we call it "Ente" (duck). But today, we prefer useful cars like hatchbacks, station wagons, small vans... The Beetle is too small (inside) and expensive, the bigger and cheaper Golf (with the same technology) is #1 in Europe. And with gas prives about 1.50 $ / liter there are more 3-cylinder engines on the street as 8 cylinders. Common is 4 cylinders with about 1.5 liter displacement. Thomas |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schäfer" > wrote in message ... > Our "hippie car" is the even smaller Citroen 2CV, we call it "Ente" (duck). > But today, we prefer useful cars like hatchbacks, station wagons, > small vans... > The Beetle is too small (inside) and expensive, the bigger and > cheaper Golf (with the same technology) is #1 in Europe. The Golf's availability in the US is not great. Sure, you can order one from the factory, but dealers don't keep alot of them on their lots. I wanted to get a Golf, but I also needed a car quickly, so I got the small diesel station wagon. Hatchbacks in the US are harder to find, just the opposite of Europe. > And with gas prives about 1.50 $ / liter there are more 3-cylinder > engines on the street as 8 cylinders. Common is 4 cylinders with > about 1.5 liter displacement. Most small car engines in the US are around 2.3 liters; Chevy Cobalt, Ford Focus, etc. That's alot bigger. There are some cars like the Scion or the Toyota Echo with small engines; they are using a totally different marketting strategy than a "traditional" car. The Toyota and Honda engines also are alot more efficient than the engines American automakers are putting into their compact cars; the most fuel efficient cars in the US are either Japanese or German. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > > "Thomas Schäfer" > wrote in message > ... > > Our "hippie car" is the even smaller Citroen 2CV, we call it "Ente" > (duck). > > But today, we prefer useful cars like hatchbacks, station wagons, > > small vans... > > The Beetle is too small (inside) and expensive, the bigger and > > cheaper Golf (with the same technology) is #1 in Europe. > > The Golf's availability in the US is not great. Sure, you can order one > from the factory, but dealers don't keep alot of them on their lots. I > wanted to get a Golf, but I also needed a car quickly, so I got the small > diesel station wagon. Hatchbacks in the US are harder to find, just the > opposite of Europe. > > > And with gas prives about 1.50 $ / liter there are more 3-cylinder > > engines on the street as 8 cylinders. Common is 4 cylinders with > > about 1.5 liter displacement. > > Most small car engines in the US are around 2.3 liters; Chevy Cobalt, > Ford Focus, etc. That's alot bigger. > There are some cars like the Scion or the Toyota Echo with small engines; > they are using a totally different marketting strategy than a "traditional" > car. The Toyota and Honda engines also are alot more efficient than the > engines American automakers are putting into their compact cars; the most > fuel efficient cars in the US are either Japanese or German. Not ture - at least as far as German cars are concened - I pulled the following numebrs for the EPA fuel economy site. These are the highest mileage cars for each manufacturer. I did not include diesels, hybrids, mini cars, or CVT transmission models - Audi A4 1.8L Manual 22/31 BMW 325ci 2.5L Manual 20/29 Chevrolet Cobalt 2.2L Manual - 25/34 Ford Focus 2L Manaul - 26/35 Mercedes-Benz C230 1.8L Manual - 23/32 Honda Civic 1.7L Manual - 32/38 Toyota Corolla 1.8L Manual - 32/41 Volkwagon Golf 2L Manual - 24/31 In the case of the Corolla, this was a special high mileage model. As soon as you pick the "premium" model the mileage dropped appreciably. For instance, the "premium" Corolla with the 1.8L engine and manual transmission was rated 26/34. Ed |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"C. E. White" > wrote in message ... > Not ture - at least as far as German cars are concened - I > pulled the following numebrs for the EPA fuel economy site. > These are the highest mileage cars for each manufacturer. I > did not include diesels, hybrids, mini cars, or CVT > transmission models - Why not include hybrids, diesels, or mini cars, since they are just as viable forms of transportation? If you include hybrids and diesels, and look at a top ten list, then pretty much its going to be filled with Japanese and German cars. And why only manual transmissions, and no CVT's? Are you aware that the majority of Americans don't drive manuals? > In the case of the Corolla, this was a special high mileage > model. As soon as you pick the "premium" model the mileage > dropped appreciably. For instance, the "premium" Corolla > with the 1.8L engine and manual transmission was rated > 26/34. The average Corolla vs. the Focus has about 8-10 mpg more fuel economy. The Ford's Zetec engine only has technology to decrease emissions, not really economy or performance across different RPM's. OTOH, the Corolla has variable valve timing to increase the range that the engine can operate at efficiently, while at the same time also lowering emissions. Look at the Toyota Matrix- it's a fairly big car for a compact station wagon. Yet it gets about 38 mpg on the highway for the automatic. The Ford Focus station wagon sure doesn't get that. I think gas prices are in no small part accounting for the Japanese nibbling away at Detroit in the last few years. Last year, for the first time ever, more car shoppers rated fuel economy as more important than horsepower- though neither were at the top of the list. And more shoppers were interested in diesel engines in cars and trucks, and hybrids, too, though not by a huge amount (likely due to the limited selection), which again, probably reflects on the increase in gas prices. This is also why you are seeing more crossover SUV/MPV type vehicles and a disguised rebirth of the "station wagon". I think people are finally waking up. The bottom line is that small increases in fuel economy across a broad range of vehicles is a very worthy goal, perhaps more worthy than limited penetration of hybrid technology. A 1 mpg increase in fuel economy would provide the same amount of reduced demand for oil that drilling in the Alaskan ANWAR could supply. Raising MPG a little more would make the US independent of Saudi Arabian oil. It's a huge difference that only a small amount would make- if it applies to every new vehicle sold. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|