Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Why does Toyota get 27 MPG from the 4 cylinder Highlander while others
> are
> > > lucky to get 21 MPG from SUVs with similar weight and horsepower?
> >
> > Horsepower figures don't mean a whole lot... A 4 banger can make the
same
> > horsepower as my 302, but you have to rev it to the sky and it doesn't
> have
> > anywhere near the torque. Torque is what moves things. It the other SUVs
> you
>
> I once did a comparison in more detail. Some engines get far better MPG
> than others with the same torque and a similar powerband. Some engines
are
> 30-50 year old designs and their makers are too lazy/poor to update them.

Some engines with a 30-50 year old design have a very good design that is
very practical even today. The Ford Widsor family of engines (260-351) was a
great design. Very reliable, durable, and quite efficient. A 289 or 302 can
achieve roughly 23-25 MPG in a full size car. That's the same mileage as the
new 4.6 mod motors get in full-size cars

> > > > emissions requirements too. That is why the station wagon was killed
> in
> > > > favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical.
The
> > > > tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons.
> > >
> > > In the carb era of 20-30 years ago.
> >
> > A full-size station wagon with a small V8 will not not realistically get
> > more than 20-22 MPG and still meet emissions requirements.
>
> Who said they need a V8 any more? We've moved past the 1950s where V8s
were
> necessary. A decent 6 cylinder has more than enough torque, and surpasses
> the power of many old V8s. They can get 250HP/250 Ft. Lb. without
trouble.
> They use variable valve timing, fuel injection, overhead cams, etc.

250 HP is good, but 250 ft/lbs is not much at all. I wouldnt' wanna tow a
boat with only 250 ft/lbs. I mean honestly, my little 302 makes at least 325
ft/lbs and is not considered a torquey motor by any stretch of the word.
With proper gearing though it can pull a boat or a car and still be
practical to cruise on the highway. A 6-banger needs deeper gears to do the
same job, and will be less practical on the highway and most likely use just
as much gas if not more as a result of the gearing and extra throttle
opening.

> > > No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely
uncool.
> > SUVs and minivans have that same personal and are entirely uncool,
except
> > the real SUVs... That is the Samurai's, Bronco's, etc. that are not
plush
> > mom-mobiles.
>
> The overwhelming majority of the buying public does not agree. You've got
> to either know the model or look underneath at the suspension to see if
it's
> truly offroad capable. There are gradations for sure, and some like the
> Honda CR-V are minivans with a thin disguise.

Many of the new SUVs I see sit quite low to the ground, which is just plain
silly for a 'truck' that is said to be good for off-road use. Furthermore,
several of the new SUVs are FWD vehicles, with 'part time' 4WD. The Ford
Escape for example has the more tiny ridiculous looking rear end I've ever
seen. It's some sort of independant suspension thingy that I doubt would
stand up to any real off-road use.

> > > You are forgetting the 1980s. Chrysler created the wildly successful
> and
> > > practical mini van to replace the station wagon. It grew to have the
> > Soccer
> > > Mom persona and became uncool.
> > Minivans do not have the towing capabilities of a full-size, full-frame
> car
> > with a V8. Other than that they are fairly practical, but station wagons
> are
> > definitely 'cooler'.
>
> Not any cooler in my mind. Wagons are snoozers, except for a handful of
> models. They are virtually the *same* as a city SUV except for the ride
> height. The Ford Escape is built on the Mazda 626 sedan, the Highlander
is
> built on a Camry sedan.

They still don't have the towing capacity of a full sized wagon with a frame
and a decent sized motor, and don't have the same handling of station wagon
due to a higher center of gravity.

> > > No, SUVs grew in popularity because they were close to a mini van but
> more
> > > cool and had off road functionality.
> > The "off road functionality" of most SUVs is laughable. Hell, my car can
> do
> > just as well off road or in the snow.
>
> Some SUVs. The *style* of the SUV was so popular that they *turned* them
> into a city cars following the success of the borderline Ford Explorer and
> Jeep Cherokee in the late 1980s. There are no black and whites any more.
> The Porsche Cayenne is a good example. It's not meant for offroad use but
> the mix of ride height, capacity and performance has turned it into their
> most popular model. Call it a 'crossover' if you will.

This I'll definitely agree with you on. The lines are blurring. To me it
appears as if it's a move back towards the station wagon, but trying to make
it look more like a truck yet not be a truck. I don't get it. I'd rather
have a station wagon over any of those silly looking thigns any day, but
that's just me I suppose... If anything it's at least interesting to watch
and see what they come up with next.

Cory

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> Some engines with a 30-50 year old design have a very good design that is
> very practical even today. The Ford Widsor family of engines (260-351) was
a
> great design. Very reliable, durable, and quite efficient. A 289 or 302
can
> achieve roughly 23-25 MPG in a full size car. That's the same mileage as
the
> new 4.6 mod motors get in full-size cars

The fundamental design may be fine, but it's clear that some have figured
out how to improve mileage versus close competitors. Toyota and Honda often
get 10% to 20% better mileage than similar cars from other companies. My
old car was updated with a new model that gets 20% more HP and 10% better
MPG--same size & slightly heavier car. The new Corvette gets 400HP/28 MPG
highway with a 3200 lb curb weight and 6.0 liter V8.

http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/

> > necessary. A decent 6 cylinder has more than enough torque, and
surpasses
> > the power of many old V8s. They can get 250HP/250 Ft. Lb. without
> trouble.
> > They use variable valve timing, fuel injection, overhead cams, etc.
>
> 250 HP is good, but 250 ft/lbs is not much at all. I wouldnt' wanna tow a
> boat with only 250 ft/lbs. I mean honestly, my little 302 makes at least
325
> ft/lbs and is not considered a torquey motor by any stretch of the word.

Side question: What percentage of car buyers cares about towing at all?
Maybe 10%? Maybe?

> With proper gearing though it can pull a boat or a car and still be
> practical to cruise on the highway. A 6-banger needs deeper gears to do
the
> same job, and will be less practical on the highway and most likely use
just
> as much gas if not more as a result of the gearing and extra throttle
> opening.

Oh please! I've driven cars with tiny 4 cylinder engines fast enough to
beat 95% of the traffic, even with a load and uphill. Yes they require
downshifting, but so what? 5 speed automatics are common now. This really
isn't an issue, and isn't an issue at all for the vast majority of drivers.
Driving a small high RPM engine is different than a big one, but certainly
not a challenge.

> Many of the new SUVs I see sit quite low to the ground, which is just
plain
> silly for a 'truck' that is said to be good for off-road use. Furthermore,
> several of the new SUVs are FWD vehicles, with 'part time' 4WD. The Ford
> Escape for example has the more tiny ridiculous looking rear end I've ever
> seen. It's some sort of independant suspension thingy that I doubt would
> stand up to any real off-road use.

They sit low to the ground to improve handling--see below. The Escape took
the underpinnings from a Mazda 626 sedan. It was never meant for off road
use.

> > Not any cooler in my mind. Wagons are snoozers, except for a handful of
> > models. They are virtually the *same* as a city SUV except for the ride
> > height. The Ford Escape is built on the Mazda 626 sedan, the Highlander
> is
> > built on a Camry sedan.
> They still don't have the towing capacity of a full sized wagon with a
frame
> and a decent sized motor, and don't have the same handling of station
wagon
> due to a higher center of gravity.

Towing is not the end-all be-all function of a vehicle! I would severely
question the handling of any frame based wagon versus a crossover SUV,
especially something like the Cayenne. Frames are strong but lousy for
handling.

Our expectations have also moved far up from decades ago. You can do
wonderful offroad work with a pretty tiny motor and proper low gears, as
found in old Land Rovers.

> > most popular model. Call it a 'crossover' if you will.
> This I'll definitely agree with you on. The lines are blurring. To me it
> appears as if it's a move back towards the station wagon, but trying to
make
> it look more like a truck yet not be a truck. I don't get it.

Yes, exactly. You do get it. It's easier to get in and out of a taller
vehicle. It's much easier to see around other trucks, vans and SUVs in a
taller vehicle. SUVs that use a car frame and front wheel drive ride like a
car and have more space inside. Those with street-based AWD systems can get
through snow without putting on tire chains. In short, these vehicles
address the needs of most city dwellers.

They are poor choices for serious off road work and not the best choice for
towing. In all other cases they make sense.

>I'd rather
> have a station wagon over any of those silly looking thigns any day, but
> that's just me I suppose... If anything it's at least interesting to watch
> and see what they come up with next.

Ford's new 500 sedan and Freestyle SUV have met in the middle. The sedan
rides about 6" higher than most, the SUV rides lower than most. Neither is
attractive to me.

-John

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "Generic" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely
uncool.
> >
>
> Ah, you didn't live in the day of the 1957 Chevy Nomad!

I did and had a real boner for it. Unfortuanately the bank account was
anemic. Did have a 57 210 v8 3 on tree in 58 tho.

Harry K

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> Wow, a Focus, in my mind, is somewhere between compact and sub-compact.
When
> I drove a Prelude for a few months I considered it a sub-subcompact. I'm
> 6'3" so I don't fit well in most small cars. They get very uncomfortable
> after about 20-30 minutes.

I'm so glad I'm only average height, 5'10. My cousin is about 6'4 and he
complains about everything size related, esp. cars. When I was on the
playgrounds, the kid who was the tallest always won. Looking at the latest
presidential elections, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. (John
Kerry was several inches taller than our Fearless Leader). The only thing
that sucks about my stature; my arms are longer than my legs. I either have
to hem up my pants or roll them up in cuffs (I also have a big head and a
longish neck... so I must be part alien).

>That is why the station wagon was killed in
> favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical. The
> tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons.

I just don't think that's why station wagons sucked wind so bad for so
many years. It has more to do with marketting. SUV's are relatively cheap
to make, they could be portrayed as greenish naturey status symbols, and
people thought erroneously that they are safer than cars (they aren't
necessarily- they're alot more likely to roll over, for one thing- and many
of them have lousy roofs. Also, some of them, particularly older models,
were a little too rigid and didn't have enough crumple zones). Remember, a
large chunk of automobile accidents are single vehicle- the driver just
loses control of the car. A big Neon-eating SUV won't do you any good if
you lose control with your off-road tires and swerve into a tree, pole, or
rail.

> There
> you have it: Less room, worse mileage, worse handling, and no more station
> wagons thanks to the tree huggers.

The Volvo S40 wagon gets mid 20's for gas mileage, and it's a very safe
car and has airbags out the wazoo.

The Toyota Matrix is a kind of station wagon based on the Corolla (it
looks similar to an elongated Prius). According to the local Toyota dealer,
it's also fairly popular. It also gets around 33 mpg.

>
> Anyhow, I believe we've just about got to the maximum mileage/efficiency
> that can be had from gasoline engines. That is why you see hybrids and
> various 'gimmicks' like cutting the fuel to some cylinders.

Hybrids aren't gimmicks. A full hybrid car will get alot more mileage. A
hybrid Prius gets about 50-60 mpg or so in city driving, whereas a purely
gas car of comparable size/weight will get about 22-32 mpg.

However, the real reason I believe that hybrids are being done the way
they are (in small numbers) is because they were hoping to sell 2-3 gas
guzzlers for every hybrid they sell. That's why demand for the Prius is
outstripping supply. They just make more profit on the Landcruisers and
Canyonaros out there than on a Prius. I still like the idea of a hybrid,
but to be realistic, they aren't keeping up with the obvious demand (it's so
bad that if you really want a Prius as an instant take-home it's 32,000
dollars, FOR A USED CAR- which is ridiculous, but oh well). Of course, the
government recently ruled that you can't use a hybrid vehicle as a CAFE
credit against truck/SUV's with below CAFE fuel efficiency.

I agree that CAFE has some problems, specificly the fact that autos that
people are buying to transport their sprogs to school and their spreading
butts to Starbucks are being categorized as "trucks". But the real solution
is to improve the design of cars, to increase the stringency of crash tests
(for instance, the current NHTSA side impact test is wholely inadequate,
considering that head injuries make up the majority of fatalities and
serious injuries in side impact collisions- yet the test involves a
car-sized sled, and not an SUV or pickup size), and so on. They need to
get more creative other than just adding more mass to vehicles.

Again, a heavier car is not necessarily safer. All things being equaly,
the heavier car will be safer in a multivehicle collision (which is not all
collisions, BTW), but in the past, esp. during the early 90's when most of
these vehicle fatality statistics were created, the cars on the road often
had poor crumple zones, poor seatbelts, just overall poorer design.

> Everyone wants
> more mileage, but these days all the easy ways to get mroe mileage have
> already been taken as far as they can go and still meet emissions
> requirements.

Turbochargers and more efficient engines have mostly not been tried, at
least by American automakers. Why spend the extra money when you can just
slap a big engine into a truck chasis and tack on several thousand in pure
profit? Many of the cars in the US are the same way. People really don't
need that 240hp in their Accords, that 0-60 in 8 seconds, they just think
they do. It's a marketting point.

The Crown Vic I rarely drive (It's my dad's, and then it belonged to my
grandpa) has a V-8 ,but I hardly ever use more than a little accelerator on
it. You just don't need to do jackrabbit starts in the real world, and
nobody really needs to be racing around in stop-and-go city traffic. So it
really didn't need that huge engine my dad had stuck in it (actually, it was
the only thing readily available).

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> > > great design. Very reliable, durable, and quite efficient. A 289 or
302
> > can
> > > achieve roughly 23-25 MPG in a full size car. That's the same mileage
as
> > the
> > > new 4.6 mod motors get in full-size cars
[snip]
> > MPG--same size & slightly heavier car. The new Corvette gets 400HP/28
MPG
> > highway with a 3200 lb curb weight and 6.0 liter V8.
[snip]
> New technology is typically more efficient and allows for more power with
a
> given displacement. As for the Corvette... Couple an efficient engine with
> appropriate gears to match the 6 speed overdrive transmission then throw
it
> in a low profile aerodynamic body and of course it'll get good mileage. GM

And back to my original point. Why not put 6 speeds in other cars and maybe
beat your 23-25 figure? You can make aerodynamic sedans and wagons too.

> way to save itself. The point is, for people who actually have practical
use
> for a full-size car a V8 is a necessity. A large V8 may be a nicety.
Either
> way you slice it you need torque to move a big car that loaded up, be it
> just people and luggage in the car or towing.

No. My point is that modern engines are much more effecient than old ones.
If you want old school standard V8 performance you can duplicate it with a
6. If you want old school 6 performance you can duplicate it with a 4. If
you want to improve on old V8 performance you need a new V8.

> > Driving a small high RPM engine is different than a big one, but
certainly
> > not a challenge.
> I drove a Honda Prelude for a while. It was an '86 with a 1.8l 4 banger
with
> dual carbs and a 5 speed. It was a fun little car. Very quick and handled
> nicely. It was small, light and geared pretty high. The engine cruised at
> quite high RPM on the highway, and that little 4 banger at high RPM sure
> made an annoying sound as all 4 bangers do.

I guess you've never heard the silent modern 4s with balance shafts. In any
case they can do the job. Europeans favor diesels nowadays, and they make
gasoline torque figures look pale. You are used to V8s and they do the job,
but there are other ways of doing it.

> torque) you need deeper gears to maintain comparable acceleration. When I
> presented this point I was not talking about small relatively lightweight
> cars. the topic we are talking about is full-size cars and station wagons,
> not smaller, lighter cars with 4 cylinder engines that are designed to
have
> acceptable performance with said engines.

Europeans think 4x4s should all be diesels...for the torque...

>Of course any of
> the ads are jsut with the car driving on grass or a dirt road or waht have
> you, but still, the image portrayed is not realistic to what the car is
> capable of with or without modifications. It's a silly design in my
opinion,
> anyone would be better off with a car, minivan, or truck.

They put Jeeps and 4Runners in those places.

> > Towing is not the end-all be-all function of a vehicle! I would
severely
> > question the handling of any frame based wagon versus a crossover SUV,
> > especially something like the Cayenne. Frames are strong but lousy for
> > handling.
> Tell that to GM with regards to their Corvette which you mentioned
> previously in your post.

I hope you are joking! The modern Corvette is more like a go kart chassis
with fiberglass panels covering it up. The frame is the car. It's not much
like traditional numb and sloppy body on frame cars.

> > car and have more space inside. Those with street-based AWD systems can
> get
> > through snow without putting on tire chains. In short, these vehicles
> > address the needs of most city dwellers.
> I drove my Galaxie through 10"-11" of snow on unplowed roads last night.
> Didn't get stuck and wasn't too difficult. I've seen AWD cars get stuck in
> less snow.

I guess the Galaxie was the end of technology and modern cars should copy
it.

> To me it just seems silly to get such a vehicle that sits a good bit
higher
> than any cars, may be lower to the ground than some cars, handles worse
than
> most cars, and gets worse mileage. Sure none of those things are quite as
> bad as with a full fledged truck based SUV, but still, to me it just
doesn't
> make snese when there are better and more practical vehicles to be had for
> less money.

Minivans and city SUVs *hold more inside* and provide the driver with *a
better view of the road*. It's a trade off and many people choose these
features over the flaws.

> too offensive and at least is something different. It's a pity Ford
decided
> to waste a good name with history on it. The Galaxie 500s and Fairlane
500s
> were great cars, the new 500 is a dissapointment when expected to live up
to
> the heritage of the name.

Again, the Galaxie was the final word for car design and technology.

-John

"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > great design. Very reliable, durable, and quite efficient. A 289 or
> 302
> > > can
> > > > achieve roughly 23-25 MPG in a full size car. That's the same
mileage
> as
> > > the
> > > > new 4.6 mod motors get in full-size cars
> [snip]
> > > MPG--same size & slightly heavier car. The new Corvette gets 400HP/28
> MPG
> > > highway with a 3200 lb curb weight and 6.0 liter V8.
> [snip]
> > New technology is typically more efficient and allows for more power
with
> a
> > given displacement. As for the Corvette... Couple an efficient engine
with
> > appropriate gears to match the 6 speed overdrive transmission then throw
> it
> > in a low profile aerodynamic body and of course it'll get good mileage.
GM
>
> And back to my original point. Why not put 6 speeds in other cars and
maybe
> beat your 23-25 figure? You can make aerodynamic sedans and wagons too.

6 speed transmissions are more expensive to make. They drive up the price of
the car for a marginal mileage increase from potentially a 'better'
overdrive gear and allowing a 'better' rear end gear. Furthermore, over here
in the U.S. of A. most people like their slush-boxes, which means 4 speed
automatic, most with lockup torque converters. CVT technology is interesting
and I imagine will become more mainstream in the future as it becomes
cheaper to make.

Over here for msot people new cars are a disposable thing. They only keep
cars for 5-10 years tops, then get a new one. Many people keep cars for even
less than that! So forking over a bunch more cash up front for a car with
better mileage is not necessarily one of their great concerns since most
modern cars and light truck/SUV get decent mileage.

> > way to save itself. The point is, for people who actually have practical
> use
> > for a full-size car a V8 is a necessity. A large V8 may be a nicety.
> Either
> > way you slice it you need torque to move a big car that loaded up, be it
> > just people and luggage in the car or towing.
>
> No. My point is that modern engines are much more effecient than old ones.
> If you want old school standard V8 performance you can duplicate it with a
> 6. If you want old school 6 performance you can duplicate it with a 4.
If
> you want to improve on old V8 performance you need a new V8.

Show me a 6 banger that'll move my 2 ton Galaxie just as quickly as my 302
moves it. The only engine that stands a chance is the old 300 cube inline 6.
Simply because it has the displacement and was made to be primarily a truck
engine. It makes decent torque and torque is what moves vehicles. I am
curious though, what modern V6 makes 325+ ft/lbs of torque? If a modern 6
cylinder can approach that torque it should be able to move the car
comparably to the 302 currently in the car. Sure a 6 banger could move it
just as well if you throw some 3.7:1 or 4.11:1 gears out back, but then
mileage won't be any better since it'll be turning so much faster. The
answer, an overdrive transmission. Do the same with the V8 and you should
get comparable mileage, only you won't need so low of a gear ratio so the
engine will turn at a lower RPM.

Regardless. As I said in the previous post (which you snipped that part).
Maybe a modern 6 cylinder engine would cut it in a 2 ton full size station
wagon with just a driver or driver and passenger. It won't cut it with 9
passengers and luggage though. No way no how. Heaven forbid you decide to
take the boat along too and take 8 of your family and/or friends out on the
water for the day! I bet you'd be begging for a V8 even on level ground, let
alone any hills or mountains!

> > > Driving a small high RPM engine is different than a big one, but
> certainly
> > > not a challenge.
> > I drove a Honda Prelude for a while. It was an '86 with a 1.8l 4 banger
> with
> > dual carbs and a 5 speed. It was a fun little car. Very quick and
handled
> > nicely. It was small, light and geared pretty high. The engine cruised
at
> > quite high RPM on the highway, and that little 4 banger at high RPM sure
> > made an annoying sound as all 4 bangers do.
>
> I guess you've never heard the silent modern 4s with balance shafts. In
any
> case they can do the job. Europeans favor diesels nowadays, and they make
> gasoline torque figures look pale. You are used to V8s and they do the
job,
> but there are other ways of doing it.

I've never encountered a 4 cylinder engine that ran as smoothly as a
straight 6 or a V8. As for diesels... They make great torque, are very
efficient, and thus get excellent mileage. I hope to see diesels take off
more after 2007 when we get mandatory low sulfer diesel fuel over here in
the US.

> > torque) you need deeper gears to maintain comparable acceleration. When
I
> > presented this point I was not talking about small relatively
lightweight
> > cars. the topic we are talking about is full-size cars and station
wagons,
> > not smaller, lighter cars with 4 cylinder engines that are designed to
> have
> > acceptable performance with said engines.
>
> Europeans think 4x4s should all be diesels...for the torque...

Diesel is very practical for such an application. Great torque, generally
very reliable, and will get better mileage. I still don't see what that has
to do with full size cars and station wagons, but whatever...

> >Of course any of
> > the ads are jsut with the car driving on grass or a dirt road or waht
have
> > you, but still, the image portrayed is not realistic to what the car is
> > capable of with or without modifications. It's a silly design in my
> opinion,
> > anyone would be better off with a car, minivan, or truck.
>
> They put Jeeps and 4Runners in those places.
>
> > > Towing is not the end-all be-all function of a vehicle! I would
> severely
> > > question the handling of any frame based wagon versus a crossover SUV,
> > > especially something like the Cayenne. Frames are strong but lousy
for
> > > handling.
> > Tell that to GM with regards to their Corvette which you mentioned
> > previously in your post.
>
> I hope you are joking! The modern Corvette is more like a go kart chassis
> with fiberglass panels covering it up. The frame is the car. It's not
much
> like traditional numb and sloppy body on frame cars.

It's obviously more advanced than 40+ year old frame cars, but it has a
frame. Not just subframes, but a real frame. All unibody cars that people
set up for handling will have subframe connectors to make the car
essentially have a full frame. Frames are there for handling. Without a
frame you have a lot of flex.

> > > car and have more space inside. Those with street-based AWD systems
can
> > get
> > > through snow without putting on tire chains. In short, these vehicles
> > > address the needs of most city dwellers.
> > I drove my Galaxie through 10"-11" of snow on unplowed roads last night.
> > Didn't get stuck and wasn't too difficult. I've seen AWD cars get stuck
in
> > less snow.
>
> I guess the Galaxie was the end of technology and modern cars should copy
> it.

All I'm saying is that a simple 40 year old design works better than many
modern designs for snowy weather, including many of those all wheel drive
cars. The biggest reasons for that are the additional ground clearance, the
larger tire size, and the additional weight. These old cars have a great
design. They are very reliable and extremely tough.

> > To me it just seems silly to get such a vehicle that sits a good bit
> higher
> > than any cars, may be lower to the ground than some cars, handles worse
> than
> > most cars, and gets worse mileage. Sure none of those things are quite
as
> > bad as with a full fledged truck based SUV, but still, to me it just
> doesn't
> > make snese when there are better and more practical vehicles to be had
for
> > less money.
>
> Minivans and city SUVs *hold more inside* and provide the driver with *a
> better view of the road*. It's a trade off and many people choose these
> features over the flaws.

A station wagon will hold more than all but the largest SUVs. Going from a
station wagon to a SUV was awful for those long 8 hour drives up to Maine.
No room whatsoever. The minivan with the extended area.. Yes, that is much
more comfortable than the SUV and probably has more room than the old
station wagon did. Not everyone wants a minivan though.

> > too offensive and at least is something different. It's a pity Ford
> decided
> > to waste a good name with history on it. The Galaxie 500s and Fairlane
> 500s
> > were great cars, the new 500 is a dissapointment when expected to live
up
> to
> > the heritage of the name.
>
> Again, the Galaxie was the final word for car design and technology.

I don't see where you're going with that, but the Galaxie is an old design
with basic technology. A great reliable car, but obviously tehre are more
practical cars these days that need less maintenenance. The 500 seems like a
decent design, and if I had that kind of money burning a hole in my pocket I
wouldn't mind driving one through the winter or while I do a frame-off
restoration on the '68. Compared to everything else out there, I like it.
It's kind of a neat car I think. It just doesn't live up to the history
behind the name it was given, and in that respect is something of a
disappointment. I hope that clarified enough for you.

Cory

"magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wow, a Focus, in my mind, is somewhere between compact and sub-compact.
> When
> > I drove a Prelude for a few months I considered it a sub-subcompact. I'm
> > 6'3" so I don't fit well in most small cars. They get very uncomfortable
> > after about 20-30 minutes.
>
> I'm so glad I'm only average height, 5'10. My cousin is about 6'4 and
he
> complains about everything size related, esp. cars. When I was on the
> playgrounds, the kid who was the tallest always won. Looking at the
latest
> presidential elections, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. (John
> Kerry was several inches taller than our Fearless Leader). The only thing
> that sucks about my stature; my arms are longer than my legs. I either
have
> to hem up my pants or roll them up in cuffs (I also have a big head and a
> longish neck... so I must be part alien).

Yeah, I suppose being tall has it's ups and downs. (lol, I made a pun)

> >That is why the station wagon was killed in
> > favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical. The
> > tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons.
>
> I just don't think that's why station wagons sucked wind so bad for so
> many years. It has more to do with marketting. SUV's are relatively
cheap
> to make, they could be portrayed as greenish naturey status symbols, and
> people thought erroneously that they are safer than cars (they aren't
> necessarily- they're alot more likely to roll over, for one thing- and
many
> of them have lousy roofs. Also, some of them, particularly older models,
> were a little too rigid and didn't have enough crumple zones). Remember,
a
> large chunk of automobile accidents are single vehicle- the driver just
> loses control of the car. A big Neon-eating SUV won't do you any good if
> you lose control with your off-road tires and swerve into a tree, pole, or
> rail.

Sounds logical enough and I'm sure that at least was a good part of why
station wagons bit the dust.

> > There
> > you have it: Less room, worse mileage, worse handling, and no more
station
> > wagons thanks to the tree huggers.
>
> The Volvo S40 wagon gets mid 20's for gas mileage, and it's a very safe
> car and has airbags out the wazoo.
>
> The Toyota Matrix is a kind of station wagon based on the Corolla (it
> looks similar to an elongated Prius). According to the local Toyota
dealer,
> it's also fairly popular. It also gets around 33 mpg.

Neither of those a real station wagons though. They are small-midsize cars.
Not a real full-size station wagon with a frame that can comfortable seat 9
people with luggage and even pull a trailor/camper/boat with that same
internal load if it was bought with an appropriate engine and towing package
(brakes, shocks, springs, tranny cooler, etc.)

> > Anyhow, I believe we've just about got to the maximum mileage/efficiency
> > that can be had from gasoline engines. That is why you see hybrids and
> > various 'gimmicks' like cutting the fuel to some cylinders.
>
> Hybrids aren't gimmicks. A full hybrid car will get alot more mileage.
A
> hybrid Prius gets about 50-60 mpg or so in city driving, whereas a purely
> gas car of comparable size/weight will get about 22-32 mpg.

Gimmick definitely was not the right word to use. I supopse what I meant is
we are approaching the end of traditional improvement upon the gasoline
engine. There are a few more tricks that can be done to improve mileage and
performance of a given size engine (such as fully electronic valve control),
but the big gains are not going to come from improvements upon the
traditional gasoline internal combustion engine. Electric motors are used,
or whatever the case may be. It's not just a gasoline engine anymore in a
car made for maximum mileage.

> However, the real reason I believe that hybrids are being done the way
> they are (in small numbers) is because they were hoping to sell 2-3 gas
> guzzlers for every hybrid they sell. That's why demand for the Prius is
> outstripping supply. They just make more profit on the Landcruisers and
> Canyonaros out there than on a Prius. I still like the idea of a hybrid,
> but to be realistic, they aren't keeping up with the obvious demand (it's
so
> bad that if you really want a Prius as an instant take-home it's 32,000
> dollars, FOR A USED CAR- which is ridiculous, but oh well). Of course,
the
> government recently ruled that you can't use a hybrid vehicle as a CAFE
> credit against truck/SUV's with below CAFE fuel efficiency.

Interesting stuff. It sure does make sense. You are right about the demand,
but if it's more profitable to sell other cars and they need the otehr cars
made to fill demand, then that is waht will get priority on the assembly
line.

> I agree that CAFE has some problems, specificly the fact that autos
that
> people are buying to transport their sprogs to school and their spreading
> butts to Starbucks are being categorized as "trucks". But the real
solution
> is to improve the design of cars, to increase the stringency of crash
tests
> (for instance, the current NHTSA side impact test is wholely inadequate,
> considering that head injuries make up the majority of fatalities and
> serious injuries in side impact collisions- yet the test involves a
> car-sized sled, and not an SUV or pickup size), and so on. They need to
> get more creative other than just adding more mass to vehicles.
>
> Again, a heavier car is not necessarily safer. All things being
equaly,
> the heavier car will be safer in a multivehicle collision (which is not
all
> collisions, BTW), but in the past, esp. during the early 90's when most of
> these vehicle fatality statistics were created, the cars on the road often
> had poor crumple zones, poor seatbelts, just overall poorer design.

I personally feel safety standards should not be set so strictly by the
government. it should be up to people and auto manufacturers. If people want
these safety options they will spend the extra money for them. If people
value them enough tos pend the extra money for them then auto makers will
continue to develop better safety measures. Safety is always a concern of
auto makers as it is a great marketing tool.

> > Everyone wants
> > more mileage, but these days all the easy ways to get mroe mileage have
> > already been taken as far as they can go and still meet emissions
> > requirements.
>
> Turbochargers and more efficient engines have mostly not been tried,
at
> least by American automakers. Why spend the extra money when you can just
> slap a big engine into a truck chasis and tack on several thousand in pure
> profit? Many of the cars in the US are the same way. People really
don't
> need that 240hp in their Accords, that 0-60 in 8 seconds, they just think
> they do. It's a marketting point.

True enough. I believe turbochargers have great potential for increasing
mileage, and even if the mileage is not affected much more power can be had
from the same size engine with minimal decline in mileage versus a larger
engine. A larger engine will make more torque (generally), but a properly
set up torbocharged car will do just as well in acceleration and perhaps
better in mileage.

> The Crown Vic I rarely drive (It's my dad's, and then it belonged to my
> grandpa) has a V-8 ,but I hardly ever use more than a little accelerator
on
> it. You just don't need to do jackrabbit starts in the real world, and
> nobody really needs to be racing around in stop-and-go city traffic. So
it
> really didn't need that huge engine my dad had stuck in it (actually, it
was
> the only thing readily available).

Think about it though. In that big heavy car a smaller engine requires more
throttle opening. Too mslal of an engine and you are really putting a lot of
stress on the engine and your car can only keep up with traffic and has no
margin of safety as far as acceleration is concerned. A small V8 is a
necessity in a heavy car, a large V8 is a nicety. For your dads car though,
if it's got a huge V8 (I'm figuring you mean a 460, like was put into many
Lincolns) that's not really necessary. A lo-po 302 or 4.6 will move that
car just fine. Heck, if it's only driven in the city a V6 with proper gear
would probably do just fine. It's all in the intended use of the car to
dictate what drivetrain/powertrain will be acceptable. It's always better to
have more than you need than less than you need though. Going froma 302 to
a 460 though is a huge jump. The 460 is one heck of a torque monster. The
302 is typically grandma's docile grocery getter engine.

Personally I'd rather have the 460 and never get into the secondaries or
even open the throttle more than half way, but have the power for when I
need it or when I wanna have fun. That's just me though .Cars are a hobby
for me, so my wants and preferences may be different than your average Joe's
preference. To each his own.

Cory

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> Neither of those a real station wagons though. They are small-midsize
cars.
> Not a real full-size station wagon with a frame that can comfortable seat
9
> people with luggage and even pull a trailor/camper/boat with that same
> internal load if it was bought with an appropriate engine and towing
package
> (brakes, shocks, springs, tranny cooler, etc.)

Woah... 9 people? Not even my family's old minivan could do that many.
Many station wagons in the past couldn't hold 9 people, either (my family
used to have one too, growing up, it was a late 70's wagon, and it didn't
hold 9 people, more like 6).

If you want to seat that many passengers, might I suggest a little thing
called birth control? The percentage of the population that actually needs
to seat that many people in a car is probably very, very low. And again,
towing things is something most of the population doesn't need to do,
either.

OTOH, a small station wagon will suit a soccer mom, or anybody looking for
some extra trunk space, just fine. They still make minivans, too.

> Gimmick definitely was not the right word to use. I supopse what I meant
is
> we are approaching the end of traditional improvement upon the gasoline
> engine. There are a few more tricks that can be done to improve mileage
and
> performance of a given size engine (such as fully electronic valve
control),

How about cylinder deactivation?

> but the big gains are not going to come from improvements upon the
> traditional gasoline internal combustion engine. Electric motors are used,
> or whatever the case may be. It's not just a gasoline engine anymore in a
> car made for maximum mileage.

True, but what's your point? The idea of using a hybrid powerplant for a
vehicle is not new, the first patent on a gas-electric car was actually in
the early years of the last century (a purely serial hybrid type, burn the
gas, power a motor and battery), and trains have been using diesel-electric
or dynamic braking for some time.

>
> Interesting stuff. It sure does make sense. You are right about the
demand,
> but if it's more profitable to sell other cars and they need the otehr
cars
> made to fill demand, then that is waht will get priority on the assembly
> line.

True. But in an ideal world, the government would be giving more
incentives or mandates to somebody to meet the demand. I checked into the
hyrbid tax deduction and the average person would only get a few hundred
dollars off their taxes for it. OTOH, last year they gave many people a
huge tax credit for buying an SUV, thousands of dollars off the taxes. It
is screwy logic. They need either carrots or sticks, or things won't
change.

It seems alot of automakers, esp. in the US, on the other hand, are
investing in fuel cell technology. Of coures, what they aren't saying, is
that hydrogen as a readily-available fuel is a lie- you just can't pull
hydrogen out of the air, it takes energy just to strip it out of molecules.
It might take more energy to produce hydrogen than it would just to burn a
more conventional fuel.

> I personally feel safety standards should not be set so strictly by the
> government. it should be up to people and auto manufacturers. If people
want
> these safety options they will spend the extra money for them.

I don't agree, mostly because the auto manufactures, left to their own
devices, will lie about safety, or if not lie, they will market their cars
in a way that obscures reality. They will tout glitz and hype over
substance (an impression, vs. facts). Somebody, somewhere has to set the
standards, and I'd rather it wasn't the wolf guarding the henhouse. Of
course, on the other hand, governments can be bought off by lobbies. Which
is really why we need more Ralph Naders and journalists out there.

An example: the PT Cruiser has a small rear window because focus groups
found that women thought it made the car seem "safer". This has no real
basis in reality, of course. I'm not saying that the small window makes the
car inordinately unsafe, but peoples perceptions of safety often don't
square with reality. People likewise might think a taller car is safer,
but forgetting their highschool physics (or perhaps they never took it, more
likely), they won't realize that a higher car= a higher center of gravity,
more body roll, less grip on a hard surface, etc.

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> I've never encountered a 4 cylinder engine that ran as smoothly as a
> straight 6 or a V8. As for diesels... They make great torque, are very
> efficient, and thus get excellent mileage. I hope to see diesels take off
> more after 2007 when we get mandatory low sulfer diesel fuel over here in
> the US.

Diesel is mostly popular in Europe because of tax loopholes, diesel
actually costs less per gallon vs. gasoline. In the US, diesel usually
costs more per gallon (not to mention, it's harder to find). You get better
mileage, sure, but you can get better gas mileage with many gas powered cars
too (Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic). Gallon per gallon, though, diesel
actually takes more oil to make than gasoline (not much, but significantly
more), so diesel won't necessarily decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Most European countries also have low-sulphur diesel (which I'm sure you
know). France does it by using a small amount of biodiesel mixed into the
fuel. The US has that option, but chances are they will add MTBE, or some
other toxic additive- biodiesel doesn't seem to register as a reality to the
politicians in the US, even though it could be obtained cheaply from all the
McDonalds and Burger Kings around here as a waste product (and turned into
diesel using filtration, some lye, and a few other chemicals, all of which
are highly caustic, but it's not a difficult process).

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> Regardless, I don't see what a car that seats 9 people has to do with
birth
> control. I enjoy having a decent sized family, and it's not like everyone
> was popping out a new kid every year. Some people want more than one
child.
> Accept it, don't tell people to have fewer children so they can buy
smaller
> cars.

But the reality is that the average white woman in the US has 1.8
children. Most people don't need seats for 9 people (and BTW, the main
reason the US population is increasing, and not decreasing- illegal
immigration).

People didn't buy SUV's because they needed more room for their kids.
They bought SUV's because Arnie had one, Sly had one, they were higher up
off the ground, and a jillion other ridiculous reasons. Oh, and it helped
the government allowed this whole thing to happen because of a loophole: an
SUV is a "truck".

> Just like with the various alcohol based fuels they mix in with regular
gas
> in some parts of the country, especially in the winter. The quality of
that
> gas stinks, and it costs more energy to create the corn/organic
alcohol/gas
> than the end product contains

It's debatable if alcohol as a fuel uses more energy to make than it
could produce. The real issue at present is that alcohol in fuel is safer
than some of the other additives that they currently use in fuel, in place
of lead, in the gas. California and several other states are concerned
about the additives, and they want alcohol in the gas instead.

> It is wrong to falsely
> advertise though, adnt aht is the point the goverment should get involved
at
> with heavy penalties for falsely advertising, especially for safety
> features. I am the type who believes the less the goverment is involved,
the
> better off we are.

But history has shown that automakers, at least in the US, left to their
own devices ,will try and kill safety features. It took decades for airbags
to get into cars in the US, because the Big Three complained that nobody
would pay extra for them.

I'm of the opinion that there are just too many people out there that are
more interested in the size of the cupholders in their car than in the
safety. In that kind of world, you can't expect people to make rational
decisions, so somebody is going to have to make it for them. You can't
expect more than a certain percentage of the population to understand those
kinds of issues.

>. Anyhow, I think simple things like seatbelts should
> be required, collapsible steering columns, just the basics. Go back to the
> '60s when safety features started becoming a big concern adn the goverment
> started getting involved. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashboards,
> collapsible steering columns...

I think 4/5 point restraints in cars would be a good step. But there are
all sorts of legal and acceptance barriers. The three point restraint is
also more compatible esp. with pregnant women (IMO, hardly a reason to
reject something like 4-point restraints). But Volvo/Autoliv is working on
a "double seatbelt" setup which is basicly a 3 point restraint with an
addition belt that crosses over the other one.

On a side note, the effectiveness of frontal airbags wasn't as great as
claimed. They do add a measure of protection to occupants in a frontal
crash, but most of the protection comes from wearing a seatbelt (OTOH, the
protection an airbag gives in a side impact collision is much greater than
just wearing a seatbelt). Around the same time that airbags were just being
discussed, Americans started belting up in larger numbers, and the
fatalities per mile started dropping. One of the hidden agendas behind the
airbag- find a way to keep unbelted occupants from flying through the front
windshield. The government still does crash tests using an unbelted
occupant, which is why some of the early airbags were very powerful. Thus,
the goal was to protect people, "for their own good", wheather belted or
not, but it did have some negative consequences (the rare fatalities
involving children or short women).


> I say keep teh basics mandatory, the rest
> should be optional.

But if it's only an option, it probably won't be implemented on more than
a handful of cars.