"American" vs. "Import"


Pages : [1] 2 3

Nayr747
03-26-2006, 09:33 PM
In the constant debate between domestics and imports, what most people don't realize is that in many cases the only American, Asian, or European thing about them is the name's heritage. Many "American" cars are not built in the U.S. and their chassis are usually taken from some other manufacturer. Many "Asian" cars are also not from Asia. Many times they are built in the U.S! So when people talk about supporting our economy, buying an "Asian" car would have the same effect, and in some cases more. Cars also usually share platforms. A Mazda may have the same platform as a Saturn, a Pontiac the same as a Volvo, etc. Take the Hummer H2 for example; it's just different body panels/interior on top of some Chevy truck along with the Chevy's engine. It's just an image that it's a different manufacturer or even a different car for that matter. And this is true of most autos today. You're not supporting a country; you're supporting a particular corporation (that could give a rip about whichever country they're in).

So really there are no "domestics" and no "imports" built today, it's just an image.

Muscletang
03-26-2006, 10:50 PM
I predict a quick death for this thread.

Jimster
03-26-2006, 11:21 PM
It's the truth but not a comparison, I'll shift it to the Cars I love/Cars I hate forum whenever I feel like it.


I play by nobodys rules. Not even my own.

Nayr747
03-26-2006, 11:27 PM
It's the truth but not a comparison, I'll shift it to the Cars I love/Cars I hate forum whenever I feel like it.


I play by nobodys rules. Not even my own.
Thanks. I was hoping this was the right area.

kman10587
03-27-2006, 12:29 AM
A Mazda may have the same platform as a Saturn, a Pontiac the same as a Volvo, etc.

You got that mixed up; Mazda and Volvo are both in collaboration with Ford, and Pontiac and Saturn are both divisions of GM.

And I'd like to say that I completely agree with you (I can't argue with the validity of your facts), but I know damn well that as of right now, I'd only buy a car with a Japanese name on it.

Nayr747
03-27-2006, 01:06 AM
I forgot to mention that my car is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. It's an "import" but where was it made? Normal, IL.

You got that mixed up; Mazda and Volvo are both in collaboration with Ford, and Pontiac and Saturn are both divisions of GM.
Yeah, they were just examples. I didn't want to spend the time reading through my Consumer Reports and Sport Compact Car mags to find all the exact ones. But it's more common than not so if you just guess you bound to get some right. :lol: I know this is just a way for the companies to save money, but to me, it takes away from the image of the car. I don't want my car to have the same chassis, engine, etc as three other cars that are supposed to be different. It kind of just turns what car you choose into what image you want to portray to others since there is nothing in reality separating two very different *seeming* cars.

I also don't like that almost all of the car companies are in only a couple hands. One corporation owns fifteen or so manufacturers. And another owns half of the rest. They are all supposed to have their own particular angle to bring to cars, and I think that is lessened by this. And isn't there something about trust laws and monopolies and making capitalism work by not having one part of the market in only a couple hands?

Broke_as_****
03-27-2006, 08:14 AM
I also don't like that almost all of the car companies are in only a couple hands. One corporation owns fifteen or so manufacturers. And another owns half of the rest. They are all supposed to have their own particular angle to bring to cars, and I think that is lessened by this. And isn't there something about trust laws and monopolies and making capitalism work by not having one part of the market in only a couple hands?

When you start listing it out there is still plenty of individual makers, probably 3-4 truly massive ones like the Diamler-Chrysler mass, Ford or GM and then 6-7 smaller but still independent builders like Mazda or Suzuki. Now granted there is a lot of swapping going on between all of these companies but usually they all have at least a few unique models to their name. I think really the cause of all this is quite the opposite of a monopoly, it's more that there is so much competition in the market. There really is just too many people trying to build cars. I believe it was an Autoweek issue that stated if all the car plants in the world were producing to their full capacity there would be over twice the supply of cars then the demand at the time. Profit margins can become so thin that there is little money left for the R&D budget to build manufacturer specific models. So if you can take a chassis that is already crash tested, has tooling available and has generally been sorted out so it's ready to build and swap in a different drive train and body panels, you can bring a fairly independent car to the market for a lot less money.

It kind of just turns what car you choose into what image you want to portray to others since there is nothing in reality separating two very different *seeming* cars.

Well really it's always been about the image. Whether it's two completely different cars or two that are built off the same platform, you bought it because it meant whatever to you. I mean hell, they're all cars. They all got four wheels and an engine. I wouldn't think that sharing a chassis or interior bits would matter too much. I can see where direct copies like a first generation Talon and Eclipse can get disheartening. But then one must ask an Eclipse owner if they are proud of their car because it's a Mistubishi or because it's theirs.

A good example of well executed cross platforming might be the current Dodge Magnum/Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger/Upcoming Challenger/probably another car I'm forgeting. They all ride on basically the same chassis but differ in available engines, suspension, exterior and interior pieces. Having been in a Magnum and a Charger I can tell you that they come off as very different.

The thing that varies alot is how each sub-brand operates. Example would be Saturn, which operates very independently of it's parent GM compared to Lincoln whose cars are all direct copies of Ford cars with different body work and interior pieces. Then you have Land Rover, also owned by Ford, that doesn't have any direct cross overs (to my knowledge).

Anyway, as for the anti-trust laws, yes they do prohibit one company from gaining control over a whole market. That was the big stink with Microsoft since it makes up something like 95% of the computer software market in the US and just slightly less than that in Europe. Or way back when one company, Bell, controlled all of the phone networks in the US. It was broken up and we had eighteen million smaller companies that are now merging and consolidating once again (if there is a monopoly in progress it is definately the media business, as 4-5 huge companies control just about all of the radio, music, movie, phone and television companies in the world). However it would seem we are very far from seeing an automotive monopoly any time soon. If one were coming I would say it will arrive around the time fuel cell cars and other forms of propulsion do, as the research cost that comes with this type of technology is enormous and is currently being lead by only a few major manufacturers.

BP2K2Max
03-27-2006, 06:12 PM
you could almost hold the same argument about calling american cars "domestics". a lot of part manufacturing is outsourced to like mexico japan korea etc. look at this pic for example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/BP2k2Max/FarEastHarley.jpg

a good old american harley carbeurator, made in Japan.

cousincletus
03-29-2006, 02:13 PM
It's a pretty complex subject but GM employs more Americans than all the foreign transplants conbined. http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db/b-db-autos.shtml Here's a pretty good site that explains more than I ever could. But basically if you are concerned with American jobs look at the window sticker and look for a high domestic parts content. It is more important to have a high domestic parts content than where the final assembly is located. GM models have a good parts content. A lot have 90% or close to it. The highest Toyota has is 70%, with most models ranging from 0-60%

pimprolla112
04-08-2006, 01:20 AM
We where talking about this today at work. Well i work for a billet parts manufacturer, and we get a lot of parts from Ford. Almost everything we get is made is canada, or mexico, Fords been doing it for a while everything is made out of country then assmebles in the U.S. Gm, chrysler, and anyone affiliated with them does, hell even some of the asain market guys make there parts in mexico and canada. Saves them a ton of money, even some of the vehicles are assembles and shipped back from else where. I read somewhere about 2 years ago that the only car to be almost fully produced in america, is the honda accord :screwy: . So anyone just cause they employ the most doesnt mean shit, there still sending stuff out of country just to make a few extra bucks on a part.

zx2guy
04-09-2006, 09:03 PM
i figure as long as we tread softly this thread could last longer then we anticipate.

but to the topic, when i think import or domestic, i ussually look at the badges. and yes i am biased towards domestic, but that doesnt mean i dont look at hondas or mits and dont say "that looks cool". im a fan of certain makes, certain models. and i really dont look at heritage. (well unless you call heritage... thier line of cars from the past.... say the old skyline, chevelles, early porshe, bmw. )

DinanM3_S2
04-09-2006, 09:36 PM
I think that one of the biggest mistakes people can ever make is to classify cars in terms of just "import" or "domestic." This leads to massive misunderstanding of the auto world. What often happens is that people will transfer attributes of one specific car or make to all of the others from that country.

An example of this can be seen in Mitsubishi reliability and quality. According to the general "import v. domestic" debate, all Japanese cars will last forever. This is grossly inaccurate when it comes to Mitsubishi cars. People only expect them to be like that because they are Japanese like Toyota and Honda. Just because a car is from Japan does not mean that it is reliable.

There is also an assumption that all European cars are reliable, which again, is terribly wrong. According to JD Powers dependability survey, the only European makes that are above average are BMW and Porsche. Volvo, Jaguar, Benz, Saab, Audi, Mini, and Land Rover are all pretty far below the industry average, with Mini and Range Rover scraping the bottom. Again, people assume that because Benz and Volvo were reliable cars back in the day, all European cars are reliable now.

Yet another example of this is the idea that all American cars are gas guzzlers. Compare the C6 Corvette Coupe to the Benz SLK350 and Audi TT 250. The Vette' has a big American V8, while the Benz and Audi have 6-cylinders, so the Vette should use much more gas right? wrong. The Corvette gets 18/28, the SLK gets 18/25, and the TT gets 19/26.

My bottom line is that people shouldn't be concerned with "import and domestic" but "company and other company," or better yet, "car and other car." Over generalization only leads to misinformed purchases. Just because your Accord comes from Japan doesn't mean that the Mitsubishi Galant you are looking at will be anything like it. Judge a car based on its own merits, not preconceptions about its country of origin.

kman10587
04-09-2006, 11:38 PM
I think that one of the biggest mistakes people can ever make is to classify cars in terms of just "import" or "domestic." This leads to massive misunderstanding of the auto world. What often happens is that people will transfer attributes of one specific car or make to all of the others from that country.

An example of this can be seen in Mitsubishi reliability and quality. According to the general "import v. domestic" debate, all Japanese cars will last forever. This is grossly inaccurate when it comes to Mitsubishi cars. People only expect them to be like that because they are Japanese like Toyota and Honda. Just because a car is from Japan does not mean that it is reliable.

There is also an assumption that all European cars are reliable, which again, is terribly wrong. According to JD Powers dependability survey, the only European makes that are above average are BMW and Porsche. Volvo, Jaguar, Benz, Saab, Audi, Mini, and Land Rover are all pretty far below the industry average, with Mini and Range Rover scraping the bottom. Again, people assume that because Benz and Volvo were reliable cars back in the day, all European cars are reliable now.

Yet another example of this is the idea that all American cars are gas guzzlers. Compare the C6 Corvette Coupe to the Benz SLK350 and Audi TT 250. The Vette' has a big American V8, while the Benz and Audi have 6-cylinders, so the Vette should use much more gas right? wrong. The Corvette gets 18/28, the SLK gets 18/25, and the TT gets 19/26.

My bottom line is that people shouldn't be concerned with "import and domestic" but "company and other company," or better yet, "car and other car." Over generalization only leads to misinformed purchases. Just because your Accord comes from Japan doesn't mean that the Mitsubishi Galant you are looking at will be anything like it. Judge a car based on its own merits, not preconceptions about its country of origin.

I absolutely can't argue with that on a factual basis, but shallow as it may be, the name on my car (and the heritage of that name) is really important to me. Likewise, I'll be more inclined or disinclined to buy a car based on its maker's country of origin, whether or not that really has anything to do with how good of a car it is.

Nayr747
04-10-2006, 01:25 AM
I agree, expecting something of a car just based on it's *supposed* country of origin is wrong. Although according to consumer reports, "Imports" do seem to be the most reliable of the manufacturers, at least for now. For five year old reliability from least problems to most it goes: Lexus, Toyota, Acura, Honda, Infinity, Subaru, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Buick, Ford, Isuzu, Saturn, Mercury, Lincoln, Audi, Hyudai, Saab, BMW, Jeep, Chrysler, Chevy, Dodge, GMC, Volvo, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, VW, Cadillac, Mercedes. Mitsus get a bad rap because some http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/icon16.gif of them had problems. But if you look at their reliability rating in CR, their worst car (the Endevor) scores an above average and their best car (the Outlander) scores the highest rating.

For mpg, I believe V8's get a bad rap because they are always put in heavy ass cars, while 4-cyls are usually put in light cars. I think in the same car, with the same hp, they would get about equal mpg (although the with the V8 the car would have to be slightly lighter to make up for the engine's increased weight over the 4-cyl).

DinanM3_S2
04-10-2006, 03:16 AM
JD Power dependability survey
http://www.jdpower.com/presspass/pr/images/2005089a.gif

Right_LiRrr
04-10-2006, 09:04 AM
With globalisation I don't think anything will come from anywhere anymore.

You'll have a car deigned in europe, built in asia, marketed in america and iconed in australia.....and what's wrong with that, it will be the most efficiently built and used car ever.

Nayr747
04-10-2006, 04:05 PM
JD Power dependability survey
http://www.jdpower.com/presspass/pr/images/2005089a.gif
Ah, thanks. I wonder why the JD and CR charts differ so much. :confused:

kman10587
04-10-2006, 05:12 PM
Those charts aren't the be-all-end-all of automotive reliability; they're just good guidelines. One important thing to note, though, is that the Japanese brands are at the very top of both.

Going back to the "country of origin" debate, it's important to note that although a brand's country of origin may not have anything to do with where their cars (or the parts that go in them) are actually produced, it's still up to the brand to monitor the quality of the parts being used in their vehicles, decide who makes/assembles those parts, and create a suitable and productive working environment in their factories. One rule of any company is that the attitude of the employees towards the job will always reflect that of the higher-ups. The management in the Japanese companies is simply more disclipined and professional than that of the American or European companies, and that's why their cars end up being built so much better.

DinanM3_S2
04-10-2006, 07:24 PM
Those charts aren't the be-all-end-all of automotive reliability; they're just good guidelines. One important thing to note, though, is that the Japanese brands are at the very top of both.

The management in the Japanese companies is simply more disclipined and professional than that of the American or European companies, and that's why their cars end up being built so much better.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Yes, a Japanese company (Lexus) tops the JD Powers survey, but the only other ones that rank above par are Toyota, Honda/Acura, and Infiniti. Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler dominate the likes of Subaru, Nissan (who did horribly for how they should have done), and Mitsubishi. Your kind of thinking is horribly flawed. American cars, while not quite as reliable as Honda and Toyota, are generally very reliable cars in today's market. Just because Nissan comes from the same country as Honda doesn't mean that their cars are anything alike.

To say that Japanese companies are better disciplined and more professional is one of the most misinformed things I have ever heard. Yet again, I will point my finger at Mitsubishi, who is losing money very quickly and is quite probably headed towards bankruptcy. Overgeneralization absolutely kills your arguements. While I suppose you could say that Toyota/Lexus is "professional and disciplined" (or completely soulless) please stop saying that ALL Japanese cars are good cars, because they arn't. Subaru, Mitsu, and Nissan are all riding on the coattails of companies that have become of Japan's auto industry.

The problem with the CS and JD reliability surveys lies in peoples expectations of the cars they buy. People have grown not to expect as much from a Mercury or Buick, so they are less likely to take them in to fix smaller things like a visor light not working etc. People expect alot from brands like Mercedes-Benz and Audi, so they will take cars in to fix almost everything that goes wrong. There is a massive difference in equipment in a modern luxury car compared to a regular car that isn't reflected well by these surveys. Compare the standard features and options in a Toyota Yaris to a BMW 5-Series. Things like the traction control and IDrive in a 5-Series are much newer technology then anything in the Yaris, and thus are more likely to go wrong. I have endless respect for Lexus' ability to be at the top despite its features list, but one shouldn't look down on Mercedes and Audi as much as JD Powers shows. Another problem can be seen in that the JD Powers survey only lists problems per 100 vehicles, but not the cost of the problem. For all we know, every single Lexus engine block could be snapping in half, but because they don't have lots of little electronic problems they might rank better then Land Rover who could have flawless engines, but might have lots of little inexpensive problems (disclaimer, I'm not saying this example is necessarily true). Finally, labeling reliability by company presents another problem in that not all of a company's cars will be equally reliable. Many of BMW's reliability problems stem from the IDrive systems in the 5, 6, and 7-Series. I would be willing to bet that if you only looked at the 3-Series (without IDrive), it would rank closer the average of Infiniti.

Jimster
04-10-2006, 08:20 PM
All that the JD Power chart shows me is that no matter what car you own, on average, you're going to have a problem and it's unknown whether the problem'll be major or minor.


Even if you own a Land Rover or Kia you're only going to have 1 or 2 more problems than the owner of a Lexus.


Seems like a waste of time and easier to just conclude that every car today is reliable and that judging cars on reliability is a waste of time.

drunken monkey
04-10-2006, 08:40 PM
am i the only one that finds that industry average there rather pointless?
i mean, shouldn't there be something more like a standard acceptible figure instead of using an average as a judge? i mean, in an ideal world, no fault is acceptible so isn't using an average as a sort of yardstick a bit well, crap?

Broke_as_****
04-10-2006, 09:05 PM
Cars today are much better than they have ever been and in general you can expect to buy any 2006 model, drive it with only scheduled maintence and expect to not have any major problems for at least a few years. However some makes and models will suffer from fewer problems over time and that sort of information is of great use to people that don't want to have to think about their cars at all.

Also, you have to remember that much of the industry averages and comparisons are for the manufacturers, to be used as marketing tools.

As for the zero tolerance to defects rule, well, as stated in an ideal world that would be great. But given the shear amount of parts and complexity in your average modern car, something is bound to go wrong. After that, it's just about how long and how much to fix it and who's paying.

kman10587
04-11-2006, 12:22 AM
This is exactly what I was talking about. Yes, a Japanese company (Lexus) tops the JD Powers survey, but the only other ones that rank above par are Toyota, Honda/Acura, and Infiniti. Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler dominate the likes of Subaru, Nissan (who did horribly for how they should have done), and Mitsubishi. Your kind of thinking is horribly flawed. American cars, while not quite as reliable as Honda and Toyota, are generally very reliable cars in today's market. Just because Nissan comes from the same country as Honda doesn't mean that their cars are anything alike.

To say that Japanese companies are better disciplined and more professional is one of the most misinformed things I have ever heard. Yet again, I will point my finger at Mitsubishi, who is losing money very quickly and is quite probably headed towards bankruptcy. Overgeneralization absolutely kills your arguements. While I suppose you could say that Toyota/Lexus is "professional and disciplined" (or completely soulless) please stop saying that ALL Japanese cars are good cars, because they arn't. Subaru, Mitsu, and Nissan are all riding on the coattails of companies that have become of Japan's auto industry.

The problem with the CS and JD reliability surveys lies in peoples expectations of the cars they buy. People have grown not to expect as much from a Mercury or Buick, so they are less likely to take them in to fix smaller things like a visor light not working etc. People expect alot from brands like Mercedes-Benz and Audi, so they will take cars in to fix almost everything that goes wrong. There is a massive difference in equipment in a modern luxury car compared to a regular car that isn't reflected well by these surveys. Compare the standard features and options in a Toyota Yaris to a BMW 5-Series. Things like the traction control and IDrive in a 5-Series are much newer technology then anything in the Yaris, and thus are more likely to go wrong. I have endless respect for Lexus' ability to be at the top despite its features list, but one shouldn't look down on Mercedes and Audi as much as JD Powers shows. Another problem can be seen in that the JD Powers survey only lists problems per 100 vehicles, but not the cost of the problem. For all we know, every single Lexus engine block could be snapping in half, but because they don't have lots of little electronic problems they might rank better then Land Rover who could have flawless engines, but might have lots of little inexpensive problems (disclaimer, I'm not saying this example is necessarily true). Finally, labeling reliability by company presents another problem in that not all of a company's cars will be equally reliable. Many of BMW's reliability problems stem from the IDrive systems in the 5, 6, and 7-Series. I would be willing to bet that if you only looked at the 3-Series (without IDrive), it would rank closer the average of Infiniti.

You're absolutely right that I am making some broad generalizations here. I have no defense or justification for this, and shamelessly admit that I am a generalizing, stereotypical bastard when it comes to cars. That said, I'm not blind to obvious facts. No, not all Japanese cars are reliable. I realize that they are not the only country that makes good cars, and that they also have their fair share of problem vehicles. Mitsubishi is a joke, Nissan is not what it used to be, and Subarus are inherently less reliable because of the stress AWD puts on the vehicle. I do realize that Japan is not perfect.

However, you know as well as I do that car buying is an emotional experience. I love Japan, and I love the vehicles that they produce. You obviously love European engineering. I can tell by the way you talk about the brands that use it - BMW, Porsche, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Ferrari, just to name a few. Just understand, that's the exact same way I feel about Subaru, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, even Suzuki. No amount of factual data will make you, in your heart, LOVE Japanese cars more than European cars, and the reverse is true for me. Love can't always be justified and supported with facts; sometimes, you just feel it.

So, excuse me if I'm more than a little biased towards Japan in my posts.

Nayr747
04-11-2006, 12:34 AM
A couple of things on what you said DinanM3. The CR chart I listed was problems per 100 vehicles after *five years.* So it differs slightly from the JD Power chart. Also the CR chart does not just list an entire company's reliability without also listing all of it's model's reliability too. I will try to scan the CR charts but the one I was talking about had a bar for each manufacturer that represented all of it's models. Then it had an average model mark within each company's bar, and then an industry average. So it's a bit more informative than the JD Power one.

While you're right that the severity and cost of the problem are not accounted for in these surveys, CR does have a section that lists reliablity for every model by year (98-05) with different areas like "engine," "fuel," "transmission," "exhuast" and so on. So it does distinguish between the different areas of reliability or each model. If Toyotas engines were snapping in half as you were saying rather than a simple exhaust problem that would show up on the chart. When you look through all the models you are struck by something; when you get to Toyota, Honda, etc it's almost completely red (full red circle is the best, then half red, then white, then half black, then full black). When you get to, say, Mercedes more than half of all circles are in the black or white. So it gives you a very accurate picture of all manufacturer's models. And the charts come from a survey of over 1 million vehicles done by CR. Btw, the '05 5 Series does score lower than the 3 Series in the Electrical category like you were saying with the IDrive.

That is a good point that people may expect more of a certain manufacturer and thus complain more. This may scew the results. But I don't think the point about technical and luxury features scewing the results is a good point. It doesn't matter why something went wrong. If there is something that goes wrong with a new 5-series IDrive system, then something went wrong with it. The car is in fact less reliable no matter why it is. And just because a car has more technical features should not mean it should be less reliable. People pay for these extra features and expect them to work. If they don't then it is the company's failing and it should reflect on the company.

I also have to say that I don't think Mitsu, Nissan, and Subaru stay in business because of the reliablility stereotype of "asian" cars. These three companies just happen to make fast cars unllike Honda, Acura, Toyota (no more Supra), etc. I think people buy them because they want to go fast and I think people buy Hondas, Toyotas, etc because they want an all around good, reliable, cheap car; totally different motivations. Although it doesn't excuse their comparable unreliabilty, it it does explain it.

EDIT: Here's what the charts look like, on the lower right.
http://aolsvc.aol.consumerreports.org/auto_new/feature/subscribe/
http://216.35.74.202/carfax/

And here's some reliability info from CR.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/reliability/used-car-reliability-406/overview.htm
http://autos.yahoo.com/consumerreports/article/which_vehicles_hold_up.html

Nayr747
04-11-2006, 01:16 AM
Mitsubishi is a joke, Nissan is not what it used to be, and Subarus are inherently less reliable because of the stress AWD puts on the vehicle.
Mitsu is in financial trouble but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what kind of cars they produce. Everyone gives Mitsubishis crap but the fact is they do one thing better than possibly any other company: Make the best bang for the buck performance cars in the world. Every review I've ever read: Edmunds, Road and Track, Sport Compact Car, etc. praises the Evo like no other. It was even SCC's Car of the Year last year. And it or an Eclipse usually dominates every year at the Ultimate Street Car Challenge in every area of speed or performance. They are innovators in rallying and their AWD system and steering is arguably the best in the world (I can give sources if you want). They also make engines (the 4g63 mostly) that may be the best in the world for producing power; The production engine with the highest hp per liter is the 4g63 in the Evo FQ400 produced in the UK, the record for the fastest 4-cyl was recently broken by Brent Rau in his 4g63 powered Talon with a 6.97 @ 198.2 mph pass, all without nitrous http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=1360 http://www.racingflix.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2396&PN=1 , and the second fastest AWD car in the world is a Talon (same as Eclipse) which is driven, tuned, etc all by one guy who is competing against big name-backed Skylines in Japan, and he will most likely beat the record this year http://shepracing.com/ . So I think Mitsu sucks big time at managing their company and making very reliable cars, but is very good at making performance cars.

Broke_as_****
04-11-2006, 04:21 AM
Must... resist...crankwalk...joke





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/03SpecV/crankwalk1lo.jpg


Ah nuts, how'd that get up there...


Speaking of which though, these guys (http://www.magnusmotorsports.com/crankwalktheory.htm) have an interesting write up on the causes of crankwalk in the 4G motor.


Anyway, on topic...uh, yeah, sometimes we buy with our hearts instead of our heads. We can look at the facts and see that such and such model is made from X% parts from here or there then assembled elsewhere but to the guy in southern Montana it's Dodge truck like his dad had. The 350Z is a road going slice of the JGTC to a 17 year old kid in California despite the fact it mostly designed at the US branch. Etc and so on...I guess that was on topic.

DinanM3_S2
04-11-2006, 11:43 AM
Ooo ooo, I can make fun of DSMs too-
http://www.myphotodrive.com//uploads/627_must7.jpg

http://www.ilostmymind.com/upload/untitled240.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/eclipsed_uni/motivator2695aa6a6a9ce91485bddb91c1.jpg

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/6181/motivatorcfc752ae9fb5738a0b8e1.jpg

Finally-
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/redturboeclipse/motivator2.jpg

kman10587
04-11-2006, 01:31 PM
So I think Mitsu sucks big time at managing their company and making very reliable cars, but is very good at making performance cars.

Can't disagree with that. DSMs are great bang-for-buck when they're running (no crankwalk jokes from me, you guys have it covered), and I've driven my friend's Evo 8 a few times; it was really something (of course, the clutch died at 7,000 miles, and the owner never launched it once). The funny thing about Mitsubishi is, like you said, poor management, and they're an exception to the rule of Japanese companies being well-managed. They're unpopular in Japan due to a string of recalls that really tarnished their reliability record; I'm not sure how well they're doing here, though to be fair, the Lancer and Eclipse have sold pretty well over the last few years.

Nayr747
04-11-2006, 06:32 PM
LMAO, I've never seen those things. But seriously the numbers of crankwalk victims are blown way out of proportion. Not only does it only happen to a small percentage of 4g63's, it also only happens to 7 bolt '95-98ish motors. And it can happen to any motor, but not usually in the numbers seen on 7 bolts. Miatas get it too though.

Never heard the cheap interior one. My interior seems pretty nice to me. Nothing special compared to what comes in cars today though. But its got leather, infinity stereo, power seat, power sunroof, etc. A couple of my brother's friends (who hate Mitsu, they're Honda lovers) have actually commented on how nice my interior is.

And there was a ball joint recall where the boot may have been put on incorrectly at the factory allowing water/crap to get to the joint and cause it to fail. I don't know the numbers that were affected. All you have to do is take it into a dealer to get it inspected and replaced for free if it's defective. Or it's pretty simple to just look at it yourself when you doing an oil change. Mitsu isn't an anomoly for having a recall though. My mom's '98 Jeep Cherokee and new Volvo had their share too.

Jimster
04-11-2006, 06:52 PM
Mitsubishis are rubbish, trust me, there's enough of them back in my home country and I found some disturbing facts about them from working for Inland Revenue (They had a provision in thier books that 65% of thier cars would come back for warranty work within 12 months costing on average $1000 NZD which back in 1989 was about the equivalent of US$1200 today with inflation and exchange rate fluctuations etc).

Diamantes cook thier transmissions with relative ease, as do Automatic Galants and most of thier AWD models make easy work of blowing gearboxes. Don't even get me started on the rusty-roof syndrome or the ball-joint recall. Even Alfa Romeo soundly kick Mitsubishis ass for producing reliable motoring and frankly, that shows just how unfunny the joke that is Mitsi really is.

Broke_as_****
04-11-2006, 07:29 PM
The funny thing about Mitsubishi is, like you said, poor management, and they're an exception to the rule of Japanese companies being well-managed.

Nissan was so broke dick at the end of the 90s that Renault had to step in and straighten things out. They were well into the negative side of the balance ledger just like Mistubishi motors is now.

Mazda is still some 5 billion dollars in debt and has been forced to take some very drastic measures just to stay open let alone make a profit. The release of almost 10% of their salaried work force and the automotive industry taboo of closing of one of their main production plants a few years ago. After Ford bought a big chunk of them a while back they have revamped their entire line and are doing better.

Think about this, Ford has a controlling stake in Mazda, Dodge has a controlling stake in Mistubishi, Renault has a controlling stake in Nissan, GM had about 20% of Fuji Industries (Subarus parent company) before they sold it to Toyota...just about every Japanese manufacturer except Toyota and Honda has a majority of their stock controlled by a company outside of Japan. All of those companies were bought when they were struggling and almost all are doing better since then.

On that note though, it's not as if the Mistubishi motor company is going anywhere. It's a very, very small part of a very, very large company.

http://www.mitsubishi.com/php/users/category_search.php?lang=1

Nayr747
04-11-2006, 07:46 PM
Mitsubishis are rubbish, trust me, there's enough of them back in my home country and I found some disturbing facts about them from working for Inland Revenue (They had a provision in thier books that 65% of thier cars would come back for warranty work within 12 months costing on average $1000 NZD which back in 1989 was about the equivalent of US$1200 today with inflation and exchange rate fluctuations etc).

Diamantes cook thier transmissions with relative ease, as do Automatic Galants and most of thier AWD models make easy work of blowing gearboxes. Don't even get me started on the rusty-roof syndrome or the ball-joint recall. Even Alfa Romeo soundly kick Mitsubishis ass for producing reliable motoring and frankly, that shows just how unfunny the joke that is Mitsi really is.

Ok, I guess I was wrong. I don't know anything about Mitsus owning one and all, and researching them and talking about them every single day for over 2 and a half years. I guess I should just trust you... Let me just say that I am biased when it comes to DSMs. But my car has been fine and has had less problems than both my mom's '05 Volvo S70, her '98 Cherokee (that thing was absolutely horrible), and even my brother's Integra You want to know why that Integra has had SOOO many problems? Because it's making 260whp with a turbo. And what do you know, this is the exact situation every single person that owns a DSM is in, except in most cases they're making much more hp. Take one of the most reliable cars in the world (the Integra), put it in the same situation as a DSM, and it seems to have more problems. This seems to indicate that for how they are treated DSMs are actually more reliable than other cars.

This is the thing with DSMs. Every group of cars has a type of person that buys them. The people that buy DSMs are almost universally poor bastards that want to go faster than anything on the planet. They do not buy body kits, under car lights, shift knobs, or pretty gauges. They buy huge turbos, boost controllers, and fuel pumps. This results in the mentality "I'll put this 60-1 turbo on it, make 500whp, make a couple passes, and see if anything needs to be upgraded (by it braking)." People go as far as making an intake out of ABS pipe connectors from Home Depot and intercooler piping from copper plumbing (again from Home Deopt). Instead of paying $25 for a metal shift bushing kit they will make their own from hardware store washers Jb Welded together. Can you imagine people doing that to an Audi RS6 or 350Z? Other than the things that went wrong from the factory, this is why I believe DSMs get the unreliable reputation they have. When you see the common picture of a DSM on jack stands with it's engine out, it is usually because they followed the DSM mantra "Go as fast as possible for as little money as possible." It's not the car's fault the owner turned up the boost or put a huge turbo on it and didn't want to spend the money on injectors or tuning.

When someone buys an Evo they likely want to go fast. And most of them will spend a couple hundred dollars buying a boost controller, exhaust, and chip, and run mid 12s. I wonder why the clutch went out...

And I don't see Alfa Romeos setting records or dominating competition costing many times as much, as DSMs have done (fastest 4-cyl, 2nd fastest (soon to be first) AWD, highest hp per liter stock engine, rallying champions, pro outlaw rwd champion/record holder competing against higher cylinder motors without even using nitrous, quick class track record holder (Brent Rau @ Bandimere Speedway), etc, etc)

blakscorpion21
04-11-2006, 09:39 PM
Mitsu is in financial trouble but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what kind of cars they produce. Everyone gives Mitsubishis crap but the fact is they do one thing better than possibly any other company: Make the best bang for the buck performance cars in the world. Every review I've ever read: Edmunds, Road and Track, Sport Compact Car, etc. praises the Evo like no other. It was even SCC's Car of the Year last year. And it or an Eclipse usually dominates every year at the Ultimate Street Car Challenge in every area of speed or performance. They are innovators in rallying and their AWD system and steering is arguably the best in the world (I can give sources if you want). They also make engines (the 4g63 mostly) that may be the best in the world for producing power; The production engine with the highest hp per liter is the 4g63 in the Evo FQ400 produced in the UK, the record for the fastest 4-cyl was recently broken by Brent Rau in his 4g63 powered Talon with a 6.97 @ 198.2 mph pass, all without nitrous http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=1360 http://www.racingflix.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2396&PN=1 , and the second fastest AWD car in the world is a Talon (same as Eclipse) which is driven, tuned, etc all by one guy who is competing against big name-backed Skylines in Japan, and he will most likely beat the record this year http://shepracing.com/ . So I think Mitsu sucks big time at managing their company and making very reliable cars, but is very good at making performance cars.


i wouldnt say mitsu is such an innovator in the rally. whatever the evo did in the rallys the gt-4 did better. the 6th gen gt-4 can almost match the modern day evo, and it is 10 years older.

Jimster
04-11-2006, 11:36 PM
And I don't see Alfa Romeos setting records or dominating competition costing many times as much, as DSMs have done (fastest 4-cyl, 2nd fastest (soon to be first) AWD, highest hp per liter stock engine, rallying champions, pro outlaw rwd champion/record holder competing against higher cylinder motors without even using nitrous, quick class track record holder (Brent Rau @ Bandimere Speedway), etc, etc)

Lancia are the most successful Rally Car maker in the world, they're Alfa Romeo's sister company and have been for decades, a Lancia Delta is pretty much the same car as an Alfa Romeo 155. Alfa Romeo has concentrated on motorsports that matter, like dominating the European Touring Car Championship, doing well in DTM and previously, Formula One (Though once Ferrari were snapped up by FIAT they were no longer required).

Between me and my family we've had 3 Mitsubishis (An Evo IV- The NZ equivalent to a 2nd Gen DSM, a Pajero 3.5 and a Mirage) and they were all rubbish, the Evo was fast and the Pajero was great off road, but the Evo ate transmissions (Admittedly it did get thrashed, but I've seen WRX's, Commodores, GT4's and GTR's stand up to far worse than what it was given), the Pajero had probably the worst built interior I've ever come across (It was awful, the glovebox was at one time full of plastic bits that had come loose) and the Mirage (Back in '87) broke down at least 3 times from memory, not even our previous Austins and Morris' could manage such a feat.

Obviously if you look after a car you'll probably get a relatively fault free run, but most VR4 (Galant, not 3000GT)/Evo owners I've met seem to be looking after thier cars religiously to stop them breaking and the second they start neglecting it, something (Usually a gearbox) goes kaput, that's not worth the effort as far as I'm concerned. Obviously with a fast car it's to be expected that things are going to break and it can be forgiven that Evo's etc break easier than normal cars given the amount of stress the engine and driveline is under, but thier pedestrian cars like the Diamante and Galant are also well below par.

DinanM3_S2
04-12-2006, 12:40 AM
I honestly do not understand why people buy Galants and Lancers over Civics, Accords, Camrys, and Corollas. There is absolutely no point to them.

drdisque
04-12-2006, 12:47 AM
because Galants and lancers are cheaper and if you're only going to drive it while its under warranty why not drive more car for less money?

Jimster
04-12-2006, 01:49 AM
I can kinda see the logic in the 2004+ Galants over Camrys and Accords, they're quite good looking cars and the Camry has a very cheap feel to it when it's not specced up properly, like the one I had in Australia last year, a 2.4 Altise I believe it was, which lacked electric rear windows, not rare here in Italy in small/medium hatches and base model mid-size sedans like the Vectra or 407, but this is a big Australian market family car.... and as said above the warranty'd cover you when it breaks. The Accord is a fairly dowdy looking car, well the US market one anyway.

There's pretty much no justification for the Lancer though, stodgy chassis, cheap plastics and it's one strange looking thing.

kman10587
04-12-2006, 01:52 AM
Nissan was so broke dick at the end of the 90s that Renault had to step in and straighten things out. They were well into the negative side of the balance ledger just like Mistubishi motors is now.

Mazda is still some 5 billion dollars in debt and has been forced to take some very drastic measures just to stay open let alone make a profit. The release of almost 10% of their salaried work force and the automotive industry taboo of closing of one of their main production plants a few years ago. After Ford bought a big chunk of them a while back they have revamped their entire line and are doing better.

Think about this, Ford has a controlling stake in Mazda, Dodge has a controlling stake in Mistubishi, Renault has a controlling stake in Nissan, GM had about 20% of Fuji Industries (Subarus parent company) before they sold it to Toyota...just about every Japanese manufacturer except Toyota and Honda has a majority of their stock controlled by a company outside of Japan. All of those companies were bought when they were struggling and almost all are doing better since then.

On that note though, it's not as if the Mistubishi motor company is going anywhere. It's a very, very small part of a very, very large company.

http://www.mitsubishi.com/php/users/category_search.php?lang=1

That doesn't necessarily have to do with those companies being poorly managed. The oil crisis of the 1970's hit every company hard. To make matters worse for the Japanese companies, Japan's economy sharply declined towards the end of the 90's, and it's still in the pits today. Being smaller and less established in America (which was then and still is now the number one car market in the world), the Japanese companies were financially unable to survive these hardships, and that's why they needed to be bailed out.

Broke_as_****
04-12-2006, 03:11 AM
First, the Oil Crunch of the 70s isn't factoring into this. That was at least 20 years previous to the time period in which we are speaking. That and even if it did factor into it, it would have been shown as beneficial to most Japanese companies as they tended to offer smaller more fuel efficent cars at the time. Devoties of automotive history will note the massive gains in market share that Honda in particular made during this time.

Second, concerning Mazda, Mitsubishi and Nissan, their problems started mostly in the early 90s. Nissan especially, over extending resources in an attempt to gain market share which then bit them in the ass when they weren't able to recoup the money they had shelled out. You can see this as a rapid increase in the cost of their vehicles through the mid 90s and as a dwindling R&D effort that didn't pick up again until Renault bought a majority share. Mazda, which had the best selling small pickup in the world in the early 80s started it's downward fall as early as 89 and 90, posting ever smaller yearly gains. Mitsubishi, despite the apparent popularity of the Eclipse, had never gotten a good foot into the world market door. This was later compounded by some poor marketing decisions, the most severe of which was a 0-0-0 financing plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors_Corporation#Recovery_from_financ ial_troubles) that back fired.

I'm not trying to rip on Japanese companies, not intentionally anyway, because if nothing else I own two Nissans that I'm not inclined to sell any time soon. I'm just trying to show, that like everyone else, they too shoot themselves in the foot now and again. I don't think anyone could make a legitimate claim that any automotive company is "better managed" than any other one because they all display quite a bit of stupidity. They all have made vehicles and even whole sub-divisions of vehicles that have failed miserably. All have slammed their dicks in the marketing door plenty of times. Even Honda, which is known for being to make just about anything work, has lost tens of millions in it's continued quest to make a CVT trans that people will buy. Any argument that one company or another is better managed or has made better business decisions can be countered by something shrewd said company has done. Like the Aveo that is selling quite well under the Chevy line was originally a Daewoo car called the Kalos, rebadged and sold by the parent company GM. Considering that GM picked up Daewoo for pennies on the dollar, it was a nice move. But on the flip side, they tried to improve most of their engine line by tighting up their design tolerences, which they were unable to reproduce in mass quanity. If you have heard a low mileage GM with some pistons slapping around, that was usually the root cause. They have worked out most of that mess in the last year but it still leaves a bunch of broke dick engines sitting around.

Long story short, humans are humans the world over, especially CEOs of car companies.

kman10587
04-12-2006, 03:38 AM
First, the Oil Crunch of the 70s isn't factoring into this. That was at least 20 years previous to the time period in which we are speaking. That and even if it did factor into it, it would have been shown as beneficial to most Japanese companies as they tended to offer smaller more fuel efficent cars at the time. Devoties of automotive history will note the massive gains in market share that Honda in particular made during this time.

Second, concerning Mazda, Mitsubishi and Nissan, their problems started mostly in the early 90s. Nissan especially, over extending resources in an attempt to gain market share which then bit them in the ass when they weren't able to recoup the money they had shelled out. You can see this as a rapid increase in the cost of their vehicles through the mid 90s and as a dwindling R&D effort that didn't pick up again until Renault bought a majority share. Mazda, which had the best selling small pickup in the world in the early 80s started it's downward fall as early as 89 and 90, posting ever smaller yearly gains. Mitsubishi, despite the apparent popularity of the Eclipse, had never gotten a good foot into the world market door. This was later compounded by some poor marketing decisions, the most severe of which was a 0-0-0 financing plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors_Corporation#Recovery_from_financ ial_troubles) that back fired.

I'm not trying to rip on Japanese companies, not intentionally anyway, because if nothing else I own two Nissans that I'm not inclined to sell any time soon. I'm just trying to show, that like everyone else, they too shoot themselves in the foot now and again. I don't think anyone could make a legitimate claim that any automotive company is "better managed" than any other one because they all display quite a bit of stupidity. They all have made vehicles and even whole sub-divisions of vehicles that have failed miserably. All have slammed their dicks in the marketing door plenty of times. Even Honda, which is known for being to make just about anything work, has lost tens of millions in it's continued quest to make a CVT trans that people will buy. Any argument that one company or another is better managed or has made better business decisions can be countered by something shrewd said company has done. Like the Aveo that is selling quite well under the Chevy line was originally a Daewoo car called the Kalos, rebadged and sold by the parent company GM. Considering that GM picked up Daewoo for pennies on the dollar, it was a nice move. But on the flip side, they tried to improve most of their engine line by tighting up their design tolerences, which they were unable to reproduce in mass quanity. If you have heard a low mileage GM with some pistons slapping around, that was usually the root cause. They have worked out most of that mess in the last year but it still leaves a bunch of broke dick engines sitting around.

Long story short, humans are humans the world over, especially CEOs of car companies.

An interesting post, and all in all, I don't disagree with it. I have to say for myself, though, that I never claimed the Japanese management was perfect, just the best out there; but you are right, everyone makes mistakes, and I believe I made one in overly glorifying the Japanese companies. Oh well. Like I said before, I can't help it if I'm more than a bit biased towards 'em.

Oh, and I mainly threw the oil crisis in there because it nearly bankrupted Mazda, and they never fully recovered from it. I'm well aware that 1973, the year of the oil crisis, was when the Honda Civic debuted, and quite a success it has been. Not to mention the ever-popular Corolla.

DinanM3_S2
04-12-2006, 04:18 AM
because Galants and lancers are cheaper and if you're only going to drive it while its under warranty why not drive more car for less money?

Nope, they arn't, at least according to their websites they arn't. The Galant starts at $19,399, while the Accord starts at $18,225 and the Accord LX goes for $20,025, just about $600 more then a base Galant. The new Civic starts at $14,760 while the Lancer starts at $14,599 which is hardly a difference for a massively better car. The new Camry starts at $18,270 and Corolla goes for $14,105. Honestly, why buy a new Mitsubishi? I just don't see the point.

Nayr747
04-12-2006, 07:32 PM
Nope, they arn't, at least according to their websites they arn't. The Galant starts at $19,399, while the Accord starts at $18,225 and the Accord LX goes for $20,025, just about $600 more then a base Galant. The new Civic starts at $14,760 while the Lancer starts at $14,599 which is hardly a difference for a massively better car. The new Camry starts at $18,270 and Corolla goes for $14,105. Honestly, why buy a new Mitsubishi? I just don't see the point.
Well, why buy any car new? You're just wasting money buy not buying a used car. But anyway, why but a Mitsu today? I can't defend the Lancer and Galant, but why wouldn't you buy an Evo? It has some flaws such as a poor side impact crash rating and I'm sure some mechanical problems. But if you want a performance car it's the one to get. No new car is gonna beat it for cheap straight line speed or its ability with the twisties, even if you spend twice as much.

Jimster
04-12-2006, 07:45 PM
I'd like to think that the STi will keep up with an Evo and the new Golf R32 will nearly able to keep up (But not sacraficing comfort, mechanical reliability, refinement etc the way the Evo does)

DinanM3_S2
04-12-2006, 07:49 PM
I can justify new cars because you get to pick your options, get more time under warranty, and don't have to worry about how others drove/maintained the car.

The Evo has a rediculously bad transmission. I've heard from more then one person that the clutch can go bad within 20,000 miles even without launching it. I've also heard about chronic linkage problems. When you go to dealers asking to get these problems fixed they accuse you of driving too hard and refuse service. Mitsubishi is also known for voiding warranties on any Evos that are raced or modded. They literally watch forum websites and tracks for Evos to void. Competitive cars like the STi, GTO, Mustang GT, S2000, 350z, etc have none of these problems.

In my opinion, the only reason someone would buy an Evo would be for its performance. Its pretty ugly, and its pretty terrible as a daily driver. The second you start using that performance, they try to kill your warranty and god forbid something goes wrong you'll end up paying out of your own pocket for it. I'd also reckon a GTO would take it in a straight line and the STi is about the same.

pimprolla112
04-12-2006, 11:13 PM
Damn this post has some great points against and for car manufacturers. I do agree with about 90% of it and the debt problems for nissan were astonishing. As for the Domestics being the leader in sales to me they dont look like there doing so well with the mass amounts of people getting layed off, and the amounts of money there putting into cars to compete with the japanese market. Looks to me like they have the upper hand at this point. One thing i do like is that Honda or Toyota have never been partly owned by another major manufacturer. Gm did share some technology and car labels with Toyota in the past, but its nothing like Ford/Mazda or Diamler Chrysler/Mitsu. The only reason i say i like this is because these companies arent influenced by anothers vehicles they have been unique and still are (dont agree with the new civics yet).

As for the DSM's, they could not compete with Honda as far as engines go, they make more hp per liter than any production mitsu (US model) without the aid of forced induction. I will give them credit the 4G is one of the most popular and most used for drag engines on the market. And for the most power for the least money, that made me laugh. Ive seen some of these cars with 20-35k into them and they cant break into the 12's, but these where riced pieces of shit. Ive seen some fast ass ones with a little over 10 including the car but generally around here i see them with mass amounts of fiberglass, carbon fiber, wings and paint that makes a damn HOK paint job look like factory and the car cant even get out of its own way. Im not bashing them but ive seen different sides of this factor.

To me the japanese cars are far more reliable, and just generally have a better side for performance. High revving, light bodies, massive aftermarket support and cars with just engine swaps that can do the same 1/4 et as a stock v8 car. Domestics have had there time and they are still diminishing, imports are now the future for performance.

kman10587
04-13-2006, 12:24 AM
Well, why buy any car new? You're just wasting money buy not buying a used car. But anyway, why but a Mitsu today? I can't defend the Lancer and Galant, but why wouldn't you buy an Evo? It has some flaws such as a poor side impact crash rating and I'm sure some mechanical problems. But if you want a performance car it's the one to get. No new car is gonna beat it for cheap straight line speed or its ability with the twisties, even if you spend twice as much.
I dunno about twice as much. You're stepping on the C6 Z51 Corvette's toes at that price. Besides, you don't have spend twice as much as an Evo to meet its match - a few grand more will get you an STi. In fact, the STi is about the same price as the Evo MR, which you need in order to get the six-speed transmission that the STi has. Why Mitsubishi doesn't put a six-speed in the base Evo is beyond me.

I'd like to think that the STi will keep up with an Evo and the new Golf R32 will nearly able to keep up (But not sacraficing comfort, mechanical reliability, refinement etc the way the Evo does)
Yes, the STi will keep up with the Evo. You'd NEVER know that from reading all the magazine comparisons, though; you'd have to actually to a few autocross events or track days and watch them both in action to know that. No doubt, the Evo is a racing champion - BENCH racing, that is. Not to mention that the STi has an in-dash six-disc CD changer, cruise control, and side airbags - all things which the Evo lacks. It's also got decent sound insulation and suspension damping. So, in short, buy an STi if you want a fast yet liveable sports car, a truly complete package. Buy the Evo if you want to go very fast, be very uncomfortable, and...

The Evo has a rediculously bad transmission. I've heard from more then one person that the clutch can go bad within 20,000 miles even without launching it. I've also heard about chronic linkage problems. When you go to dealers asking to get these problems fixed they accuse you of driving too hard and refuse service. Mitsubishi is also known for voiding warranties on any Evos that are raced or modded. They literally watch forum websites and tracks for Evos to void. Competitive cars like the STi, GTO, Mustang GT, S2000, 350z, etc have none of these problems.
...burn your clutch to cinders in a matter of months, and be told by Mitsubishi that you don't know how to drive and street raced the car day and night. Bunch of shitheads.

Broke_as_****
04-13-2006, 12:32 AM
Domestics have had there time and they are still diminishing, imports are now the future for performance.

I don't see that considering:

The fully revamped Mustang is selling very good
The Camaro is going to be back
The Ford GT is running with European cars of twice it's cost
The GTO came back and will be back again*
The Challenger is going to be reintroduced
The Charger has been brought back, though with four doors
The Corvette, arguably one of the best values in the history of cars, is in the mix with cars four or five times more expensive

The US domestic market is growing and seems to be set to continue to grow, it's hardly declining. The youth market in big cities may be very import centralized but much of the youth market else where and just about the entire older adult population is very domestic biased.

*To my understanding the current GTO is being discontinued because the Holden car that it is based off of is being discontinued. A new GTO built off the same rear drive platform being used for the new Camaro and is scheduled to come out at the same time or a year later.

kman10587
04-13-2006, 12:49 AM
I don't see that considering:

The fully revamped Mustang is selling very good
The Camaro is going to be back
The Ford GT is running with European cars of twice it's cost
The GTO came back and will be back again*
The Challenger is going to be reintroduced
The Charger has been brought back, though with four doors
The Corvette, arguably one of the best values in the history of cars, is in the mix with cars four or five times more expensive

The US domestic market is growing and seems to be set to continue to grow, it's hardly declining. The youth market in big cities may be very import centralized but much of the youth market else where and just about the entire older adult population is very domestic biased.

*To my understanding the current GTO is being discontinued because the Holden car that it is based off of is being discontinued. A new GTO built off the same rear drive platform being used for the new Camaro and is scheduled to come out at the same time or a year later.

I agree. If anything, the U.S. market is really picking up the pace in terms of reliability and technology. The Mustang, the 300, and the Corvette, in particular, really exemplify what America can do. Ford's economy cars, the Focus and the Fusion, are pretty good as well, and the F-150 is superbly engineered - it better be, because it's the number one selling vehicle in America.

I don't like American cars, but some of them are pretty damn good.

DinanM3_S2
04-13-2006, 01:03 AM
America is hardly out of the performance game, in fact in many areas its pretty dominant.

The SRT4 is quickly becoming a favorite of FWD racers. It doesn't take a whole lot of money to have that thing running more power then literally any Japanese car does stock. Name one Japanese car under $25,000 new that can beat a Stage II Mopar SRT4 in a straight line. The Cobalt SS is in a similar position to beat up on Civic Type-S's, RSXs, etc.

Moving up a little bit, the Mustang GT is the only RWD V8 sports car under $30,000 that I can think of. Plus it looks great.

The GTO has a LS2. Thats 400hp stock for what ends up being around $30,000 after incentives. If I were to bet on a drag race between the GTO and ANY Japanese car ever sold in the States my money would probably be on the GTO. Its an amazing car that is incredibly misunderstood and underestimated.

The C6 Corvette is the performance buy for under $50,000. That same LS2 from the GTO except in a lighter, better handling car. The Z06 is fighting Ferrari F430s and Lambo Gallardos on straights. The C5R was a monster in its class in ALMS and I believe the C6R is well.

Since the death of the NSX, Japan has absolutely no sports cars above the $40,000 mark and won't until the next NSX and GT-R come out.

Nayr747
04-13-2006, 01:31 AM
I dunno about twice as much. You're stepping on the C6 Z51 Corvette's toes at that price.

Best Motoring actually raced a stock Evo RS, Corvette Z51, Ferrari 360 Modena, Porsche 911 Turbo, Skyline R34 GTR, and NSX. The Evo never lets off the 911 and Skyline and comes in 3rd, one second after the first place 911. Cost of Evo RS new: $26k. Cost of Corvette: $55k, 360: $137k, 911: $136k, Skyline: $90k, NSX: $80k. So yes it can compete and dominate cars costing many times as much.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6023510595639884890&q=evo+skyline+best+motoring&pl=true

It also beats a Lambo Murcielao around a track. This Evo actually posted one of the fastest times ever at their track coming in just below a Zonda. This car costs $55 usd, does the 1/4 mile in the 11s, 0-60 in 3.5 sec., and has a top speed of 175. From the vid: "It redifines what you think is physically possible."
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/DBDE012F-2CE4-4A23-B987-64C1AB6E53F2.htm


Why Mitsubishi doesn't put a six-speed in the base Evo is beyond me.

Torque multiplicatin is one reason. You have MUCH less wheel torque as the gears increase. But the Evo MR does have a six speed...


Yes, the STi will keep up with the Evo. You'd NEVER know that from reading all the magazine comparisons, though; you'd have to actually to a few autocross events or track days and watch them both in action to know that. No doubt, the Evo is a racing champion - BENCH racing, that is. Not to mention that the STi has an in-dash six-disc CD changer, cruise control, and side airbags - all things which the Evo lacks. It's also got decent sound insulation and suspension damping. So, in short, buy an STi if you want a fast yet liveable sports car, a truly complete package. Buy the Evo if you want to go very fast, be very uncomfortable, and...

Well again I'm pretty biased towards Mitsu for obvious reasons. But I have read MANY tests and articles, both online and in mags, and the Evo wins pretty much every time. Vishnu Tuning who tunes both Evos and STis even says that Evos respond better and more cheaply to mods. If you look at their 400hp kit it's $4000 for the STi and around $2000 for the Evo. And after this point the Subie get much more expensive than the Evo. It's not hard to see why, the 4g63 with its iron block has had more turbo tuning work done to it in it's 15+ year run than probably any other engine. I've actually seen many people on Subie forums aknowledge this. The quickest Evo VIII right now is 9.4 with around 850awhp. The highest hp Evo VIII is 903awhp right now, and this is just some guy's car who took it to AMS, gave them ~$35k, and said make it the highest hp Evo in the world. There are previous generation Evos that have done better and DSMs have done MUCH better. Many tests have been done with turning abilities too and it's always the same. All these have something in common.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pv4l11Ho1k&search=evo
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/1765E995-88AD-431F-9F71-17027BE6ED76.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiCUdJhm4FE
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=100430/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100430/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=102945/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/firstdrive/102945/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=105130# "Its steering, which is the finest in the world."
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/ams%20evo/0.htm


...burn your clutch to cinders in a matter of months, and be told by Mitsubishi that you don't know how to drive and street raced the car day and night. Bunch of shitheads.
That is pretty f-ed up. But there may be more to the story than just that. I always find that most things are much more complicated and intricate than people give them credit for. And I'll bet other manufacturers aren't thrilled with honoring their warranties. It might not be just Mitsu that has problems ya know.

Nayr747
04-13-2006, 02:11 AM
As for the DSM's, they could not compete with Honda as far as engines go, they make more hp per liter than any production mitsu (US model) without the aid of forced induction. I will give them credit the 4G is one of the most popular and most used for drag engines on the market. And for the most power for the least money, that made me laugh. Ive seen some of these cars with 20-35k into them and they cant break into the 12's, but these where riced pieces of shit. Ive seen some fast ass ones with a little over 10 including the car but generally around here i see them with mass amounts of fiberglass, carbon fiber, wings and paint that makes a damn HOK paint job look like factory and the car cant even get out of its own way. Im not bashing them but ive seen different sides of this factor.

Ok, a couple things. DSMs are first and second generation (1g & 2g) '90-99 Mitsubishi Eclipses, Eagle Talons, and Plymoth Lasers, and may also include Galant VR-4's, and if you really want to stretch it Evos. All having the turbocharged 4g63 motor and AWD. The 3g and 4g Eclipse are not DSMs nor do they have the 4g63 or AWD. Plus they just suck in general :D. DSMs are capable of 450-500whp on stock internals, run 12s for $700, 11s for under 2 grand, and are in fact one of the best bang for the buck performance cars, especially in a straight line. They can easily compete cost for cost with modded V8's until the limits of each motor (which will of course be higher on the engine with more displacement). Comparing them to Civics or any Honda in general is a joke. That's great that you see a different side but the fact is you're plain wrong. Go over to the Eclipse/Talon/Laser forum and ask some of the guys who have owned and raced DSMs for years (and Hondas in some cases) and see what they say. And unlike Hondas you don't need to do an engine swap, massive weight reduction, beefed up internals, and sleeved cylinders to make your car fast. Read this thread for proof of how cheap they can be made fast: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=500943&highlight=tear+ass+for+short+money

To quote probably the most knowledgable DSM guru: "No one buys a turbo DSM because it's a nice reliable car. We buy them because they tear ass for short money."

DinanM3_S2
04-13-2006, 02:19 AM
First of all, Best Motoring is incredibly biased towards Japanese cars. It isn't even funny. Think of how much Jeremy Clarkson loves Aston and then times that by a thousand. I bet you could put an Enzo against a NSX on BM and the NSX would still tie it. I'd really like to see the BM guy in a Evo race the Stig in an Ferrari 360 and see who does better.

The Evo in the Top Gear video is a FQ400, meaning it has 400hp opposed to 281 or so in the American one. I think alot of that has to do with higher a psi, making it an even worse daily driver then the regular one. That FQ400 goes for about 47,000 GBP.

Nayr747
04-13-2006, 02:55 AM
First of all, Best Motoring is incredibly biased towards Japanese cars. It isn't even funny. Think of how much Jeremy Clarkson loves Aston and then times that by a thousand. I bet you could put an Enzo against a NSX on BM and the NSX would still tie it. I'd really like to see the BM guy in a Evo race the Stig in an Ferrari 360 and see who does better.

The Evo in the Top Gear video is a FQ400, meaning it has 400hp opposed to 281 or so in the American one. I think alot of that has to do with higher a psi, making it an even worse daily driver then the regular one. That FQ400 goes for about 47,000 GBP.
That doesn't explain why the $26k Evo beat the $80k NSX and was less than half a second slower than the $90k Skyline, and most likely would have been faster if it wasn't ramming into the Skyline the whole way. Then again the Skyline may have been faster if it wasn't ramming into the 911. Also, the 911 won... And it's not an Asian car. But what do you mean by biased? Do you think the drivers of the other cars were just not trying hard to make the Asian cars look better?

There are many other factors involved than just the normal rates of exchange. UK prices basically translate to the same amound in US dollars. Taken from another thread:

"The standard base UK spec MR costs 32,000 pounds"

"If you have lived anywhere in the UK, you will realize that US stuff selling in the UK are about a dollar to the pound.

It's a perpetual gripe over there :P when I was living there.

A PC that costs US$1000 costs GBP1000.

US XBox... US$299?
UK XBox... GBP299.

It sucks.. but there you go.

I wouldn't be surprised they could do an FQ400 for US$45,000, abt the same premium over a base US spec MR selling at US$33 to 35k.

I see the base models as the VIII in US and the MR FQ300 in UK.

The MR Edition in the US costs US$33-35k The closest equivalent in the UK would be the FQ340 which is abt GBP33k."

"It's very difficult to estimate how much a certain item would sell for here in the United States, I believe other factors also contribute to the extremely expensive prices for cars in the UK. Would it sell for $80k in the USA, that is highly unlikely, and Mitsubishi wouldn't even waste their time. $45K is also to cheap and it is not always a direct to direct value, if that were the case, then the 350Z convertable prices would start at $26K, sounds great, but bot realistic. $50K to $60K seems more reasonable, but I doubt that the USA will ever see this car, so it is all speculation. Still even at $50k, the price seems high, because it really doesn't take anywhere near $20K to achieve similiar or even better numbers. With $10 to 15K your GSR could be pushing 500HP (Flywheel) or more."

The fact that in the UK car prices are extortionate, is that we get taxed out of existence on all things....especially motoring. Just look at our petrol prices (gas)...we have someting like a 400% markup for tax alone. The evo is available from japan at something like the equivalent of 14,000....now as soon as it hits UK shores, VAT @ 17.5% and import duty are slapped on...you then have SVA, underseal and registration etc, which takes the price up a little, but if our government wasn't such a bunch of ****'s then we could probably get the same car for 10k less.

"Now the FQ400 should in theory cost you in the US $80,000, if it's a direct converstion from sterling to dollars, but it seems that you guys aren't taxed nearly as much, and so, get most of your cars cheaper....with the exception of skylines, which we can pick up for little money."

drunken monkey
04-13-2006, 05:21 AM
I see the base models as the VIII in US and the MR FQ300 in UK.


what?
so the 260 just magically disappears when you go into the showroom does it?

anyway.
only two things i want to add.

first, of all, i don't think the FQ400 should not be used in any comparison a representative of the EVO because it was a very limited production car, tuned and fettled and otherwise totally re-jigged by Ralliart using specialist parts and one that you are not likely to ever come across in your lifetime.

secondly, i don't think you should cite the Focus as an example of an american economy car.

kman10587
04-13-2006, 12:35 PM
Best Motoring actually raced a stock Evo RS, Corvette Z51, Ferrari 360 Modena, Porsche 911 Turbo, Skyline R34 GTR, and NSX. The Evo never lets off the 911 and Skyline and comes in 3rd, one second after the first place 911. Cost of Evo RS new: $26k. Cost of Corvette: $55k, 360: $137k, 911: $136k, Skyline: $90k, NSX: $80k. So yes it can compete and dominate cars costing many times as much.

You can't determine which car is fastest in one race. For one, different cars do better or worse on different tracks. Second of all, the drivers did not all perform exactly the same. Sometimes, drivers have good days, and sometimes they have bad days. And thirdly, even I will admit that Best Motoring is HORRENDOUSLY biased towards Japanese cars, and you bet that they chose conditions that would be very conducive to the Evo.

Torque multiplicatin is one reason. You have MUCH less wheel torque as the gears increase. But the Evo MR does have a six speed...

Well, that depends. Just because you add a gear doesn't mean you have to change the gearing. They could simply slap on an extra overdrive gear to help the gas mileage; or, they can shorten the first five to improve acceleration, and then add on the sixth at the same ratio the previous fifth was. Overall gearing not changed, but acceleration improved.

Well again I'm pretty biased towards Mitsu for obvious reasons. But I have read MANY tests and articles, both online and in mags, and the Evo wins pretty much every time. Vishnu Tuning who tunes both Evos and STis even says that Evos respond better and more cheaply to mods. If you look at their 400hp kit it's $4000 for the STi and around $2000 for the Evo. And after this point the Subie get much more expensive than the Evo. It's not hard to see why, the 4g63 with its iron block has had more turbo tuning work done to it in it's 15+ year run than probably any other engine. I've actually seen many people on Subie forums aknowledge this. The quickest Evo VIII right now is 9.4 with around 850awhp. The highest hp Evo VIII is 903awhp right now, and this is just some guy's car who took it to AMS, gave them ~$35k, and said make it the highest hp Evo in the world. There are previous generation Evos that have done better and DSMs have done MUCH better. Many tests have been done with turning abilities too and it's always the same. All these have something in common.

I won't argue with you about which one is a better drag racer, because I think it's a tremendous waste of talent to drag race either one, when you simply get an old muscle car and make 1000 hp with relative ease. These cars were made for the race track, not the drag strip, so let's discuss their prowess there. Not that power doesn't make a difference on the race track, but you're not going to be running an 800 horsepower STi or Evo on Tsukuba or Motegi.

That is pretty f-ed up. But there may be more to the story than just that. I always find that most things are much more complicated and intricate than people give them credit for. And I'll bet other manufacturers aren't thrilled with honoring their warranties. It might not be just Mitsu that has problems ya know.

I'm not saying that Mitsubishi is the only company that doesn't honor their warranties, but they have a reputation for being one of the worst, and they're certainly not in the same league as Subaru in that department. There's really nothing more to the story, and my friend is not the only one who's had a clutch fail prematurely and been told that Mitsubishi wouldn't replace it.

DinanM3_S2
04-13-2006, 02:16 PM
Regarding BM, you could argue on and on about how those guys have spent alot more time with cars like the Evo and Skyline, or that they used a track that appeals to a certain kind of car, but what I think it boils down to is who their audience is. Just like Jeremy Clarkson rarely has a bad thing to say about Aston and Rolls, and American shows sweat the Corvette, the Japanese need to have Japanese cars do well in order to sell the show. You cannot convince me that a 400hp mid-engined RWD supercar should lose to a 300hp AWD Evo.

pimprolla112
04-15-2006, 05:13 PM
By 4G i meant 4G63 if i was to say 4th gen it would have said 4th gen i know what year cars had them and what gens, im not retarded. Hell it even came

I understand that you will put DSM's as better than any other car because thats your first choice in cars. Ive driven a 4G powered 1st gen talon it had nice acceleration, handle pretty well but i wasnt impressed with the car. Honda makes more HP per liter na than any mitsu ever has, without the aid of forced induction most of there cars couldnt break 15's from the factory.

Also the FQ400 shouldnt be used as a comparo for bone stock cars, if thats the case then fuck it the z-tune skyline would hand the FQ's ass to itself. Hell you want to make it interesting the fastest all motor honda runs a 9.4, whats the fastest all motor mitsu. As for handling yeah awd would be better for corners but that awd also adds extra weight and parasitic drag on the angine since it has to power 2 more wheels.

Im friends with alot of DSM guys they love there cars but they look at some of the hondas and are more impressed by that than a damn 10sec mitsu, they spend more money kepping there cars running than they do on aftermarket parts, let alone tha fact that replacing anything internal that requires removing the engine is a bitch. Ive done 3 swaps on DSM's and numerous ones on hondas. Il admit all cars have there individual potential, but swapping a GSR into a civic HB can get it into the 13's, and an h22 swap on an accord can get that into the 14's, with about 10 psi, lsd, and some other mods the car can get into the 12's thats a 4 door economy car never ment for racing that can beat alot of v8 and alot of turbo I-4's.

I see what your saying but i do disagree alot 700 for the 12's and under 2k for 11's elaborate please id love to see this. Best bang for the buck maybe, reliable maybe for 25kmiles. I had a h22 turbo in a civic running 16psi stock internalls, motor lasted about 35k and the rings went in it. And that was with about 120k already on it. Car was good for low 11's and sold it to a guy for over 5k. Say what you want but alot of people arent going to go out and buy a dsm cause someone told them you can run 11's for under 2k. And i know not everyone is going to buy a honda cause someone said an engine swap is getting it into the 13's NA. This is opinions. Thats what forums are no one is right or wrong in this.

Nayr747
04-15-2006, 11:22 PM
By 4G i meant 4G63 if i was to say 4th gen it would have said 4th gen i know what year cars had them and what gens, im not retarded. Hell it even came

I just assumed 4g meant the generation because we refer to them that way (1g, 2g, etc).


I understand that you will put DSM's as better than any other car because thats your first choice in cars. Ive driven a 4G powered 1st gen talon it had nice acceleration, handle pretty well but i wasnt impressed with the car. Honda makes more HP per liter na than any mitsu ever has, without the aid of forced induction most of there cars couldnt break 15's from the factory.


Ok, DSMs are SLOW stock. Although some people run high 13s with some free mods. I'm saying they are basically de-turned Evos that have a lot more potential than they are given credit for. Take an Evo motor, give it the smallest turbocharger known to man, and you've got a recipe for potential. Honda may make more hp per liter than Mitsu naturally aspirated, but Mitsu makes more hp per liter total. Why is not using a technology a good thing? I mean all that proves is Honda motor's efficiency and how they went about tuning them. That's an achievement in itself. You can talk all you want about how much hp per liter NA your motor makes but it's not going to matter when another motor has more hp total. In the end you run a certain time, on the drag strip or on the track. And it doesn't really matter how you did it, or what crutch you gave yourself.


Also the FQ400 shouldnt be used as a comparo for bone stock cars, if thats the case then fuck it the z-tune skyline would hand the FQ's ass to itself. Hell you want to make it interesting the fastest all motor honda runs a 9.4, whats the fastest all motor mitsu. As for handling yeah awd would be better for corners but that awd also adds extra weight and parasitic drag on the angine since it has to power 2 more wheels.


I compared it to a Murcielago, a $280,000 car. If that's not a fair comparison then what is? Again that's great that Hondas can run those times NA but in the end you run the time you do, no matter what you have to overcome. AWD does have more drivetrain loss but this equals less than the gains from it. There are FWD and AWD DSMs and the AWDs are always at least a second quicker. And when you're racing from a stoplight you can't do a burnout, but the AWDs will always get their 1.6 60 foot. I think people underestimate the results of 4 wheels vs. 2 on the street. DSMs with moderate mods beat Supras with 700 hp on the street because they can't hook up. Look for the King of the Streets video if you want proof. Here's a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU9_wNARC0c&search=dsm The SRT-4 and AWD DSM in this video are evenly matched when they race on the highway. But look what happens when they race from a stop. How many bus lengths did the DSM put on that car just because it had AWD?


Il admit all cars have there individual potential, but swapping a GSR into a civic HB can get it into the 13's, and an h22 swap on an accord can get that into the 14's, with about 10 psi, lsd, and some other mods the car can get into the 12's thats a 4 door economy car never ment for racing that can beat alot of v8 and alot of turbo I-4's.


How much does swapping an engine in a Honda cost? And the turbo kit, and the lsd, etc? You don't need any of that, or weight reduction, for a 1g DSM to get into the twelves.


I see what your saying but i do disagree alot 700 for the 12's and under 2k for 11's elaborate please id love to see this. Best bang for the buck maybe, reliable maybe for 25kmiles. I had a h22 turbo in a civic running 16psi stock internalls, motor lasted about 35k and the rings went in it. And that was with about 120k already on it. Car was good for low 11's and sold it to a guy for over 5k. Say what you want but alot of people arent going to go out and buy a dsm cause someone told them you can run 11's for under 2k. And i know not everyone is going to buy a honda cause someone said an engine swap is getting it into the 13's NA. This is opinions. Thats what forums are no one is right or wrong in this.

I can't prove this anymore than you can prove you could run 11s with your mods. But the thread I posted has an Import Tuner article where they dyno a 1g and get 110 hp gain from around $200 in mods. If you read the last post in that thread, one of the most respected and knowledgeable DSM gurus confirms the article and says that setup (+ cat-back) is good for 12s. Here's the quote:

"I believe it. I've seen 1Gs run mid 12s with the same mods, and I've posted this before. But instead of the FCD, hacked MAS, and a full exhaust as opposed to just the downpipe. These arent major differences, and the HP numbers they got (most likely from a dynojet) are in line with a mid 12 second car (AWD of course). I might be the only one, but I'm not terribly surprised, even if they did fudge the dynojet a little bit, it's close enough. After all, this is the whole reason we waste our lives with these shitboxes... No one buys a turbo DSM because it's a nice reliable car. We buy them because they tear ass for short money."

And everyone quotes psi like it has something to do with how much your internals, etc can take. 16 psi on one turbo and 16 on another are two completely different things, and produce completely different hp. An amount of psi does not have some universal effect.

Nayr747
04-15-2006, 11:48 PM
or, they can shorten the first five to improve acceleration, and then add on the sixth at the same ratio the previous fifth was. Overall gearing not changed, but acceleration improved.

As I understand it, shortening gears or having more gears to go through to get to a certain speed slows acceleration. Idealy you would have one gear going to whatever rpm it takes to get to your desired speed, since the amount of hp accelerates as you go up in rpms. So like a 20,000 rpm first gear would be best for acceleration but is not really posible in the real world.

"To make a car faster, sure you can make more TQ. OR, you can make the same (or a little less) TQ, but go to higher RPM and "take advantage of gearing"... The end result is the same, and you see it at the track all the time. Low TQ high reving imports running right with big TQ low reving V8s. ET and MPH depend on HP, not torque, even though TQ is the force moving the car. "

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=210613

kman10587
04-16-2006, 03:55 AM
As I understand it, shortening gears or having more gears to go through to get to a certain speed slows acceleration. Idealy you would have one gear going to whatever rpm it takes to get to your desired speed, since the amount of hp accelerates as you go up in rpms. So like a 20,000 rpm first gear would be best for acceleration but is not really posible in the real world.

"To make a car faster, sure you can make more TQ. OR, you can make the same (or a little less) TQ, but go to higher RPM and "take advantage of gearing"... The end result is the same, and you see it at the track all the time. Low TQ high reving imports running right with big TQ low reving V8s. ET and MPH depend on HP, not torque, even though TQ is the force moving the car. "

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=210613

100% true, and I didn't mean to say that shortening the gears will always yield an actual acceleration gain; you have to take into account the extra time it takes to shift an extra gear. As a matter of fact, the STi's 0-60 is lower than it should be, because it requires an extra shift (2 to 3) before it can reach 60 mph, so I see where you're coming from. Fact is, though, that having six gears as opposed to five is almost always going to help more than it's going to hurt. It simply gives your engine more to work with, either improving acceleration or top speed.

Add your comment to this topic!