Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Car Buying Q & A
Car Buying Q & A Ask a question, get an answer; it's that simple. Visit AutomotiveHelper.com for useful car buying tools and research. Also, check out Vehicle History Reports to help you avoid chances of finding a lemon.
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-05-2010, 11:17 AM   #16
drunken monkey
Razor Sharp Twit
 
drunken monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: london
Posts: 5,861
Thanks: 0
Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by akboss View Post
Sweet Jag! To be fair though, you're comparing the fuel economy in an SUV to that of a car. Even if the Honda CR-V is based on a car, the revised gearing, added weight and even the shape of the vehicle all contribute to poor fuel economy. If you had driven an Accord you would have seen a marked difference in mileage. EPA for the CR-V 2WD is 27 highway, Accord gets 31 with a slightly more powerful motor.
the power to weight is also a major factor.
the CR-V clocks in at about 120BHP/ton whereas the Jaguar is at about 160BHP/ton.
That points to the Jaguar having to work less to maintain a similar speed to the Honda.
Then there's also that the VTEC systems are not about efficiency of fuel consumption but of efficiency of use of engine volume.
Honda = 90 BHP/Litre
Jaguar = 71 BHP/Litre

Unfortunately, the nature of the high output per liter engines is that torque suffers and as a result, the engines need to work harder to achieve the pace of a bigger "torqueier" engine.
__________________
AF's Guidelines

Read them.

__________________


Currently in the process of re-hosting my photos.
If any go missing, drop me a PM.
drunken monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 12:06 PM   #17
akboss
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: georgetown
Posts: 469
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

True, that's why the high output motors use the RPM of the engine to compensate for lack of torque. Typically a VTEC revv's a grand higher in the RPM range than the lazy domestics. It's a bit buzzy to listen to, but for enthusiastic driving the power is there.
akboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 12:47 PM   #18
drunken monkey
Razor Sharp Twit
 
drunken monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: london
Posts: 5,861
Thanks: 0
Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

also, not all VTEC is the same.

Some applications are indeed for optimising the top end of the power band to make up for low torque but some are for beefing up the low/mid torque range while keeping a (relatively) low-rev top end.
i.e not all VTECs rev to 9000rpm.

Besides, the current single cam switch type VTECs are at the end of their life.
I keep hearing about their new continuously variable valve/lift/phase but as of yet, it is still not in production.
__________________
AF's Guidelines

Read them.

__________________


Currently in the process of re-hosting my photos.
If any go missing, drop me a PM.
drunken monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 01:00 PM   #19
akboss
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: georgetown
Posts: 469
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drunken monkey View Post
also, not all VTEC is the same.

Some applications are indeed for optimising the top end of the power band to make up for low torque but some are for beefing up the low/mid torque range while keeping a (relatively) low-rev top end.
i.e not all VTECs rev to 9000rpm.

Besides, the current single cam switch type VTECs are at the end of their life.
I keep hearing about their new continuously variable valve/lift/phase but as of yet, it is still not in production.
I'll take your word for it, you're over my head at this point! All I know is 'no replacement for displacement' is BS, it all depends on the engine design and application.
akboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 01:32 PM   #20
Shpuker
AF Enthusiast
 
Shpuker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Posts: 778
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by akboss View Post
I'll take your word for it, you're over my head at this point! All I know is 'no replacement for displacement' is BS, it all depends on the engine design and application.
I think we may have reached a unanimous agreement....
__________________

Quote:
Your quote here!!!
Shpuker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 02:19 PM   #21
Shpuker
AF Enthusiast
 
Shpuker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Posts: 778
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Yea my iPod just spazed a double post
__________________

Quote:
Your quote here!!!
Shpuker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 02:41 PM   #22
drunken monkey
Razor Sharp Twit
 
drunken monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: london
Posts: 5,861
Thanks: 0
Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shpuker View Post
Yea my iPod just spazed a double post
so why are the times for the posts 06:32 PM and 07:19 PM?

Quote:
Originally Posted by akboss View Post
All I know is 'no replacement for displacement' is BS, it all depends on the engine design and application.
Well, that's not entirely true either.
Take any naturally aspirated engine and assuming it's at its designed peak of efficiency, the only way to improve power other than forced induction is to increase swept volume (also ignoreing chances to characteristics by changing bore and stroke...)

Simplest illustration of the effect of increased displacement is the 1966 Le Mans race where the MK2 GT40s took 1-2-3 with their 7 litre engines.
What people don't seem to talk about is that right behind them from fourth to seventh were Porsche 906s with their iddy biddy 220bhp 2.0 litre engines.
Behind these were a whole slew of of 1.2 litre Alpine A210s dotted with the occasional 3.2 litre Ferrari.
My point is, as good as the 906 was, there was no way in hell it could hope to beat the 480+bhp 7.2 litre beast.

Another example would be the evolution of the Porsche flat 6.
In virtually every car since the 3.2 Carrera, the basic engine block has been the same, so much so that you can pretty much bolt on the old 3.2 engine straight onto the gearbox of every 911 up to the 993.
What they've done since is gradually increase the bore of the cylinders until they got to a point where they don't have any more material that they can remove before the cylinder walls are too thin.

What is true, is that you don't need 7.2 litres for 480bhp these days (Ferrari 430 Scuderia anyone?).

Let's take the LS1 as another example.
You don't need 5.7 litres to get 350bhp.
For comparison, Audi's 4.2l V8 gets 339 bhp in S4 form and in RS4 form, it puts out 414bhp.
However, the LS1 has 365lb/ft but the Audi only manages 317lb/ft.
__________________
AF's Guidelines

Read them.

__________________


Currently in the process of re-hosting my photos.
If any go missing, drop me a PM.
drunken monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:33 PM   #23
akboss
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: georgetown
Posts: 469
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

OK, and I'm not trying to go back on you here but just working it out in my own head. So you say Porsche was making a 2.0L motor, and figuratively (you may know the real specs, I don't) let's say it's making 500 horsepower. If the Ford GT40 used a 7L motor and generated similar or slightly greater power (say 550 hp), wouldn't a Porsche 7L motor make like 1000 hp? The Ford didn't win because it was a bigger displacement than the Porsche if they were making similar horsepower, it would have won because the engine was better suited to the track or the race. More torque is better if you have wide open straights as it doesn't run out of steam as early as a wound-up small-displacement engine. Today's F1 Indy cars use a 2.4L V8, but they make 700 horsepower and nobody would say they are a slouch. In fact, most Ferrari's use a small displacement V8 engine wound up to high revvs for maximum horsepower. The torque number isn't impressive, but they will smoke past many cars with bigger engines.

And as far as the last example about the Audi, most of those cars are better performers than LS1 cars, despite the smaller displacement of the 4.2L V8.
akboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:51 PM   #24
drunken monkey
Razor Sharp Twit
 
drunken monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: london
Posts: 5,861
Thanks: 0
Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

The 2.0 litres were only pushing out 220 bhp compared to the 7.2 and 485bhp.
Part of the fact that the Porsche took the remaining places so convincingly is that they were nigh on bulletproof.
That year, the lack of Ferrari at the top was because they just didn't last compared to the top finishing cars.

Again, my point is, in that race, displacement decided the winner because let's be honest, with 7.2 litres and 485 BHP, if you didn't win, something must be wrong, no?
As I mentioned, most of the cars that followed the Porsches were Alpine A210s that had about 115bhp.

The race finish order pretty much shows that it's a no brainer that the bigger the engine with the higher bhp will win.

Y'know, I've lost track of my original line of thought when I brought up the Le Mans race...
__________________
AF's Guidelines

Read them.

__________________


Currently in the process of re-hosting my photos.
If any go missing, drop me a PM.
drunken monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:55 PM   #25
Blue)(Fusion
AF Enthusiast
 
Blue)(Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Royalton, Ohio
Posts: 703
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Blue)(Fusion Send a message via Yahoo to Blue)(Fusion
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

If I may jump into the discussion regarding the original post...

I had a 1995 Buick LeSabre as my second car (during the high school days) and it was somewhat of a bore. I was content with it though with the V-6 engine that was by no means lacking in power. I do not think I would enjoy it today, however.

Now I have a big, comfy Grand Marquis now and although at face value it's dull and boring it does have the same base powerplant as a 4.6L Mustang. I get a kick out of driving it around. I threw about $1,500 in performance parts and a higher octane computer tune and I zip around town quite well. That's not bad considering it can be had for $5,000 or less, too. It even corners well for stock suspension on a big 3,500 pound car. With that said, when I'm just cruising on the highway or in the city in no hurry it's smooth and comfortable. Absorbs the bumps like nothing. And I get 21-23MPG city and 28-30MPG highway. Check out the info in my signature if you care to see what I've done to it.
__________________

2000 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
- 119k / 14.89s @ 92.11MPH [ pictures | videos ]
> Dual Flowmaster Delta 40s / J-Mod / PI Intake Manifold & Cams / Marauder Air Box & 80mm MAF / 3.55 Trac-Lok
> Bumper Tuck / Steeda UD Pulleys / CVPI Zip Tube / Ported & Polished Plenum / BBK 70mm TB
> BOC 93 Octane Tune / Headlight Relay Upgrade / 17mm rear stabilizer bar / Heinous Aluminum Billet Rear Control Arms
> CVPI aluminum driveshaft

Blue)(Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 03:55 PM   #26
akboss
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: georgetown
Posts: 469
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

I think you were contradicting my opinion that 'no replacement for displacement' is BS. I should clarify. If you have an engine and you make it bigger, it will make more power, no doubt. But there are many, many ways to make an engine perform better, and only one of which is larger displacement.

My quest for an economical, cushy car continues, and because EPA ratings unanimously support smaller engines being more efficient overall, I'm steering towards a 4-cylinder car.
akboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:02 PM   #27
Blue)(Fusion
AF Enthusiast
 
Blue)(Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Royalton, Ohio
Posts: 703
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Blue)(Fusion Send a message via Yahoo to Blue)(Fusion
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by akboss View Post
My quest for an economical, cushy car continues, and because EPA ratings unanimously support smaller engines being more efficient overall, I'm steering towards a 4-cylinder car.
Nonsense! My V8 gets only 1-2MPG worse in city and the same MPG on the highway than my girlfriend's I4 Toyota Camry. And that's with both of us trying to drive "economically" for that tank of gas.

By the way, look at it this way. A smaller I4 vs. a V6 in the same car might need to turn several hundred RPMs more to produce the same amount of power and because the gears are configured for the lower power. So at speed, a V6 may get the same economy as an I4 in the same vehicle.

For further entertainment, check this out (skip ahead to about 0:55 to skip the boring stuff) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk
__________________

2000 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
- 119k / 14.89s @ 92.11MPH [ pictures | videos ]
> Dual Flowmaster Delta 40s / J-Mod / PI Intake Manifold & Cams / Marauder Air Box & 80mm MAF / 3.55 Trac-Lok
> Bumper Tuck / Steeda UD Pulleys / CVPI Zip Tube / Ported & Polished Plenum / BBK 70mm TB
> BOC 93 Octane Tune / Headlight Relay Upgrade / 17mm rear stabilizer bar / Heinous Aluminum Billet Rear Control Arms
> CVPI aluminum driveshaft

Blue)(Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:20 PM   #28
akboss
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: georgetown
Posts: 469
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

OK, I'm tired of defending this because I know I'm right. Let the numbers talk.
City/Hwy, 2005 model cars:

2005 Buick LeSabre V6 - 20/29 vs 2005 Honda Accord 4 cyl. - 26/34
2005 Chrysler 300 V6 - 19/27 vs 2005 Nissan Altima 4 cyl. - 24/31
2005 Ford Five Hundred V6 - 21/29 vs 2005 Toyota Camry 4 cyl. - 24/33

So looking at this 'data', the average is about 5 mpg better city, 4 mpg better highway. Per year I drive about 17,000 miles, so saving 5 mpg means about $900/year in my pocket, plus less pollution in the air. This is why I want a comfy car with four cylinders. It makes sense - who needs a V6 or V8 for most of their driving anyways? I mean, sure, if it's a weekend backroad bomber then absolutely, but for a daily driver (if you drive a lot) it just doesn't make economic sense...

That's why I'm jealous of European cars - you guys get all the models we do but with more appropriate motors. Just now we are starting to get some TDI's, but they're all German and expensive.
akboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:38 PM   #29
Blue)(Fusion
AF Enthusiast
 
Blue)(Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Royalton, Ohio
Posts: 703
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Blue)(Fusion Send a message via Yahoo to Blue)(Fusion
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

Well I was just stating what I experienced with real world conditions. I do agree that Europeans get all the best cars. I want a powerful, efficient diesel in my next car!
__________________

2000 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
- 119k / 14.89s @ 92.11MPH [ pictures | videos ]
> Dual Flowmaster Delta 40s / J-Mod / PI Intake Manifold & Cams / Marauder Air Box & 80mm MAF / 3.55 Trac-Lok
> Bumper Tuck / Steeda UD Pulleys / CVPI Zip Tube / Ported & Polished Plenum / BBK 70mm TB
> BOC 93 Octane Tune / Headlight Relay Upgrade / 17mm rear stabilizer bar / Heinous Aluminum Billet Rear Control Arms
> CVPI aluminum driveshaft

Blue)(Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 05:05 PM   #30
akboss
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: georgetown
Posts: 469
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Are cushy cars boring?

You're doing pretty well if you're getting that mileage in a V8, maybe most drivers are heavy on the go-pedal. I have heard drivers of Crown Vics and Grands comment that they get decent mileage...haven't driven one myself so I can't say.

Unfortunately our pricing system puts diesels at the top of the model chain because of all the mods they have to make to import them into North America, or that's the best I can guess. So sure we get a diesel BMW 3-series, but it's the highest model under the M3 and it costs nigh on $50K! Same with the X5, the Audi Q7, etc. Glad to see an Audi A3 is here as a TDI <$30K, other than that it's VW all the way.
akboss is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD


Bookmarks
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Car Buying Q & A

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts