Ford really does confuse me, Ford Europe makes great, efficient cars, Ford America seems to insist on making fail mobiles with needlessly high bhp. There is a need for big powered cars in the US I'll agree that, but there's an equally massive ammount of people who don't need them and there doesn't seem to be any sensible alternatives being built over there so you get masses of people rolling around in 3.5l cars in the city where you'd do just as well with at most a 2l.
Ok, I read all 4 pages and came to this conclusion.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
I've got a 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, that the window sticker claims to get 22mpg city, 28mpg hwy. I average 27-28mpg city, I don't do a lot of highway driving, but when I've checked my mileage at highway speeds, I usually average 32+.
Granted my car isn't a Vette, but it has plenty of power, and gets good mileage to boot.
Granted my car isn't a Vette, but it has plenty of power, and gets good mileage to boot.
The people that used 4 pages to discuss it obviously cares about it ... GM and Ford cares about it enough to do research about it so they can manufactor the kind of cars the people want to buy ...usmarine wrote:
Ok, I read all 4 pages and came to this conclusion.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
And we are not arguing, we are debating
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Thats why the 'big three' US car manufactures are doing a roaring trade atm.usmarine wrote:
let people buy what they want.
No, that'd be because of consumer confidence being underground. Ford sells the shit out of trucks. I have one.DrunkFace wrote:
Thats why the 'big three' US car manufactures are doing a roaring trade atm.usmarine wrote:
let people buy what they want.
People overlook the fleets of trucks companies buy as being one big reason the us makers are hurting. We are in a unprecedented business tailspin ( in our lifetimes anyway ) and few companies are buying trucks.
Speaking of lemons, my wife had a volkswagon and it was a total pile of shit and had about seven recalls. It has a great safety rating but was totalled in a 25 mph crash.
I've owned at least ten u.s. made vehicles and almost every one of them retired with over 400000 miles on them. I drive them puppies into the ground. I buy used passenger vans and turn them into work vehicles. I'll buy something with 200k miles and put another 200-300k miles without doing hardly any maintenence. I just bought a ford van for $1500.00. Some new stickers and perhaps a paint job and I have a work truck that should last 2-3 years.
If the economy was booming and I could get financing I would consider new vans, but I like my method much better. No payments. All U.S. made.
Condescending? This is from the guy who starts his replies with hopeless and ends it with idiotic. You just don't like it when it comes back at you.Varegg wrote:
Eh ... inability? ... is it a sport of yours to sound condecending because you have been doing it more as of late ... totally uncalled for in a discussion like this, in any discussion tbh ...Kmarion wrote:
What you did was continue to retreat back to the passenger car category whenever I presented this as an option for the millions that had no options. The stats I provided were registered as fleet vehicles. You can't just register a vehicle as commercial here in the US. In fact you have to carry more insurance, costing you more money if you do. So again, there are millions of trucks/vans that could benefit from this. If you take the time to look at my link you will see the the VAST MAJORITY of those cars are not of the 200hp+. That makes no business sense and it is in fact idiotic for a company to buy an over performing vehicle they don't need. In the consumer sector it is for enjoyment. In the business sector it's the bottom line. That includes fuel cost.Varegg wrote:
I stated there is no one solution Kmar ... if so please point to the post ...
In the US you sell a lot of cars in the commercial segment that are not used as commercial vehicles that's why your stats on those sales are higher than elsewhere ... and your commercial segment is filled with cars that are overpowered and oversized, you have commercial cars that don't have 200+ hp that can do the same job in many cases equally good ...
And the 1,4 liter engine and hybrid option was for passenger cars, not commercial trucks ... the fact that I need to point that out is rather idiotic ...
The point I have always contended is that this is not for the 1.4 option. Go back and read the yellow, bold, and underlined words I wrote 2 pages ago. You're inability to see that and you're desire to bring up hybrids is the reason I felt the need to reiterate that this will apply more towards a commercial fleet of vehicles. I have done everything in my power to show you what is ALSO going on to address passenger vehicle concern. .. despite the fact that it's not even relevant to my contention.
@drunkhead we are. We could and should expand on it of course.
... again where did I say 1,4 liter engines and hybrid tech was a solution for commercial vehicles, why do you keep stressing a point I've never stated ... I said that was the option for passenger cars and passenger cars are the biggest segment of car sales, not commercial cars ... and for commercial cars one should go for new diesel tech, new engines not refit old engines with semi sucessful tech that will not amount to much ... I'm sure hybrid tech of some sort will find it's way into commercial vehichles also shortly, that is the next natural step to take ...
I told you that this was an alternative that required little initial investment. I posted that this investment could pay for itself much quicker than diesel or hybrid technology. These things are very important if you're counting on business to make a green(er) change in this economy. Banks are extremely critical when examining where thier capital is going, and if they are struggling to survive green technology is not a priority (sorry).
I keep telling you that there is no hybrid or otherwise economical solution (for this class) because you're be illogical with your desire of waiting instead of starting to conserve today, in the interim. I have yet to see any release dates for two and three ton vehicles using hybrid technology (even then I doubt they would be inexpensive), and so this might present short term options. This boost, albeit small, across a large scale (see documented, cited, and now ignored previously provided links) could help almost immediately, and it might impact millions of vehicles in fleet sales.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
they care about because people are muppets. they either beleive the global warming nutters or think 30mpg versus 23 mpg is going to make you rich versus poor.Varegg wrote:
The people that used 4 pages to discuss it obviously cares about it ... GM and Ford cares about it enough to do research about it so they can manufactor the kind of cars the people want to buy ...usmarine wrote:
Ok, I read all 4 pages and came to this conclusion.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
And we are not arguing, we are debating
What makes me laugh is that half the people who buy these small cars for fuel economy, then proceed to drive them quick and rev them hard in low gears - thus negating any potential saving.usmarine wrote:
they care about because people are muppets. they either beleive the global warming nutters or think 30mpg versus 23 mpg is going to make you rich versus poor.Varegg wrote:
The people that used 4 pages to discuss it obviously cares about it ... GM and Ford cares about it enough to do research about it so they can manufactor the kind of cars the people want to buy ...usmarine wrote:
Ok, I read all 4 pages and came to this conclusion.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
And we are not arguing, we are debating
thats another good point. if i drive an SUV under the speed limit, and some green weenie drives his mini 15 miles over, i bet they would cancel each other out.Bertster7 wrote:
What makes me laugh is that half the people who buy these small cars for fuel economy, then proceed to drive them quick and rev them hard in low gears - thus negating any potential saving.usmarine wrote:
they care about because people are muppets. they either beleive the global warming nutters or think 30mpg versus 23 mpg is going to make you rich versus poor.Varegg wrote:
The people that used 4 pages to discuss it obviously cares about it ... GM and Ford cares about it enough to do research about it so they can manufactor the kind of cars the people want to buy ...
And we are not arguing, we are debating
in more ways than oneusmarine wrote:
thats another good point. if i drive an SUV under the speed limit, and some green weenie drives his mini 15 miles over, i bet they would cancel each other out.
If you ever drive your car, getting 44MPG vs 20 is going to make a hell of a lot of difference to your wallet.usmarine wrote:
they care about because people are muppets. they either beleive the global warming nutters or think 30mpg versus 23 mpg is going to make you rich versus poor.Varegg wrote:
The people that used 4 pages to discuss it obviously cares about it ... GM and Ford cares about it enough to do research about it so they can manufactor the kind of cars the people want to buy ...usmarine wrote:
Ok, I read all 4 pages and came to this conclusion.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
And we are not arguing, we are debating
The amount of difference is relative...and it's up to the buyer to make that determination.ghettoperson wrote:
If you ever drive your car, getting 44MPG vs 20 is going to make a hell of a lot of difference to your wallet.usmarine wrote:
they care about because people are muppets. they either beleive the global warming nutters or think 30mpg versus 23 mpg is going to make you rich versus poor.Varegg wrote:
The people that used 4 pages to discuss it obviously cares about it ... GM and Ford cares about it enough to do research about it so they can manufactor the kind of cars the people want to buy ...
And we are not arguing, we are debating
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And I told you they could have used their initiative to make cleaner more efficient engines by researching new tech rather than trying to make stone look like gold because that's what they are doing right now ... improve the entire engine rather than just a small part of it, they make new engines all the time ... and the alternative to hybrid solutions for commercial vehicles is not waiting ... I never said that either ... you assume things Kmar ...Kmarion wrote:
Condescending? This is from the guy who starts his replies with hopeless and ends it with idiotic. You just don't like it when it comes back at you.Varegg wrote:
Eh ... inability? ... is it a sport of yours to sound condecending because you have been doing it more as of late ... totally uncalled for in a discussion like this, in any discussion tbh ...Kmarion wrote:
What you did was continue to retreat back to the passenger car category whenever I presented this as an option for the millions that had no options. The stats I provided were registered as fleet vehicles. You can't just register a vehicle as commercial here in the US. In fact you have to carry more insurance, costing you more money if you do. So again, there are millions of trucks/vans that could benefit from this. If you take the time to look at my link you will see the the VAST MAJORITY of those cars are not of the 200hp+. That makes no business sense and it is in fact idiotic for a company to buy an over performing vehicle they don't need. In the consumer sector it is for enjoyment. In the business sector it's the bottom line. That includes fuel cost.
The point I have always contended is that this is not for the 1.4 option. Go back and read the yellow, bold, and underlined words I wrote 2 pages ago. You're inability to see that and you're desire to bring up hybrids is the reason I felt the need to reiterate that this will apply more towards a commercial fleet of vehicles. I have done everything in my power to show you what is ALSO going on to address passenger vehicle concern. .. despite the fact that it's not even relevant to my contention.
@drunkhead we are. We could and should expand on it of course.
... again where did I say 1,4 liter engines and hybrid tech was a solution for commercial vehicles, why do you keep stressing a point I've never stated ... I said that was the option for passenger cars and passenger cars are the biggest segment of car sales, not commercial cars ... and for commercial cars one should go for new diesel tech, new engines not refit old engines with semi sucessful tech that will not amount to much ... I'm sure hybrid tech of some sort will find it's way into commercial vehicles also shortly, that is the next natural step to take ...
I told you that this was an alternative that required little initial investment. I posted that this investment could pay for itself much quicker than diesel or hybrid technology. These things are very important if you're counting on business to make a green(er) change in this economy. Banks are extremely critical when examining where thier capital is going, and if they are struggling to survive green technology is not a priority (sorry).
I keep telling you that there is no hybrid or otherwise economical solution (for this class) because you're be illogical with your desire of waiting instead of starting to conserve today, in the interim. I have yet to see any release dates for two and three ton vehicles using hybrid technology (even then I doubt they would be inexpensive), and so this might present short term options. This boost, albeit small, across a large scale (see documented, cited, and now ignored previously provided links) could help almost immediately, and it might impact millions of vehicles in fleet sales.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Agreed. Secondly, if you're going to buy a fucking 3.5L V6, why the fuck are you talking about fuel efficiency? You want fuel efficiency and good mileage, buy something 2.0 or less. Then you'll be able to drive plenty without having to spend so much on petrol. I don't see why people go around acting like they need a big fuck off 3.5L V6usmarine wrote:
Ok, I read all 4 pages and came to this conclusion.
wtf are we arguing about? who gives a fuck about fuel efficiency? let people buy what they want.
The fact is, in the US, I'd like to see some official figures on this, but it seems that most of the cars there are massive V6 3+ litre engined cars, I have fuck all idea why it's like that, but over here the majority of cars are less than 2.4L, I'd say 4 cylinder 1.6 engines are probably the most common.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-02 13:19:20)
If most of your driving is around town, then you don't need much power. But I'm telling you guys that have never had to drive on US freeways, those little 1.4 - 1.6L engines will get you killed. Most freeways have a 65MPH speed limit, which means people are actually going 70-73MPH. I've driven the smaller engine, gutless wonders you guys have over there, and all I do is ride that thing into the ground trying to get up enough speed to merge into traffic without getting killed.
Don't even get me started on trying to pass semis.
Don't even get me started on trying to pass semis.
They are doing both. If they come up with a production ready economical option which can be easily applied to a variety of already in place manufactured engines along the way I'm all for it. I don't think you are understanding that. I mean no offense by this, it could be a language barrier, but do you know what interim means? If you think an automaker is just going to flip a switch and have it all be hybrid/diesel/electric you're fooling yourself. If they can tack this on at the assembly line for little cost while continuing to work on the mass production of more fuel efficient options why not? We do not have an economic alternate solution to replace heavy trucks atm. So yes, we are stuck waiting. In the mean time...Varegg wrote:
And I told you they could have used their initiative to make cleaner more efficient engines by researching new tech rather than trying to make stone look like gold because that's what they are doing right now ... improve the entire engine rather than just a small part of it, they make new engines all the time ... and the alternative to hybrid solutions for commercial vehicles is not waiting ... I never said that either ... you assume things Kmar ...Kmarion wrote:
Condescending? This is from the guy who starts his replies with hopeless and ends it with idiotic. You just don't like it when it comes back at you.Varegg wrote:
Eh ... inability? ... is it a sport of yours to sound condecending because you have been doing it more as of late ... totally uncalled for in a discussion like this, in any discussion tbh ...
... again where did I say 1,4 liter engines and hybrid tech was a solution for commercial vehicles, why do you keep stressing a point I've never stated ... I said that was the option for passenger cars and passenger cars are the biggest segment of car sales, not commercial cars ... and for commercial cars one should go for new diesel tech, new engines not refit old engines with semi sucessful tech that will not amount to much ... I'm sure hybrid tech of some sort will find it's way into commercial vehicles also shortly, that is the next natural step to take ...
I told you that this was an alternative that required little initial investment. I posted that this investment could pay for itself much quicker than diesel or hybrid technology. These things are very important if you're counting on business to make a green(er) change in this economy. Banks are extremely critical when examining where thier capital is going, and if they are struggling to survive green technology is not a priority (sorry).
I keep telling you that there is no hybrid or otherwise economical solution (for this class) because you're be illogical with your desire of waiting instead of starting to conserve today, in the interim. I have yet to see any release dates for two and three ton vehicles using hybrid technology (even then I doubt they would be inexpensive), and so this might present short term options. This boost, albeit small, across a large scale (see documented, cited, and now ignored previously provided links) could help almost immediately, and it might impact millions of vehicles in fleet sales.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm in this line of work so I know very well what I'm talking about ... and the reason we don't have hybrid commercial vehicles yet is because they can't make them work properly in combination with diesel engines ...Kmarion wrote:
They are doing both. If they come up with a production ready economical option which can be easily applied to a variety of already in place manufactured engines along the way I'm all for it. I don't think you are understanding that. I mean no offense by this, it could be a language barrier, but do you know what interim means? If you think an automaker is just going to flip a switch and have it all be hybrid/diesel/electric you're fooling yourself. If they can tack this on at the assembly line for little cost while continuing to work on the mass production of more fuel efficient options why not? We do not have an economic alternate solution to replace heavy trucks atm. So yes, we are stuck waiting. In the mean time...Varegg wrote:
And I told you they could have used their initiative to make cleaner more efficient engines by researching new tech rather than trying to make stone look like gold because that's what they are doing right now ... improve the entire engine rather than just a small part of it, they make new engines all the time ... and the alternative to hybrid solutions for commercial vehicles is not waiting ... I never said that either ... you assume things Kmar ...Kmarion wrote:
Condescending? This is from the guy who starts his replies with hopeless and ends it with idiotic. You just don't like it when it comes back at you.
I told you that this was an alternative that required little initial investment. I posted that this investment could pay for itself much quicker than diesel or hybrid technology. These things are very important if you're counting on business to make a green(er) change in this economy. Banks are extremely critical when examining where thier capital is going, and if they are struggling to survive green technology is not a priority (sorry).
I keep telling you that there is no hybrid or otherwise economical solution (for this class) because you're be illogical with your desire of waiting instead of starting to conserve today, in the interim. I have yet to see any release dates for two and three ton vehicles using hybrid technology (even then I doubt they would be inexpensive), and so this might present short term options. This boost, albeit small, across a large scale (see documented, cited, and now ignored previously provided links) could help almost immediately, and it might impact millions of vehicles in fleet sales.
Suggest we let this one pass, you have your view and I have mine
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Disagreed. Today's fourpots are just as good as any v6, provided a) you know how to drive b) you've chipped itxBlackPantherx wrote:
^^^Hurricane2k9 wrote:
have fun making any use of that V6 in the DC areaATG wrote:
Any one those Jap cars got a V6, slick?
Seems to be the key point.
No one truly needs a V6 unless you do the following:
- Pull/own a trailer, heavy cargo, etc
- Actually offroad regularly
- Things like that general category of and necessities of needing a powerful engine
Otherwise, you don't. It's only Americas obsession with the big and powerful to make up for your small dick and insecurities. You. Don't. Need (generally). A. V6. My parents Nissan Muranos get, on average, 17-20 city and 20-28 highway. That engine is already more than almost everybody needs. Hell, my GMC Safari Van is plenty fine.
I take my Jetta GLI off-roading a fair bit, and even carrying 4 200-lb ppl it performs just fine. Not as good as a 911, but you get the point.
Speaking of points, let me point out that the Subby STi and the Mitsu EVO both run on fourpots.
However, the next breakthrough will be the fives. The Audi TT-RS has one, as will the S4, and apparently when supercharged they're better than V8s in every way.
I like pie.
They aren't really all that different. If there wasn't a continued consorted effort to keep furthering renewable energy then I would agree with you. This is just a side benefit that could possibly have great results along the way.Varegg wrote:
I'm in this line of work so I know very well what I'm talking about ... and the reason we don't have hybrid commercial vehicles yet is because they can't make them work properly in combination with diesel engines ...Kmarion wrote:
They are doing both. If they come up with a production ready economical option which can be easily applied to a variety of already in place manufactured engines along the way I'm all for it. I don't think you are understanding that. I mean no offense by this, it could be a language barrier, but do you know what interim means? If you think an automaker is just going to flip a switch and have it all be hybrid/diesel/electric you're fooling yourself. If they can tack this on at the assembly line for little cost while continuing to work on the mass production of more fuel efficient options why not? We do not have an economic alternate solution to replace heavy trucks atm. So yes, we are stuck waiting. In the mean time...Varegg wrote:
And I told you they could have used their initiative to make cleaner more efficient engines by researching new tech rather than trying to make stone look like gold because that's what they are doing right now ... improve the entire engine rather than just a small part of it, they make new engines all the time ... and the alternative to hybrid solutions for commercial vehicles is not waiting ... I never said that either ... you assume things Kmar ...
Suggest we let this one pass, you have your view and I have mine
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Holy shit 73MPH?! How reckless!Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If most of your driving is around town, then you don't need much power. But I'm telling you guys that have never had to drive on US freeways, those little 1.4 - 1.6L engines will get you killed. Most freeways have a 65MPH speed limit, which means people are actually going 70-73MPH. I've driven the smaller engine, gutless wonders you guys have over there, and all I do is ride that thing into the ground trying to get up enough speed to merge into traffic without getting killed.
Don't even get me started on trying to pass semis.
Dude, most people are hitting 80MPH on the highways over here, and 95 and above isn't uncommon. Our puny 4 cylinder engines can get us there and accelerate around quite easily thanks. Sure, if you stuck a 1.4 in a massive truck then yes, you're not going to move. However you can get away with a 2l engine in the vast majority of cars, still have ample power and save a bit of petrol.
lol... shows how much you really know eh? My sisters 1.3i could reach 110mph. My mums 1.6l banger Ford can go 130, my point is, these cars can comfortably go well above the speed limit. 65 miles an hour is a fucking joke to think you'd need something like a V6 for, over here it's 70 and most people drive 80/90. I understand if you have a big truck but it's not like everyone needs a big truckAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If most of your driving is around town, then you don't need much power. But I'm telling you guys that have never had to drive on US freeways, those little 1.4 - 1.6L engines will get you killed. Most freeways have a 65MPH speed limit, which means people are actually going 70-73MPH. I've driven the smaller engine, gutless wonders you guys have over there, and all I do is ride that thing into the ground trying to get up enough speed to merge into traffic without getting killed.
Don't even get me started on trying to pass semis.
You can overtake a big rig no problem in a 1.4 or even a 1.2... what gives? Those things go even slower, like 50-60 mph...
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-02 14:47:37)
You missed my point. Yes, those cars can do the speed limit and then some. The problem is getting them in the very short distance you have to get on the freeway before merging into traffic.Mekstizzle wrote:
lol... shows how much you really know eh? My sisters 1.3i could reach 110mph. My mums 1.6l banger Ford can go 130, my point is, these cars can comfortably go well above the speed limit. 65 miles an hour is a fucking joke to think you'd need something like a V6 for, over here it's 70 and most people drive 80/90. I understand if you have a big truck but it's not like everyone needs a big truckAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If most of your driving is around town, then you don't need much power. But I'm telling you guys that have never had to drive on US freeways, those little 1.4 - 1.6L engines will get you killed. Most freeways have a 65MPH speed limit, which means people are actually going 70-73MPH. I've driven the smaller engine, gutless wonders you guys have over there, and all I do is ride that thing into the ground trying to get up enough speed to merge into traffic without getting killed.
Don't even get me started on trying to pass semis.
You can overtake a big rig no problem in a 1.4 or even a 1.2... what gives? Those things go even slower, like 50-60 mph...
Only fat people enjoy airconditioning on a hot day... ok... lol... good argument...The#1Spot wrote:
If they were not over weight, they would not need an AC where cracking the window would suffice now would they. Hybrid anything is just a band aid. Quality is coming from Volvo and styling is from Mazda.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I'm not sure if you are old enough to drive(and i dont mean that as a slight)Hurricane2k9 wrote:
have fun making any use of that V6 in the DC area
but 4 adults and the AC on in the summer... a V6 is a nice thing to have...
Also Ford is not asking for any bailout money as far as i've heard... They are ahead of the curve on making
efficient... good quality cars...
Love is the answer
It's really not the issue you apparently think it is. Our roads are smaller and faster than yours, and yet we manage with our puny engines.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You missed my point. Yes, those cars can do the speed limit and then some. The problem is getting them in the very short distance you have to get on the freeway before merging into traffic.Mekstizzle wrote:
lol... shows how much you really know eh? My sisters 1.3i could reach 110mph. My mums 1.6l banger Ford can go 130, my point is, these cars can comfortably go well above the speed limit. 65 miles an hour is a fucking joke to think you'd need something like a V6 for, over here it's 70 and most people drive 80/90. I understand if you have a big truck but it's not like everyone needs a big truckAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If most of your driving is around town, then you don't need much power. But I'm telling you guys that have never had to drive on US freeways, those little 1.4 - 1.6L engines will get you killed. Most freeways have a 65MPH speed limit, which means people are actually going 70-73MPH. I've driven the smaller engine, gutless wonders you guys have over there, and all I do is ride that thing into the ground trying to get up enough speed to merge into traffic without getting killed.
Don't even get me started on trying to pass semis.
You can overtake a big rig no problem in a 1.4 or even a 1.2... what gives? Those things go even slower, like 50-60 mph...