Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

 

2009-03-02 15:48:26
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6714
and nobody has talked about crash safety... I would rather have some decent sheetmetal around me than a soda can...lol
you guys in europe are used to smaller gas frugal cars... due to the super high prices... we may be heading that way... but more than likely
we will have cars come out hybrid or otherwise that will deal with the dwindling oil supplies...
Love is the answer
2009-03-02 16:00:32
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6647

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

and nobody has talked about crash safety... I would rather have some decent sheetmetal around me than a soda can...lol
you guys in europe are used to smaller gas frugal cars... due to the super high prices... we may be heading that way... but more than likely
we will have cars come out hybrid or otherwise that will deal with the dwindling oil supplies...
You seem to be stuck in the idea that we all drive things like this:

https://www.carpages.co.uk/news/news-images/gwiz_15_04_05.JPG

Big SUV's are obviously always going to be safer than a smaller car, if only because of physics. Smaller cars can be plenty safe enough.

In fact, looking at this, road deaths per million cars on the road are almost half in the UK than there are in the US.

UK: 103 per million cars
US: 188 per million cars.
2009-03-02 16:04:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

ghettoperson wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

and nobody has talked about crash safety... I would rather have some decent sheetmetal around me than a soda can...lol
you guys in europe are used to smaller gas frugal cars... due to the super high prices... we may be heading that way... but more than likely
we will have cars come out hybrid or otherwise that will deal with the dwindling oil supplies...
You seem to be stuck in the idea that we all drive things like this:

http://www.carpages.co.uk/news/news-ima … _04_05.JPG

Big SUV's are obviously always going to be safer than a smaller car, if only because of physics. Smaller cars can be plenty safe enough.

In fact, looking at this, road deaths per million cars on the road are almost half in the UK than there are in the US.

UK: 103 per million cars
US: 188 per million cars.
All I've got to say is holy shit Russian Federation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-03-02 16:05:27
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6647

Yeah, I'll try to remember never to drive over there.
2009-03-02 16:09:59
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

For example, a country with a small vehicle population may show a low fatality rate per million inhabitants but a high fatality rate per vehicle.
Does that mean because there are more people traveling in one vehicle? As in one accident could = 3-4 dead. More people in the car? I r a bit confused.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-03-02 16:19:02
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6647

Kmarion wrote:

For example, a country with a small vehicle population may show a low fatality rate per million inhabitants but a high fatality rate per vehicle.
Does that mean because there are more people traveling in one vehicle? As in one accident could = 3-4 dead. More people in the car? I r a bit confused.
I guess so. It'd make sense anyway. Just a bit hard to include into the results I guess.
2009-03-02 16:20:44
TheEternalPessimist
Wibble
+412|6618|Mhz

ghettoperson wrote:

usmarine wrote:

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
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.
If you ever drive your car, getting 44MPG vs 20 is going to make a hell of a lot of difference to your wallet.
QFT, I drove a 3 litre BMW for about 5 weeks and having my fuel bill more than double was not fun, I'd much rather spend £50 a month on my little diesel than £110 on a pointless big engined thing simply because it has more power which I don't need, and nor do 90% of other people, power means fuck all for urban driving and it doen't count for much on highways either tbh.
2009-03-02 16:22:26
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6538|byah

ATG wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

usmarine wrote:

let people buy what they want.
Thats why the 'big three' US car manufactures are doing a roaring trade atm.
No, that'd be because of consumer confidence being underground. Ford sells the shit out of trucks. I have one.

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.
US cars are about as American as a US flag. Made somewhere else but American branded.
2009-03-02 16:24:25
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6647

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

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.
If you ever drive your car, getting 44MPG vs 20 is going to make a hell of a lot of difference to your wallet.
QFT, I drove a 3 litre BMW for about 5 weeks and having my fuel bill more than double was not fun, I'd much rather spend £50 a month on my little diesel than £110 on a pointless big engined thing simply because it has more power which I don't need, and nor do 90% of other people, power means fuck all for urban driving and it doen't count for much on highways either tbh.
Which model was it? Don't know about their SUV's, but the regular cars get pretty decent MPG, mid 30's AFAIK.
2009-03-02 16:30:15
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6714
hey Ghetto... i just meant in general... you guys have had really high gas prices so the cars and motors got tinier due to necessity...which makes sense... I do have a friend in the UK that has a twin turbo 300zx...  he races it sometimes...
Love is the answer
2009-03-02 16:41:18
TheEternalPessimist
Wibble
+412|6618|Mhz

ghettoperson wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

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.
QFT, I drove a 3 litre BMW for about 5 weeks and having my fuel bill more than double was not fun, I'd much rather spend £50 a month on my little diesel than £110 on a pointless big engined thing simply because it has more power which I don't need, and nor do 90% of other people, power means fuck all for urban driving and it doen't count for much on highways either tbh.
Which model was it? Don't know about their SUV's, but the regular cars get pretty decent MPG, mid 30's AFAIK.
2002 330i I think, which is actually fairly good for it's engine size, but nothing like as good on fuel as my 206, yeh it's not lightning fast but it's not slow and it's certainly not boring to drive around town, no less fun than the BMW anyway.

EDIT: Gets about 22mpg combined apparently, my 1999, 1.9l 206 gets 45-55, closer to 40 for me as it's about 70% urban driving.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2009-03-02 16:44:36)

2009-03-02 19:06:03
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6538|byah

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

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.
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 truck

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...
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.
Most lanes that directly point you to the interstate are at a downgrade slope. So I do not see your point.
2009-03-02 19:14:16
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6625|Canada

DrunkFace wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

when will ppl learn that fuel efficiency is all about HOW u drive, not WHAT u drive.
No, its HOW you drive WHAT you drive.
have u seen the topgear episode where they make a prius drive as fast as possible round the track and a bmw m3 has to keep up. the bmw was more efficient than the prius
2009-03-02 19:25:21
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6679|Disaster Free Zone

destruktion_6143 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

when will ppl learn that fuel efficiency is all about HOW u drive, not WHAT u drive.
No, its HOW you drive WHAT you drive.
have u seen the topgear episode where they make a prius drive as fast as possible round the track and a bmw m3 has to keep up. the bmw was more efficient than the prius
Firstly the test is flawed.
1. The bmw sat behind the prius the whole time. Have you seen the mythbusters drafting episode where they got anything up to 70% better fuel efficiency?
2. They were hardly being driven in the same fashion. Same speed maybe but definitely not the same way.
3. It was on a freaking race track.
4. The prius is a piece of shit.
2009-03-02 20:20:39
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5992|Truthistan

DrunkFace wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

No, its HOW you drive WHAT you drive.
have u seen the topgear episode where they make a prius drive as fast as possible round the track and a bmw m3 has to keep up. the bmw was more efficient than the prius
Firstly the test is flawed.
1. The bmw sat behind the prius the whole time. Have you seen the mythbusters drafting episode where they got anything up to 70% better fuel efficiency?
2. They were hardly being driven in the same fashion. Same speed maybe but definitely not the same way.
3. It was on a freaking race track.
4. The prius is a piece of shit.
The prius is designed to beat the EPA ratings system. Part of the EPA test is that a car is driven around and then stops and idles, this cycle repeats. The Prius beats the test because when it stops, its motor isn't running. If a gas car were allowed to stop its engine during the test then its EPA reading would be much higher too.  And the prius gas engine turns on at about 40 miles per hour so for a large portion of the test the prius never runs the gas engine. Source If you look at the source and see the amount of time at idle and the amount of time during the test under 40 miles per hour, you can see how the prius has been designed to beat this test.

Its no wonder that driving a prius in read world conditions shows it to underperform compared to the EPA readings. I wouldn't doubt that flogging prius would show that it underperforms compared to a sports car.

EDIT: I should add that if you are flogging the prius at a constant high speed around a race track, you have set up a test that pretty much nullifies any engineering advantage that the prius might have had over the sports car. Its not a contest that the prius can win.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-03-02 20:37:38)

2009-03-02 21:30:56
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6673|Canberra, AUS

Diesel_dyk wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:


have u seen the topgear episode where they make a prius drive as fast as possible round the track and a bmw m3 has to keep up. the bmw was more efficient than the prius
Firstly the test is flawed.
1. The bmw sat behind the prius the whole time. Have you seen the mythbusters drafting episode where they got anything up to 70% better fuel efficiency?
2. They were hardly being driven in the same fashion. Same speed maybe but definitely not the same way.
3. It was on a freaking race track.
4. The prius is a piece of shit.
The prius is designed to beat the EPA ratings system. Part of the EPA test is that a car is driven around and then stops and idles, this cycle repeats. The Prius beats the test because when it stops, its motor isn't running. If a gas car were allowed to stop its engine during the test then its EPA reading would be much higher too.  And the prius gas engine turns on at about 40 miles per hour so for a large portion of the test the prius never runs the gas engine. Source If you look at the source and see the amount of time at idle and the amount of time during the test under 40 miles per hour, you can see how the prius has been designed to beat this test.

Its no wonder that driving a prius in read world conditions shows it to underperform compared to the EPA readings. I wouldn't doubt that flogging prius would show that it underperforms compared to a sports car.

EDIT: I should add that if you are flogging the prius at a constant high speed around a race track, you have set up a test that pretty much nullifies any engineering advantage that the prius might have had over the sports car. Its not a contest that the prius can win.
You guys are all taking Top Gear much too seriously. It's Top Gear, for god's sake! Watch and laugh, don't watch and analyse.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-03-02 22:09:46
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6770|PNW

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bah, U.S. car makers get a bad rap; there are more models offering good fuel economy from Ford than there are from Toyota
I'd rather have three Japanese cars to choose from with 40+MPG than five American cars to choose from with 20+ MPG
And if it's a question over 'made in America,' Toyota still has manufacturing plants here...
2009-03-03 00:20:34
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6808|Nårvei

Diesel_dyk wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:


have u seen the topgear episode where they make a prius drive as fast as possible round the track and a bmw m3 has to keep up. the bmw was more efficient than the prius
Firstly the test is flawed.
1. The bmw sat behind the prius the whole time. Have you seen the mythbusters drafting episode where they got anything up to 70% better fuel efficiency?
2. They were hardly being driven in the same fashion. Same speed maybe but definitely not the same way.
3. It was on a freaking race track.
4. The prius is a piece of shit.
The prius is designed to beat the EPA ratings system. Part of the EPA test is that a car is driven around and then stops and idles, this cycle repeats. The Prius beats the test because when it stops, its motor isn't running. If a gas car were allowed to stop its engine during the test then its EPA reading would be much higher too.  And the prius gas engine turns on at about 40 miles per hour so for a large portion of the test the prius never runs the gas engine. Source If you look at the source and see the amount of time at idle and the amount of time during the test under 40 miles per hour, you can see how the prius has been designed to beat this test.

Its no wonder that driving a prius in read world conditions shows it to underperform compared to the EPA readings. I wouldn't doubt that flogging prius would show that it underperforms compared to a sports car.

EDIT: I should add that if you are flogging the prius at a constant high speed around a race track, you have set up a test that pretty much nullifies any engineering advantage that the prius might have had over the sports car. Its not a contest that the prius can win.
You know what rush traffic is?

Part of the EPA is just that, simulated rush traffic ... it wasn't designed to beat a test, it was designed to save fuel and to implement an engineering breakthrough of gigantic proportions ... do you honestly think Toyota used 15 - 20 years researching hybrid tech and spend billions just to beat that test ...

Hybrids are not perfect ... I'd be the first to admit even though I'm a huge fan but the Prius is the first of many steps in the right direction ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-03-03 03:39:14
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6409|'Murka

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:


I'm not sure if you are old enough to drive(and i dont mean that as a slight)
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...
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.
Only fat people enjoy airconditioning on a hot day... ok... lol... good argument...
Not really that good of an argument, considering most of Europe is well north of the US's latitude...meaning summers are generally not that hot (also why many houses in Europe don't have AC).
“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
2009-03-03 04:08:22
JahManRed
wank
+646|6626|IRELAND

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

and nobody has talked about crash safety... I would rather have some decent sheetmetal around me than a soda can...lol
you guys in europe are used to smaller gas frugal cars... due to the super high prices... we may be heading that way... but more than likely
we will have cars come out hybrid or otherwise that will deal with the dwindling oil supplies...
So you would prefer a tank like car that destroys what ever it crashes into as long as it protects you? The Chrysler, people carrier was the largest people carrier on the market here (and therefor the largest car) and it scored some of the lowest score in crash tests. Its not all about size. Its intelligent design, crumple zones etc. You have to take into account the fact that if you crash and its your fault you car has the potential to kill the occupants of the other car. Its your responsibility to drive something which doesn't cut through them like butter.
2009-03-03 04:14:32
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
Large cars don't always win in crash tests, they will annihilate anything in their path however.
Since people are selfish they need to be prevented from buying dangerous juggernauts.
Not sure how to solve the automotive arms race TBH.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard