|
what's up with the split spoiler on the hatch?
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Pseudonym posted:To revive some of the JukeChat that's been going on: Nissan is stuffing the 520HP 3.8L V6 from the GT-R into a one-off concept, the Juke-R. Are they sure they can't make money selling this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:what's up with the split spoiler on the hatch? Maybe the antenna gets in the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Considering that it's getting the entire GT-R drivetrain as well, driving that would probably equate to reaching spiritual nirvana
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Are they sure they can't make money selling this? Considering it's hand built the answer is somewhere between "gently caress no" and 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been mentioned but just saw this posted on Uncrate. quote:VW has a knack for making fun cars, and the Volkswagen Buggy Up Concept ($TBA) is no exception. Based on the company's new Up! city car and inspired by the Beetle-based beach buggies of the '60s, the Buggy Up features a reinforced underbody, a roof-less and door-less exterior, neoprene-covered seats, a completely waterproof interior, and an iPod-powered infotainment system that pulls out to serve as a portable sound system. Sadly, there's no word yet on a production model, but you can put us down for one if/when it ever appears. I would love to have one of these, looks fun to drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Griffith86 posted:Not sure if this has been mentioned but just saw this posted on Uncrate. Hmm, where have I seen this before... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQfbc2dA6YI
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Gripen5 posted:The Sonata Turbo recommends 87. Not sure why exactly. Because the engine is designed and tested to run just fine on 87. There used to be a sticky thread on Prius Chat (don't ask) saying that higher octane than 87 doesn't actually help gas mileage (measured per gallon).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Because the engine is designed and tested to run just fine on 87. There used to be a sticky thread on Prius Chat (don't ask) saying that higher octane than 87 doesn't actually help gas mileage (measured per gallon). It's all about how much timing you can run on the ignition maps in the ECU. People don't put 100 octane in racing cars to feel awesome, they do it because their tuner was able to run a ton more timing and thus make more power. Running 87 octane on a turbocharged engine isn't bad if the tune was created with that fuel quality in mind. There's a guy with a supercharged Exige in Hong Kong that had the car shipped to California and tuned on 87 because that's the best they can get over there. He lost 20-30hp but otherwise it ran fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 05:07
|
|
Zoom Zoom, motherfuckers
|
Gripen5 posted:The Sonata Turbo recommends 87. Not sure why exactly. And the optima EX twin turbo. They do it because people like my dad shop for cars based on "does it take premium or not". I want to know if theres any 91 tunes for the optima ex coolskillrex remix fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Oct 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Considering it's hand built the answer is somewhere between "gently caress no" and
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Because the engine is designed and tested to run just fine on 87. There used to be a sticky thread on Prius Chat (don't ask) saying that higher octane than 87 doesn't actually help gas mileage (measured per gallon). Hell, many motorcycles are designed for 87 AKI (92 RON) gas, even though they can have upwards of 12:1 compression and over 130 hp/liter. So it's not just economy-minded vehicles that run fine on low-octane gas, it's all down to engine design and ignition timing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 10:06
|
|
|
It seems like direct injection helps a lot when it comes to running low octane, the new Hyundai 2.0 and the new Ford 5.0 are both fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
sanchez posted:It seems like direct injection helps a lot when it comes to running low octane, the new Hyundai 2.0 and the new Ford 5.0 are both fine with it. It absolutely does because the engine designers can determine precisely how the fuel enters the cylinder and how it's dispersed. They can also mess with timing far beyond when the valves open, delaying the introduction of the fuel into the combustion chamber until the last possible moment so it doesn't have a chance to detonate prematurely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
sanchez posted:It seems like direct injection helps a lot when it comes to running low octane, the new Hyundai 2.0 and the new Ford 5.0 are both fine with it. The Ford 5.0 doesn't use DI. I know they have the injectors mounted for a direct shot into the chamber but it's not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Pseudonym posted:To revive some of the JukeChat that's been going on: Nissan is stuffing the 520HP 3.8L V6 from the GT-R into a one-off concept, the Juke-R. Looks like at least 3 visible pieces of sheet metal they forgot to glue unnecessary plastic poo poo to. Come on, Nissan, you can do better than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
I've always wondered: if you're going to go to the trouble of making an AWD vehicle, why not offer a RWD version instead of a FWD version for people who don't want AWD? RWD vehicles feel so, so much better to drive than FWD, and if you're worried about winter/offroad driving, you should go with AWD anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
In most cases the rear part of the drivetrain on FWD based AWD cars isn't nearly beefy enough to support all the power going through it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I've always wondered: if you're going to go to the trouble of making an AWD vehicle, why not offer a RWD version instead of a FWD version for people who don't want AWD? RWD vehicles feel so, so much better to drive than FWD, and if you're worried about winter/offroad driving, you should go with AWD anyway. Because the applied AWD design in that car doesnt mean that you can put 100% of power to the rear as the drivetrain or suspension might not be up to it. That and a front heavy transverse engine RWD car would handle like total crap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Nissan's promotional video for the Juke's AWD system seems to imply that it's not full-time, so I suspect doing something like the Impreza RWD conversions is not really possible without reinforcing parts of the rear end (viscous plates in the rear axle stubs?) and subverting the transfer case/centre diff clutch controller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzqRmwFg70M The front suspension and transaxle are probably pulled directly off the FWD Versa. Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Juke-R sounds way funnier than it should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Mustang GT500 is getting a 5.8L engine, still supercharged.quote:Fans of large displacement and forced induction (isn't that everyone?) can officially rejoice today as the recently approved deal between Ford and the United Auto Workers has answered a question that's been on our minds ever since Chevrolet upped the horsepower ante with its Camaro ZL1. Yes, folks, the 2013 Shelby GT500 will be blessed with a 5.8-liter supercharged V8 engine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
sanchez posted:It seems like direct injection helps a lot when it comes to running low octane, the new Hyundai 2.0 and the new Ford 5.0 are both fine with it. It also helps build up carbon on the back of your intake valves.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Man, that seafoam video would have been epic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Mustang GT500 is getting a 5.8L engine, still supercharged. If that 600HP number is accurate it sure takes the wind out of the ZL1's sails.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I've always wondered: if you're going to go to the trouble of making an AWD vehicle, why not offer a RWD version instead of a FWD version for people who don't want AWD? RWD vehicles feel so, so much better to drive than FWD, and if you're worried about winter/offroad driving, you should go with AWD anyway. In addition to the physical limitations that the others have explained, most AWD vehicles are already set up in the way you describe - All trucks, truck based SUVs, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, all BMWs, Mercedes, Infiniti, etc. Th FWD-or-AWD thing is more the exception than the rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Th FWD-or-AWD thing is more the exception than the rule. It depends on market. Virtually every Japanese car comes in and awd variant in its home market and the vast majority of these are fwd when not awd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
dissss posted:It depends on market. Virtually every Japanese car comes in and awd variant in its home market and the vast majority of these are fwd when not awd. Depends on the platform, like was the engine bay designed for transverse or longitudinal engine layouts. Lower end (thus most models) cars tend to be FWD with transverse motors, so their AWD variants keep the same engine and position. Subarus could be either, but I guess it's easier for them to chop the rear drive components and simplify the transmission a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:In addition to the physical limitations that the others have explained, most AWD vehicles are already set up in the way you describe - All trucks, truck based SUVs, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, all BMWs, Mercedes, Infiniti, etc. Th FWD-or-AWD thing is more the exception than the rule. Outside of trucks, which are obviously a huge segment, FWD-AWD is probably more common. It also depends if you're making the distinction between xfer case selectable 4WD and automatic clutch pack/viscous diff AWD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 12:58
|
|
|
Guess I really didn't think about the issues for all that long, but thanks for all the info anyway! I should do my research before I open my mouth. I completely forgot about trucks, too (ironic, as I used to own one, and it was part-time 4WD and otherwise RWD). And I drove my Mom's 330xi for a time...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
With trucks and SUVs anyhow it's not like the RWD version is super awesome handling and the AWD one is not. Most AWD vehicles that are at all fun to drive are derived from originally RWD platforms, or are dedicated AWD like Subaru.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:With trucks and SUVs anyhow it's not like the RWD version is super awesome handling and the AWD one is not. Most AWD vehicles that are at all fun to drive are derived from originally RWD platforms, or are dedicated AWD like Subaru. On the other hand, there's the Evo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
The Evo has a transversely mounted engine, while basically all Subarus have longitudinally mounted engines. I found an old (circa 2005) article that explains it fairly well, unless there's been major changes to the drivetrain design for the Evo X http://www.caranddriver.com/features/05q1/why_do_these_similar_cars_feel_so_different_-feature quote:First off, although these cars appear to be quite similar (turbocharged four-cylinder engines, four-door bodies, four-wheel drive, limited-slip front and rear differentials, etc.), there is a major difference in the way the four-wheel-drive systems distribute engine torque. An Evo is still basically a FWD based AWD system, while the Subaru system is essentially RWD-based with no dedicated RWD version (until the new BRZ comes out).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The Evo has a transversely mounted engine, while basically all Subarus have longitudinally mounted engines. That was his point: Fucknag posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
note my key use of the word "most"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Sorry for all the  pedantic posting I just didn't think Fucknag needed a tutorial on the Evo's drivetrain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Dunno, I love pedantic posting. No joke. I think it's useful to have that sort of specific, technical discussion. Similarly, I was more posting to add more info not to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
2wd Subarus are actually FWD...That's more of an exception though I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Well, it gets even more confusing with subaru because different transmission types have different AWD systems. Automatic transmission ones that do not have VTD are 90%F 10%R unless slip is detected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Yeah what is the AWD setup with the new CVT? I think the one on the upcoming Impreza is basically the same as the one on the current Legacy, right? Is it basically the same as the previous automatic? On that note, the new Impreza looks better than the old one, but it looks like no turbo version for the time being and the only engine choice looks seriously underpowered - 148 hp and 145 lb/ft, compared to 170 hp rated output for the outgoing 2.5 liter. Combine that with drivetrain loss due to AWD and possible funky feel due to the mandatory CVT, and it seems like the NA Impreza will be slow as hell. I mean, I know power isn't everything, but considering the price is staying exactly the same as the outgoing model, the new Impreza really sounds like a serious downgrade. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 01:29
|
|