|
KillHour posted:I don't think anyone is arguing that diesels were always worse compared to gas engines, just that they are (for the most part) today. They're just obsolete. You can program a gas car to overtake better (with tradeoffs) more easily than you can work around diesel's issues. Car companies just don't really care about that particular characteristic because you can't easily stick that on a spec sheet. Which makes diesels even worse from their point of view, since its benefits aren't a priority. That's exactly my point. Diesel was better for everyday puttering around type driving because of the increased torque low in the rev range. But now that a lot of gasoline engines more less match those figures, diesel just can't keep up anymore for passenger cars.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
Yeah looking at gas engines just 10 years ago diesel was way more attractive, but that has done a complete 180. I still think the diesel wrangler looks really neat, just wish they had a smaller more fuel efficient engine version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:That's exactly my point. Diesel was better for everyday puttering around type driving because of the increased torque low in the rev range. But now that a lot of gasoline engines more less match those figures, diesel just can't keep up anymore for passenger cars. I've never found that to be the case at all because the powerband an a small diesel is just so drat narrow that you end up needing to change gear a hell of a lot more than you would in a petrol. Even 25 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
dissss posted:I've never found that to be the case at all because the powerband an a small diesel is just so drat narrow that you end up needing to change gear a hell of a lot more than you would in a petrol. Even 25 years ago. Yeah, small diesels suck exponentially more, 1.8 or 2.0L really is the minimum. The 1.3 in my Panda was a bit like rrrrrrRAWRALLATONCEthenrunoutofbreath. That said, if you kept it in the boost it was probably the most responsive-feeling diesel I've driven, which admittedly isn't saying much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Powershift posted:ohhhhhh, i get it now. in fairness the fiat has 2 openings vs 7 for the dodge so it is positively constrained
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Is it even an opening? The bottom grill on the fiata looks like it might just be solid plastic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Network42 posted:Is it even an opening? The bottom grill on the fiata looks like it might just be solid plastic? You don't think a 1.4l fiat creates more heat than a liter mustang? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
While you guys are talking about some piece of poo poo lincoln, Mercedes-AMG has expanded their V12 engine production. The AMG trim engine makes 621 horsepower and 738 lb/ft 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Dislike button posted:While you guys are talking about some piece of poo poo lincoln, Mercedes-AMG has expanded their V12 engine production. The AMG trim engine makes 621 horsepower and 738 lb/ft Because the four hunnert horsepower lincoln evo will be 25 grand in a couple years. It's going to take at least 10 for a new V12 benz to hit that. Also, the mercedes V12 is electronically limited to 738ft/lbs or 1000nm because they're a bunch of vaginas. Even dodge puts a transmission good for 900ft/lbs in their vehicles these days. Besides, for 60 grand you can get a dodge with 707hp and 650ft/lbs, the mercedes numbers just aren't special. 621hp was something neat when the cadillac CTS-V was only 400hp and the top teir charger was 425 and the mustang was 300hp. Now the CTS-V is 640hp and can actually turn corners and stuff. You can get a 2014 mustang with 662hp or a 2015 at 529hp at 8250rpm that's praised for it's handling. You can buy a 200mph charger. And best of all, for the price of one x65 AMG, you can either buy all of those at once for the same price, or pick one and drive it straight into the ground for less than the day 1 depreciation on the benz. edit: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
At least they're not making a V12 at all, and not pussiyng out like a bitch with downsized turbo bullshit 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Because the four hunnert horsepower lincoln evo will be 25 grand in a couple years. Oh yeah how many of those are 12 cylinders? That's what I thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
It's like I said to a friend of mine. On a scale of 1-10, a v8 scores a solid 8/10, a 6 cylinder, 6/10. You can guess what a v10 and a v12 would score.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Because the four hunnert horsepower lincoln evo will be 25 grand in a couple years. You forgot to mention that ten years from now the Lincoln will still have reasonable Ford maintenance costs while keeping the old Mercedes happy will cost as much over time as just leasing a new one. I respect Mercedes-Benz and their products more so than the other Germans, but AMG cars are just dumb for anyone who isn't rich enough to buy one on their credit card, even if they are cooler than their competitors' M and S cars. I'd consider a used Mercedes, but never a used AMG Mercedes. Also people are missing the point of that Lincoln: A year from now that drivetrain is probably coming to the Fusion in a performance model that'll be priced more attractively due to not being stuffed full of luxury fluff, in addition to being a great platform in general. And even if a Fusion ST doesn't happen, dude's right about the resale value of Lincolns making them superb off-lease used purchases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Linedance posted:It's like I said to a friend of mine. On a scale of 1-10, a v8 scores a solid 8/10, a 6 cylinder, 6/10. You can guess what a v10 and a v12 would score. Well, a mercedes V12 would score 6/10 because the Thousand dollar coil packs are one piece per bank, if you can even find them. Don't get me wrong, i love V12 and seem to have some sort of emotional attachment to a Mercedes, but the only thing a sane person should think when they hear "mercedes is still making V12s" or "you can buy a CL65 for $25,000" is "neat". What lincoln should be doing is putting 2 ecoboosts together. make a 800hp/800ftlb 6 liter quad turbo, bolt it to the 10 speed, then stick it into something that looks like this.  2 giant comfy seats. a giant trunk. 12 cylinders, 4 turbos. Make it start at 70k and make all the bullshit tech garbage optional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:It's not that hard to understand. Diesels are slower 0-60 because of the low rev limit, but they're faster for overtaking maneuvers because you're already in the meat of the powerband while just cruising around normally. Apparently it is because you keep getting it backwards. I posted up the acceleration times for every diesel Jetta model available in the US which showed that you have this backwards. Diesels good to 60 mph but suck for overtaking. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Nah, the 3.0 is slated to be Lincoln exclusive. edit: replying to Wheee saying that setup would end up in the Fusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Nah, the 3.0 is slated to be Lincoln exclusive. Oh well, Lincolns tend to be better value than their Ford counterparts on the used market anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
V12s loving own haters vacate
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Well, a mercedes V12 would score 6/10 because the Thousand dollar coil packs are one piece per bank, if you can even find them. And yeah, that would be pretty damned sexy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
The 3.0 is a Lincoln exclusive for now, but even putting the 2.7 in a Fusion would be awesome. The 2016 MKX has a 2.7 rated at 335HP/380TQ which would do nicely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
The 2.4 i4 is also pretty nice in the new fiesta st, its what 345hp?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:They could use 2 turbos, just make them bigger. bigger turbos take time to spool. the itty bitty super fast turbos on the ecoboosts are neat as hell. they make funny noises and basically go from nothing to full boost in fractions of a second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Powershift posted:bigger turbos take time to spool. Which reminds me, I'm really interested to see the dyno charts for the FoRS vs the 2.3EB Mustang. Basically the same engine with different sized turbos and IC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:Apparently it is because you keep getting it backwards. I posted up the acceleration times for every diesel Jetta model available in the US which showed that you have this backwards. Diesels good to 60 mph but suck for overtaking. No, a diesel is absolutely not faster to 60 than a gasoline engine of similar power. Anyone who has driven both in the real world will tell you this. Unless you design a gearbox specifically for the diesel engine, with a super-tall first gear, it's going to run out of breath extremely quickly due to the low rev limit and fall on its face compared to a gasoline engine. You'll need more gear changes to reach 60, which kills it. Compared to direct-injection turbo gasoline engines, of course the diesel is slower, but that wasn't the point I was making. In the real world, in actual driving, a diesel is significantly faster in acceleration from a roll than an everyday NA gasoline engine of similar power, and that's the comparison people actually did in the real world. In addition to the better fuel mileage, it was an easy choice for company cars etc. But this is pretty much all moot now, and the only benefit to choosing a diesel engine in this age of direct-injection turbo gasoline engines, is fuel mileage. And that will probably die too, now that manufacturers are being forced to actually meet emissions requirements. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Oh well, Lincolns tend to be better value than their Ford counterparts on the used market anyhow. You can really get decent deals on mid-market/entry-luxury cars IMO. Their resale tanks a lot faster than a basic econocar or SUV it seems. Considering trading my Maxima for an SUV, and I can get a Volvo XC90 or Infiniti FX45 in decent shape for a comparable model year/mileage 4Runner or Pilot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Lots of people talk poo poo on Acuras and the like being built off high-volume platforms but ain't nobody can articulate why. If I were financing rather than leasing a luxury vehicle I'd rather it have the bones of a Honda than those of a retarded shitheel German.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Lots of people talk poo poo on Acuras and the like being built off high-volume platforms but ain't nobody can articulate why. Dunno, I haven't driven an Acura from the past decade. Is it reflected in being boring to drive? Until recently, even their higher-power large sedans were FWD only which isn't really a recipe for great dynamics in a large sedan with a big engine. More generally, luxury is sold on the basis of exclusivity - something the common man cannot afford or appreciate. Knowing that you're driving what's essentially a Civic or Accord with a markup is pretty harmful to this perception. Especially when the interior and stuff isn't even that much better, as in Acuras. The same reason that excessive badge engineering + luxury trims on Chevys killed off the American luxury brands. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
The MDX still sells like crazy if I recall correctly. Most of the complaining is car nerds who remember Integras and the NSX, or magazines that found the experience of dickrubbing the dash pad in an Acura slightly less rewarding than the same experience in an Audi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Lots of people talk poo poo on Acuras and the like being built off high-volume platforms but ain't nobody can articulate why. For some reason boring uninspired cars are also the most reliable ones. It's really strange how that works. Anyway I've been looking at Camaro, Mustang and Challenger prices and to get a decent one with a V8 all of them cost around 55-60k on the road after tax here in Canada. That's brutal... I haven't looked but I'm pretty sure there's a slew of other decent cars you could get for that kind of money that may even be better than these. Car and driver likes the mustang the most while the Camaro has an amazing interior now (I think). Still I prefer the challenger and I would totally get one if I didn't need to drive up to 600km every week and carry huge crates in the back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The MDX still sells like crazy if I recall correctly. Most of the complaining is car nerds who remember Integras and the NSX, or magazines that found the experience of dickrubbing the dash pad in an Acura slightly less rewarding than the same experience in an Audi. Eh I mean they sell like 50k a year, which is decent volume, but then again they are still outsold by Cadillac with their old-rear end SRX at the same price point . And more importantly, people don't really buy their other cars. That said, why would anyone pick an Acura? I think they're ugly and the interior feels cheaper than the competition, so I wouldn't buy one unless there was a big discount. They also change their alphanumeric nonsense names enough that I never really know what's what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
They outsold the SRX in '14, and have been the #2 or #3 seller in the segment the last five years. The RX obviously cleans house by an almost 2-1 factor over 2nd place. I see a tolerable number of ILXs and TSXs around these parts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Lots of people talk poo poo on Acuras and the like being built off high-volume platforms but ain't nobody can articulate why. A platform that underpins a cheap car must be inherently cheap to produce and therefore presumably has more compromises built in than a platform built for a car at a high price point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
sanchez posted:A platform that underpins a cheap car must be inherently cheap to produce and therefore presumably has more compromises built in than a platform built for a car at a high price point. I get this argument for say, the M3... but not so much for the 320i.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I see a tolerable number of ILXs and TSXs around these parts. The TSX is a neat little car, especially when you remember it's just the Euro Accord with all the option boxes checked (and an unfortunate front end treatment).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:The TSX is a neat little car, especially when you remember it's just the Euro Accord with all the option boxes checked (and an unfortunate front end treatment). Isn't it retired in the US? I used to see a ton of brand new TSXes, and now I see an amazing amount of ILXes every single day. I think Acura tricked people into paying the same money for a nice Civic that they were for a nice Euro Accord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:They outsold the SRX in '14, and have been the #2 or #3 seller in the segment the last five years. The RX obviously cleans house by an almost 2-1 factor over 2nd place. I don't think the SRX is at the same price point, it's quite a bit cheaper than the MDX, and is a 10 year old GM instead of a brand new Acura that they can't keep on the lots. The Buick Enclave is a better comparison. Though the Buick SRX/Cadillac Enclave/GMC Corvette are probably coming down the pipeline soon enough and we will be back to the GMT360 glory days. BMW Lancer is almost here. http://jalopnik.com/the-bmw-concept-compact-sedan-sure-looks-like-the-next-1743733715
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Isn't it retired in the US? I used to see a ton of brand new TSXes, and now I see an amazing amount of ILXes every single day. I think Acura tricked people into paying the same money for a nice Civic that they were for a nice Euro Accord. Yeah, I think they discontinued it. If they'd made the wagon version with a stick I might've been able to swing the wife into one of those instead of the CR-V.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah, I think they discontinued it. If they'd made the wagon version with a stick I might've been able to swing the wife into one of those instead of the CR-V. It got replaced with the ILX, kind of (the ILX is a little smaller and cheaper) and the TLX is kind of in between TSX and TL size, if I remember offhand correctly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
From like 2000 to 2008 Acura had a really great line up of cars. The 2nd and 3rd gen TL was a pretty drat nice car inside and out. Yeah, sure it's not "exclusive" because it's based on the Accord, but the Accord is a pretty sound platform. At the time you could get a loaded TL-S with the 260hp V6 for under 40k. Non-S models were a lot closer to 30k. Being FWD definitely prevented it from being a 3-series killer, but for most people who just want a nicer-than-average car it was a really good package. The only real bad thing was the early 2000s V6+auto combos that plagued all Hondas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
Tesla had to recall all their model s due to a safety defect
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 21:51
|
|
