Linedance posted:

this might sound like a stupid question but:
Given how commonplace automatic transmissions of various flavours are, especially in the North American market, it seems they can't be that much more expensive to produce, especially given the volume, compared to a manual transmission. Could it be that in certain circumstances, due to tooling and volume etc., that the manual transmission is actually more expensive to produce? In the UK, where manual is still the "standard" option, and automatics are an expensive upgrade, could that difference in production cost actually mean that in some cases the base model manual transmission is actually a more expensive car to build than the upgraded automatic, but the margins on upselling the auto more than make up for it?
Or is that all just a load of speculative crap with no bearing on reality because manuals are vastly cheaper to build?

Throatwarbler posted:

It seems very unlikely that they were going to retain the live axle on the 2015 even if it wasn't being sold in Europe. Similarly the 2.3l engine is being used in all kinds of other products.

Yes Norway is an expensive market for cars. It's also tiny. When people talk about Western Europe they are really just talking about Germany, France, Britain and Italy. Ford has always had a big footprint in Britain and IIRc does respectably well in Italy. Cars aren't that expensive in Britain so it will probably work out OK.

Q_res posted:

You realize he's pointing out that the car has a Shaker that is in no way connected to the intake, right? To be fair though, if it were functional it wouldn't actually do much of anything.

Q_res posted:

That doesn't make sense, in terms of airflow, if it actually connected to the intake it would be "behind" the filter. It'd be shoving unfiltered air into the intake.

a primate posted:

All I want is a diesel hatch that doesn't come with a ridiculous "sorry you don't live in Europe" surcharge. Is there a reason diesels are so expensive in North America besides economies of scale?

ilkhan posted:

Why is that?

I mean, there have to be farms and trailers and all sorts of workmen in Europe too, right?

Mange Mite posted:

How Chinese is Volvo nowadays?

fyodor posted:

Crank windows means never having to replace motors. I dream of having them on modern cars because ok sure.

Pryor on Fire posted:

rip cars, welcome to the 2nd suv gilded age

Ford Fiesta -16% to 4,946;
Ford Fusion -33% to 190,52;
Ford C-MAX -29% to 1,586;
Ford Mustang -17% to 8,299;
Ford F-Series -6% to 66,946;
Ford Explorer -16% to 18,294;
Ford Transit +17% to 11,993;
Lincoln MKX +50% to 2,643;
Lincoln MKC +2% to 2,451;
Lincoln Utilities +12% to 6,164

totalnewbie posted:

Has this been discussed here?

Enourmo posted:

Gasoline has a higher autoignition point than diesel, you'd have to bump the compression even higher than diesels already do.

totalnewbie posted:

No, even at higher compression it would still be spark ignited. Otto and Diesel cycles are too different to put them into a single engine.

Complexity is surely the biggest concern. But it would be interesting to see what kind of fuel consumption this engine has that Nissan was able to justify such a radical system.

totalnewbie posted:

Okay, I just read an article about HCCI and latest related developments. While the engines are still technically on the Otto cycle (Diesel vs Otto: http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~kadem/MECH%20351/NOTES/7_Diesel_%20cycle.pdf )

The problem with HCCI is that you have a lot of difficulty controlling ignition timing. Variable compression would help with that, but I'm not sure if the system would be able to adjust quickly enough. Anyway, HCCI basically has a small window where it can operate and the rest of the time it would have to be SI, so the overall benefits aren't there. But basically, variable compression is not enough, by itself, to allow for HCCI operation. It's a much more complex problem if you take into account other important factors like emissions (which, by the way, are a BIG part of the reason cars are so much more complex/advanced these days. Saving the environment is tricky business, who knew?)

Attempts to fix this have to contend with issues like low combustion temperature (excess CO) or high (excess NOx). The latest developments cite people partially stratifying the charge to bring things to the happy medium where you have good CO->CO2 conversion but stay short of NOx-emitting temperatures. This is kind of a tricky business, because if you don't do it correctly across the entire engine map then you are back to you either CO or NOx.

The article cited the supplier, Delphi (system called GDCI - gasoline direct-injection compression ignition), as saying that fuel economy improvement was 30% with less CO and less NOx than current diesel systems and targeting a 25MY SOP.

I'm not holding my breath. Working at a spark plug supplier, I'm a little torn on how much I want this system to succeed, but engineering/human-wise, it would be really interesting if it does pan out.

KillHour posted:

I'm so mad we don't get the wagon version of the Fusion/Mondeo ST.

dissss posted:

There is a Focus ST wagon though (I know because I have a co worker that won't shut up about how they're totally going to import one from the UK)

dissss posted:

You can get a Passat with the 206kw four (which I think is the Golf R engine) or that ridiculous TT diesel (as much as I dislike diesels that one is impressive).

Wistful of Dollars posted:

Hell, there's a Golf R wagon.

davebo posted:

I've always thought it was really cool but I've never paid for sports channel packages on cable tv and have no clue when/where/if these things get televised here. It's the kind of thing I'd watch but wouldn't pay extra for, and what are the chances it'd ever get covered by the major networks?

kimbo305 posted:

Sizewise, are the 60s the new 70s?

Frond posted:

Keep in mind your market was probably different. North Americans did not get the absolutely dire base model poo poo-rear end versions of the Baby Benz/3 series/Junior Audi.

I visited Macedonia a few years ago and their were basic versions of the e30/e36 running around and the equipment levels were an absolute joke.

Twerk from Home posted:

Wouldn't something like this get dramatically better fuel economy and likely be lighter than a body on frame pickup? This seems like it'd be a better "lifestyle truck" than what we can get in the US.

big crush on Chad OMG posted:

Ahead of its time really. If Range Rover made one today? Print that money.

hifi posted:

ilkhan posted:

i3 is, right? Or am I imagining that?

Steely Dad posted:

https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1230702372868902913

Godzilla07 posted:

For the E-Class's mid-cycle refresh in the US, Mercedes has decided to replace the E-Class wagon with the E-Class All-Terrain. This now aligns the E-Class wagon with the Audi and Volvo. I think this also means that every new wagon in the U.S. except for the V90 (only available via special order) and E63 AMG, mimics the Subaru Outback.



The new mild-hybrid straight-6 replaces the V6TT across the range. In E450 form this engine is "detuned" compared to the E53, much like the M2 Comp is "detuned" compared to the M3.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

poo poo, Koeniggsegg on it again...