SUV's are obsolete

[GT4_Rule]

Hybrid SUVs, are, in my opinion, a good try to increase fuel economy and efficiency, but they're pointless. Why? Because the extra cost of Hybrid SUV (usually $3000-$5000+ CDN) would pay for a few months, if not years, worth of gas. And all the used battery, they damage the environment more than CO2 does. Those heavy metals, they are especially damaging, like Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury.

 

[Tornado]

Just let me know when your S-Class can tow a 30 ft. boat, and haul six people and their stuff, then the S-Class may replace the Avalanche...

Actually, Mercedes already does make a car that can do that. It's called the Sprinter, and it can seat 10 people and their stuff. And, you can dance in the back of it, or put a Mini in the back of it. Your local Dodge dealer will be happy to sell you one. You can even go off-road with it. For 36K.
In all seriousness, there are, however, some SUV's that you can simply not argue of their usebility. We had a Chevrolet Blazer that we did everything in. We towed, we went off-road (okay, I know that isn't and actual practical thing to do, so what?) we fit people in it, etc. But, say, any Mercedes SUV that is not the old G-wagen and any BMW SUV is pointless to the degree of being annoying. Slower, less sporty and able to haul less than their wagon counterparts. And people won't touch the wagons. BMW doesn't even sell them over here anymore.

 

[niky]

@Wolfe: Yup... the Honda Fit comes in just over 1040 kgs with regulation airbags... probably more in US-trim.

@Sniffs: instant sports car rating? Remind me not to put a muffler on my next car... might not get insurance at all...

Econo-cars with all-aluminum engines don't cost appreciably more than iron-block ones... but yes, bodywork is another thing, as aluminum bodies are ridiculously expensive to make. Doesn't mean the rest of the car (suspension et al) can't be aluminum, though.

@Toro: that pic is awesome!

 

[GT4_Rule]

That thing is the same as a Dodge Sprinter; they probably don't sell the M-B version here.

 

[Tornado]

That thing is the same as a Dodge Sprinter; they probably don't sell the M-B version here.

They don't, but the extent of the change is the grill adds another spoke to the Mercedes Benz logo and it gets way bigger.

 

[Wolfe]

But, say, any Mercedes SUV that is not the old G-wagen and any BMW SUV is pointless to the degree of being annoying. Slower, less sporty and able to haul less than their wagon counterparts. And people won't touch the wagons. BMW doesn't even sell them over here anymore.

http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/3/325xisportswagon/default
http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/5/530xisportswagon/default

Anyway, I agree with you -- I would never even consider buying a BMW X-series, or a Merc ML/GL. I would either go for a 5-series wagon or the good ol' G-wagen.

 

[Sniffs]

as long as volks doesn't try an updated Kubelwagen...which they DID send over here, labeled "thing"
i was in Kindergarden when I saw my first...bright Orange it was.

Niky: astronomical insurance rates went hand in hand with the american safety obsession that relegated the US to 100 horse 3 liters for two decades (not literally...but the most powerfull engine at one point in the US was 190 HP [would you kie that in Kilowatts instead?])

 

[Wolfe]

Niky: astronomical insurance rates went hand in hand with the american safety obsession that relegated the US to 100 horse 3 liters for two decades (not literally...but the most powerfull engine at one point in the US was 190 HP [would you kie that in Kilowatts instead?])

Here's a funny one --

1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (Turbo) -- 200hp / 339lb.ft / 5.0L V8

Mmm....200hp from a turbocharged 5-Liter V8....how wonderful.

 

[Jay]

Here's a funny one --

1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (Turbo) -- 200hp / 339lb.ft / 5.0L V8

Mmm....200hp from a turbocharged 5-Liter V8....how wonderful.

Haha, just looked the car up a bit, funny.

"Comments: In perhaps the ultimate insult to the Firebird, Pontiac dropped its 400 V8 and installed a new Turbo-charged 301 (4.9 liter) V8 as its top engine choice. The notorious "Turbo 4.9 was rated at a pathetic 210 bhp, but the real insult came from its actual performance. There was no Turbo boost indicator as Turbo lag was a huge problem and the engine often made loud pinging sounds under heavy loads just before it self-destructed. Nevertheless, a Pontiac Trans Am paced the Indianapolis 500 race that year. Sales dropped considerably.

Production:
Engines: 301 Turbo V8 210 bhp.
Performance: 301/210: 1/4 mile in 17.02 sec @ 82.1 mph."

 

[GT4_Rule]

Dark ages for American cars - 1972 - (in my opinion) 1995.

5.0L V8 making 210hp...thats 42hp per litre. HOW pathetic.

 

[Tornado]

Dark ages for American cars - 1972 - (in my opinion) 1995.
5.0L V8 making 210hp...thats 42hp per litre. HOW pathetic.

That's nothing. The 'Vette 5.7 of the same year barely made 200.
I would, however, change the date: 1972-1985. The Grand National GNX came out in '86. By '87 the Corvettes started getting fast again, dragging up the f-bodies until the ZR-1, Firebird Firehawk and '88 L98/LO3 V8 Camaros came out.

 

[GT4_Rule]

This is now a "hot" topic (is that the word?) Toronado you got the 100th post

Anyways.

That makes it even more disgraceful, man.

The reason I chose '95 as the end of disgraced years; look at the '92 Pontiacs, those '90s Chevy compacts and subcompacts.

 

[Jay]

Dark ages for American cars - 1972 - (in my opinion) 1995.

5.0L V8 making 210hp...thats 42hp per litre. HOW pathetic.

What makes it much worse is the 5.0L was turbocharged.

 

[Poverty]

What makes it much worse is the 5.0L was turbocharged.

That engine was crapppp.

 

[Tornado]

What makes it much worse is the 5.0L was turbocharged.

Even sadder, you could sell the turbocharger and use the money to buy a engine recalibrator and higher performance ECU and then the car could have up to 300 BHP easily.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, Pontiac did make up for it with the 1989 Trans-AM Turbo, essentially using the same turbocharged 3.9L V6 from the Buick GNX. Up untill the 2002 WS6, the '89 Turbo was the fastest Firebird ever produced.

Worst year for the automobile? Thats a tough pick. Generally speaking, you could cover about '75-'85 pretty easily, but there were a few stand-out models of the time. The VW GTI comes to mind, as well as the Celica 1600GT, '77 Trans-AM (even though it is slower than today's Vibe GT/Matrix XRS), and the obviously awesome DeTomasso Pantera, etc.

 

[Jay]

Well, Pontiac did make up for it with the 1989 Trans-AM Turbo, essentially using the same turbocharged 3.9L V6 from the Buick GNX. Up untill the 2002 WS6, the '89 Turbo was the fastest Firebird ever produced.

From what I've read the 2nd generation 1970-74 400 ram air IV and 455HO Firebirds were abit quicker breaking into the 13's (1/4 mile) while the 1989 3.8L V6 turbo (250hp) is just behind getting low 14's.

The 455 HO engine went down to 200hp by 1976 though .

 

[GT4_Rule]

Call that High Output ehh?? Funny stuff 200hp from 7L isnt anywhere near High Output

 

[Wolfe]

The 455 HO engine went down to 200hp by 1976 though .

Call that High Output ehh?? Funny stuff 200hp from 7L isnt anywhere near High Output

Wow...the 1976 BMW 633CSi made that much with 3.2L...

When it came to the US, emissions regulations brought it down to 181hp, but still...26hp/L vs 56hp/L...

 

[Jay]

Call that High Output ehh?? Funny stuff 200hp from 7L isnt anywhere near High Output

I wouldn't call a 200hp 7.5L engine 'HO' but the source I got it from did

 

[YSSMAN]

American engineers were reluctant to change the design of the engines overall, and I doubt they really understood how the Germans and Japanese were making so much power with smaller engines. The combination of low-compression heads, non leaded low-octane fuel, and new more restrictive exhausts helped end the golden age of the American automobile by 1973.

 

[Joey D]

I don't think SUV's are obsolete, they are just modern day station wagons that haul people and stuff. I know I like my Blazer quite a bit, it can tow, it can haul people, and their stuff.

 

[GT4_Rule]

American engineers were reluctant to change the design of the engines overall, and I doubt they really understood how the Germans and Japanese were making so much power with smaller engines. The combination of low-compression heads, non leaded low-octane fuel, and new more restrictive exhausts helped end the golden age of the American automobile by 1973.

And even though they improved a great deal, they still suck at squeezing horsepower out of their engines. Some exmples:

- '06 Chevy Impala 5.3L DOD V8, 303hp. 57.17hp/L
- '06 Corvette 6.0L V8, 66.6hp/L
- '06 Ford Mustang 4.6L V8, 65.22hp/L

when other manufacturers offer something like this:

- '06 Honda S2000 2.2L L4, 107.72hp/L
- '06 Nissan 350Z 3.5L V6, 85.74hp/L

Theyre all NA engines, and you see the difference in hp/L between the American and the Japanese cars.

 

[YSSMAN]

...I think you are neglecting the fact that the American engines are larger to produce greater ammounts of torque. Unlike the people in Europe and Japan, Americans like to have the classic low-end grunt to get their vehicles moving, not high-reving high powered vehicles.

The classic example would be the comparison between the BMW M5's 5.0L V10 vs the Z06's 7.0L V8. Both make more than 500HP, but the Corvette produces 470lb-ft as compared to the M5's 383.

 

[Sniffs]

Yss: which is why americans also have low redlines, and wince at a screamin' meemie engine like in the S2000

Wolfe2x7: the Trans am is exactly the engine I was thinking of.

i collect car literature, guides, and even manuals. found a repair guide for not only the Golf 1/Sirocco starting from first production...but for a 411 as well.

FYI for those that don't know it. the US octane readings for gas are 87/89/92, while i was told that Britan runs 92/95/98

btw...first car I had as an 85 Mercury Marquis Brougham, loaded to the gills (how often do you come across an eighties with a leather wrapped wheel, trip clock, lit visor vanity mirrors on both sides, premium extra radio, and a full size spare in an AMERICAN car?) with a 3.8 listed at 145/185 (horse and torque respectfully)

even american deisel is supposed to have a lower Cetane count than what the rest of the world runs.

 

[Jay]

FYI for those that don't know it. the US octane readings for gas are 87/89/92, while i was told that Britan runs 92/95/98

FYI the US ratings is PON while UK uses RON, US 87 PON is rougly equivelent to UK 92 RON.

http://www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html

 

[Wolfe]

And even though they improved a great deal, they still suck at squeezing horsepower out of their engines. Some exmples:

- '06 Chevy Impala 5.3L DOD V8, 303hp. 57.17hp/L
- '06 Corvette 6.0L V8, 66.6hp/L
- '06 Ford Mustang 4.6L V8, 65.22hp/L

when other manufacturers offer something like this:

- '06 Honda S2000 2.2L L4, 107.72hp/L
- '06 Nissan 350Z 3.5L V6, 85.74hp/L

Theyre all NA engines, and you see the difference in hp/L between the American and the Japanese cars.

The S2000 is going to have a higher specific output (the name for HP/L) than more than 90% of the cars on the road, american or not. It's not really a fair comparison...

...I think you are neglecting the fact that the American engines are larger to produce greater ammounts of torque. Unlike the people in Europe and Japan, Americans like to have the classic low-end grunt to get their vehicles moving, not high-reving high powered vehicles.

The classic example would be the comparison between the BMW M5's 5.0L V10 vs the Z06's 7.0L V8. Both make more than 500HP, but the Corvette produces 470lb-ft as compared to the M5's 383.

Actually, the M5's V10 produces more torque for its size (lb-ft/L)...I know, the whole idea is the amount of torque, not the amount that you get per displacement, but still -- the V10 is simply a more power-efficient engine.

Also, Europeans like low-end grunt too -- they just approach the idea of attaining it differently...namely, slapping a small turbocharger on an engine, or making it a diesel. For example, neither the M5 or Z06 can hold a candle to the VW GTI's 104lb-ft per Liter...and its peak starts at 1800rpm.

 

[niky]

Turbodiesels aren't quick as lightning, but they're lots of fun to boot from a crawl.

Haha, just looked the car up a bit, funny.

"Comments: In perhaps the ultimate insult to the Firebird, Pontiac dropped its 400 V8 and installed a new Turbo-charged 301 (4.9 liter) V8 as its top engine choice. The notorious "Turbo 4.9 was rated at a pathetic 210 bhp, but the real insult came from its actual performance. There was no Turbo boost indicator as Turbo lag was a huge problem and the engine often made loud pinging sounds under heavy loads just before it self-destructed. Nevertheless, a Pontiac Trans Am paced the Indianapolis 500 race that year. Sales dropped considerably.

Production:
Engines: 301 Turbo V8 210 bhp.
Performance: 301/210: 1/4 mile in 17.02 sec @ 82.1 mph."

Damn... and I thought my car was slow!

 

[Gil]

lBack on track here:
My Excursion is a Turbo-Diesel. and with all the potential for using "alternate fuel technology", I'm rather fond of the big dumb truck.
With minimal modification it will run on old cooking oil, bio-diesel, and petroleum based diesel.
The only down-side for me, is that adding a special heated tank for the cooking oil, would cut down on a lot of my cargo space. But, If I was driving it every day, the modifications could pay for themselves in fuel savings in under a year.

If I was using a Pickup (think F-250, or Chevy 3500, or Cummins Dodge) then the tank could go in the bed and not bother my interior space, and would take up the room of a bed-mounted tool box.

So, no, SUV's are here to stay. That goes double for diesel powered SUV's.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Diesels....arent good.

Theyre annoying, noisy and messy. I dont know how you Europeans can love 'em I would never see myself buying a diesel, never.

Whats the difference between European diesels and American diesels?