2008 Volvo C30
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
I guess that is true... It just saddens me when no new cars the likes of my 91 BMW 318i are available anymore...
Sure its a bit small for my 6ft4 self, and its 132 hp isnt much, but it is more of a car than the latest BMW that i drove was, IMO.
I just wish the KISS principle, which appears to be obtainable on the so-called "luxury brands" in europe is just not available here, because the market doesnt want it. But I do want it, so its a peeve of mine.
The real issue is that my car likes have been squeezed out by the got to have more horsepower, who cares about economy crowd. I am the minority, as I want small, economical, semi-underpowered and extremely simple vehicles that will easily last well over 200k. And you just cant find them anymore... but why is it? because of the mentality of the masses these days.
The mentality of the masses can change, and I can move with the change, no problem... but when the changes are such that they are obviously unsustainable, then I have issue. Volvo putting ads in gay magazines? not my problem... Volvo not allowing people to obtain an economical version of their vehicle? not to my liking.
Its the same deal with hyundais and whatnot... years ago, power windows were a luxury item. Now the cheapest cars on the road come with such gadgets standard. Maybe its economies of scale, that now power window lifts are cheaper than manual ones, but I doubt it... Instead I think it is that people feel that they deserve such stuff, even if they cant afford better than a $10k car.
I personally think it is a slippery slope, and we are starting to see the economic ramifications of such behaviors in our society... But thats a topic for G&OT, so Ill shut up now and just close with:
Volvo, why no economy engine or diesel????????? Will you at least offer 25% of the cars you sell here in NA with manual transmissions?????
(I doubt it).
JMH
Sure its a bit small for my 6ft4 self, and its 132 hp isnt much, but it is more of a car than the latest BMW that i drove was, IMO.
I just wish the KISS principle, which appears to be obtainable on the so-called "luxury brands" in europe is just not available here, because the market doesnt want it. But I do want it, so its a peeve of mine.
The real issue is that my car likes have been squeezed out by the got to have more horsepower, who cares about economy crowd. I am the minority, as I want small, economical, semi-underpowered and extremely simple vehicles that will easily last well over 200k. And you just cant find them anymore... but why is it? because of the mentality of the masses these days.
The mentality of the masses can change, and I can move with the change, no problem... but when the changes are such that they are obviously unsustainable, then I have issue. Volvo putting ads in gay magazines? not my problem... Volvo not allowing people to obtain an economical version of their vehicle? not to my liking.
Its the same deal with hyundais and whatnot... years ago, power windows were a luxury item. Now the cheapest cars on the road come with such gadgets standard. Maybe its economies of scale, that now power window lifts are cheaper than manual ones, but I doubt it... Instead I think it is that people feel that they deserve such stuff, even if they cant afford better than a $10k car.
I personally think it is a slippery slope, and we are starting to see the economic ramifications of such behaviors in our society... But thats a topic for G&OT, so Ill shut up now and just close with:
Volvo, why no economy engine or diesel????????? Will you at least offer 25% of the cars you sell here in NA with manual transmissions?????
(I doubt it).
JMH
I've been happy with the fuel economy of my 210HP Saab 93.
I got 34MPG on a long highway trip. I wasn't driving it slow, either..about 75MPH the whole way, faster in some places.
I don't think a larger turbo is automatically going to make the fuel economy worse, it still depends on how much load there is on the engine. That is mostly dependent upon how the vehicle is driven.
I got 34MPG on a long highway trip. I wasn't driving it slow, either..about 75MPH the whole way, faster in some places.
I don't think a larger turbo is automatically going to make the fuel economy worse, it still depends on how much load there is on the engine. That is mostly dependent upon how the vehicle is driven.
For once, JHZR2 I agree with part of your point. What does worry me is that today's 'compact' cars are barely compact and gas mileage is laughable compared to what was offered in the early and mid 80s. The Honda CRX (a benchmark car in the segment, IMO) achieved 50mpg in its base form with manual windows / locks, no sunroof....you get the picture. The 2 Civics I owned (86 and 91) didn't seem small to me when I owned them, but they do seem small now. Perhaps that's due to the current Civic being larger than the original and next generation Accord. Carmaker's smallest cars have grown so much in size and equipment that some have even inserted brand new nameplates to fill the slot below them (Nissan and Honda to name 2) and even the Honda Fit has a larger interior than the 1st Accords. And...the gas mileage offered isn't stellar from what I read. Those are some pretty heavy compact cars when compared to past generations.
I said this on a Nissan Frontier forum and I'll say it here....some peole DO want small, economical cars and trucks and there's nearly no such thing available in the US. Want a compact pickup? You're SOL unless you like the againg Ranger. Demand for such vehicles is just too low I suppose. Personally, I'd LOVE for Toyota to come out with a pickup to fill the slot below the gigantic Tacoma...around the size of the original Toyota pickup of the early 80s would do fine. And Honda....resurrect the CRX and don't make it weigh more than my mom's 85 Accord.
I said this on a Nissan Frontier forum and I'll say it here....some peole DO want small, economical cars and trucks and there's nearly no such thing available in the US. Want a compact pickup? You're SOL unless you like the againg Ranger. Demand for such vehicles is just too low I suppose. Personally, I'd LOVE for Toyota to come out with a pickup to fill the slot below the gigantic Tacoma...around the size of the original Toyota pickup of the early 80s would do fine. And Honda....resurrect the CRX and don't make it weigh more than my mom's 85 Accord.
Ford sees Volvo as an upscale brand in the US, so there won't ever be any frugal Volvos here. Just like there won't ever be any frugal Acuras (bye, RSX) or Lexuses. And I think Mercedes and BMW learned their lesson here with the slow selling CLK and 318Ti hatches. Maybe it's influenced by the masses, but it's the US arm of the marketing dept that thinks simple cars ruin their company's prestige.
And even with 15psi of boost and 300hp that Volvo engine is going to go to 250k miles with hardly a blip. Volvo has been turbocharging for over 30 years, Honda has been at it in the US for less than a year. Any comparison by engine displacement and horsepower is going going to tell 1% of the story, especially comparing a brand new engine with a well established one...
JHZR2
Staff member
Wow, you usually disagree with my points? That's OK, but I best try to get on your good side
Best,
JMH
The post originator wondered why Honda didn't "add torque" to their engines (i.e. turbocharging). I was merely pointing out that they do.
JHM, I know where your coming from as far as enjoying a simpler fun to drive auto. I did once own I think a similar car to the BMW 318i. It was a an absolute hoot to drive 1988 VW Jetta GLI 16V(125HP) available manual only. There was not a single power item in the car except power OEM Recaro seats. It did have AC thankfully. It was a lightweight car so that 125HP with a close ratio transmission (80MPH=4000RPM) it always had more than enough power. It also got around 30MPG with AC off.
That being all said my current car a 2004 WRX Wagon is nearly fun to drive as VW Jetta GLI. Its a very simple car too although it has the standard modern power items.
So what if Volvo only offers 25% in manual transmission. You can always order what you like.
On BMW they are trying to address the market hole you miss with the 1-series but engines seem powerful.
That being all said my current car a 2004 WRX Wagon is nearly fun to drive as VW Jetta GLI. Its a very simple car too although it has the standard modern power items.
So what if Volvo only offers 25% in manual transmission. You can always order what you like.
On BMW they are trying to address the market hole you miss with the 1-series but engines seem powerful.
In actuality, the 2.5 on the C30 "T5" is somewhere between a 2.5T and a HO T5 engine on Volvo's power scale. I threw in the R variant to give a fuller sense of that scale. Moderate tuning can get the R engine up around 350 hp with reasonable durability.
The C30 engine is slightly detuned and on the lighter side of what that engine family is capable of. A higher output T5 (257 hp) or R engine in a small C30 would be more WRX-like.
But the Honda engine produces decent torque.
In my opinion, car manufacturers are using increased engine technology to increase HP not MPG.
For example, I'm confident that my 5-speed 330ci gets at least as good fuel economy on the highway (easily over 35 MPG) as JMH's 318i. Only difference is, my 330ci has 225HP.
By today's standards, 225HP is low, and on a good day a 2007 v6 toyota camry can easily keep up with my BMW. At today's gas prices, ~35MPG is seen by the public as pretty good, so instead of improving on MPG, increased technology is used to increase HP.
The current flagship BMW 3 series (335ci) now gets comparable fuel economy to my 330ci, but has another 75HP at least.
Another example of this is found in the hybrid high-end lexus sedan. Fuel economy is not astounding, but instead it is respectable. The hybrid element in this car is used to dramatically increase horsepower.
Until fuel prices go up significantly, my view is that manufacturers will continue to use technology gains to increase HP with only marginal increases in fuel economy - except in their economy car lines.
I understand the lament of a missing market segment that used to be filled by a BMW 2002, or a 318i, but 190 HP is the 130HP of of 15 years ago...and even a 318i wasn't cheap in its day. 325's of today are comparable in many ways. Further, just because someone's car has more HP than someone else's, doesn't mean the person with more HP is less financially prudent or is a show-off. That horse has been beaten pretty hard by some. Many many people buy every non-appreciating asset with cash only. I'm one of them.
For example, I'm confident that my 5-speed 330ci gets at least as good fuel economy on the highway (easily over 35 MPG) as JMH's 318i. Only difference is, my 330ci has 225HP.
By today's standards, 225HP is low, and on a good day a 2007 v6 toyota camry can easily keep up with my BMW. At today's gas prices, ~35MPG is seen by the public as pretty good, so instead of improving on MPG, increased technology is used to increase HP.
The current flagship BMW 3 series (335ci) now gets comparable fuel economy to my 330ci, but has another 75HP at least.
Another example of this is found in the hybrid high-end lexus sedan. Fuel economy is not astounding, but instead it is respectable. The hybrid element in this car is used to dramatically increase horsepower.
Until fuel prices go up significantly, my view is that manufacturers will continue to use technology gains to increase HP with only marginal increases in fuel economy - except in their economy car lines.
I understand the lament of a missing market segment that used to be filled by a BMW 2002, or a 318i, but 190 HP is the 130HP of of 15 years ago...and even a 318i wasn't cheap in its day. 325's of today are comparable in many ways. Further, just because someone's car has more HP than someone else's, doesn't mean the person with more HP is less financially prudent or is a show-off. That horse has been beaten pretty hard by some. Many many people buy every non-appreciating asset with cash only. I'm one of them.
JHZR2
Staff member
What is that, imperial gallons? Per the EPA website, the best 02 330i is rated at 27 MPG highway. I know that fuel economy values can be handily beaten, so lets draw an analog that I know for convenience.. you can routinely beat the highway estimate by 4 MPG if you drive carefully. So that puts you at 31 MPG.
Now, maybe youre a MUCH better driver than I, and perhaps you are significantly more consciencious of your driving than I am, and so can routinely get 8 MPG over the EPA estimates... I have my doubts, but if you say so, what can I claim... of course, in G0d I trust, all others bring data... but I have no reason not to trust you.
But my point is this - 10-20 years ago, 130hp was a good number. My 318i has more than enough power to get out of its own way, heck, my 83 MB 300D turbodiesel which made 120 hp at full boost on a good day had enough power to get out of its own way.
Now draw all that technology that is being used to fuel horsepower wars, which exist for no other reason than that the masses feel they 'need' it (to cover up their poor driving skills usually), and that they 'deserve' it, when theyre living financially unsustainable lifestyles, and there is an issue.
There is no good reason why BMW couldnt take their technologies that make their engines relatively power dense, and apply them in the opposite way to make their engines more economical at the same power rating. Fuel economy is directly proportional to power output, it is on the owner to not use it, and it is on the car company to not provide it. Some people can get along just fine without it, and perhaps even prefer such.
And the reality is that this stuff exists in Europe. And I think it is smart. Im not looking for the ridiculous, "if Europe is so great, move there" bit, I don't care to, but I certainly can try to learn and desire some things that they do that IMO are smart.
Other people have other needs, and those needs may be different than mine. I used to comute 35 miles each way a day. Before that I was driving (I was a competitive athlete who also worked nearly full time) close to 150 miles a day because of practice twice a day. I really don't need much more than 150 hp for a midsize car, and would love one that could easily get me 40 MPG. At this point, the E-class MBis the only thing out there, and while I can buy a new saab cash, I can't buy a new Mercedes... and for that I am not jealous or care. I LOVE my w123 MB, but I dont even know if Id like the latest e-class. My father has a 96, which is a nice car, but its not my w123... Sure it may be safer, better, even more economical, but a car does have to appeal, like my saab did to me, for, IMHO, reasons other than a nameplate and a horsepower rating.
Having lots of power is great, but what is reasonable for a fun car is not necessarily reasonable for a day to day car, and what someone with gobs of money can do and afford isnt what the masses should be doing. Its the availability of reasonable vehicles that is determined by the masses that is my problem. 190hp may be the old 130hp, but there is no reason why 130hp doesnt work equally well now as it did back then.
JMH
Amen, brother!
When looking to replace my rusted, white-trash '92 S-10, I had almost no options. I found a '99 Frontier with a 2.4, 5-speed, 2wd and it's the biggest I'll accept. It even looks small compared to the current monstrosity of a Frontier. The Tacoma is way out of proportion, in my opinion.
Also, why is it so hard to find a simple 2wd regular cab or small extended now? All the trucks I see are double cab, 4wd, auto, and get terrible mileage.
Perhaps I'm just too simple to understand these modern automobiles.
Why you ask? Demand is the best one word answer I can come up with. People are bigger than they were 25 years ago. They're also more demanding, especially in the pickup segment. It has to be bigger, tougher, more comfortable and more capable. Bigger and more gas-hoggish is the only current way to accomplish all those things. Unfortunately, the small minority of us who would love a 21st century version of that classic Toyota pickup don't have much of a voice. What a lot of people don't realize is that those pickups were actually tougher than the current smallest pickups. They just didn't have all the capabilities that people seem to think they need now.
A few facts rather than opinions:
Volvos are far less reliable than Hondas; check ANY major repair survey. The only major issue Honda has had recently involved automatic transmissions.
A 2.5 liter engine without a turbo should be capable of around 213 hp. To get more, you pretty much need a turbo. I have a 2 liter non turbo with 170 hp; do the math.
Volvos are far less reliable than Hondas; check ANY major repair survey. The only major issue Honda has had recently involved automatic transmissions.
A 2.5 liter engine without a turbo should be capable of around 213 hp. To get more, you pretty much need a turbo. I have a 2 liter non turbo with 170 hp; do the math.
JMH, of course the 27 MPG quoted is stated on the EPA website to have been revised down from the the EPA's original MPG figure of 30 MPG. Many were beating the old EPA estimates before they were revised. Given that fact, 4-5 MPG difference is still well within the range of your acknowledged possibility.
It sure does, but I'm not against balanced progress in MPG AND HP. We can have it all. As you pointed out, this technology is available in europe. I'd really like to see some of the automotive diesel offerings (like the BMW 3 & 5 series diesels) that are available in europe. I'd also like to see a 4 or 6 cylinder diesel 1/2 ton truck that can pull a medium sized travel trailer and get 30 plus MPG (when unloaded). I don't need 700 Ft/lbs of torque that is offered in the 6.6 plus L turbodiesel 3/4 ton trucks, I just need an economical diesel that can pull what a 1/2 ton 5.3L gasser can.
Given that diesels seem to offer the most economical blend of HP/Torque to fuel economy, I'm not sure why the manufacturers percieve that these types of engine options wouldn't be embraced in North America. I will confess to not knowing much about why manufacturers make these decisions. My only concern would be how these diesels would do in consistent periods of -30C weather. This concern is only based in anecdotal examples of people who've told me there are issues in this respect.
I think and hope more diesels are coming to North America.
It sure does, but I'm not against balanced progress in MPG AND HP. We can have it all. As you pointed out, this technology is available in europe. I'd really like to see some of the automotive diesel offerings (like the BMW 3 & 5 series diesels) that are available in europe. I'd also like to see a 4 or 6 cylinder diesel 1/2 ton truck that can pull a medium sized travel trailer and get 30 plus MPG (when unloaded). I don't need 700 Ft/lbs of torque that is offered in the 6.6 plus L turbodiesel 3/4 ton trucks, I just need an economical diesel that can pull what a 1/2 ton 5.3L gasser can.
Given that diesels seem to offer the most economical blend of HP/Torque to fuel economy, I'm not sure why the manufacturers percieve that these types of engine options wouldn't be embraced in North America. I will confess to not knowing much about why manufacturers make these decisions. My only concern would be how these diesels would do in consistent periods of -30C weather. This concern is only based in anecdotal examples of people who've told me there are issues in this respect.
I think and hope more diesels are coming to North America.
Yep, 18/27 versus 17/23.
I still think it's strange that the 92 hp 1995 Honda Civic VX turned in a 39/50 rating and was the only car since emissions laws were introduced that could pass without a catalytic converter, then it disappeared. Even the current Fit and Yaris can't touch those numbers.
Or, like the original 240 hp 2.0L S2000, 9000 rpm will do it!
- Status
Similar threads
