Car's we'll drive in 2014???
- Thread starter BrianWC
- Start date
- Status
my 22 yr old stable will be 27 in 2014. The 528es I presently have 1/3 the miles of the 1st one I bought did when I retired it at 350k
My lil 5.0 will still be chugging along. With such a heavy aftermarket support there is no reason for me to buy new. Slowly but surely my stang will turn and stop as good as any new car. If I were to add a "new" (to me) vehicle it will be a 03/04 cobra or any of the supercharged lightnings. I have no use for a "green" death trap.
Hanna, just another cheerleader.
meh, I will absolutely be driving a 1976 Ford Gran Torino. My wife might have a newer Durango (01-03 with the 4.7L engine if it isn't already sludged up), and there might be a pickup truck and a Mazda MX3 taking up residence in the front yard.
my 2007 camary that i bought new will last me until i retire in 2022.with only 16500 mile's on it,it has a alot of life left.the winters are mild where i live,not much salt used.i have a whole 12 mile round trip to work.
I will still be driving the 3 2008's we bought last year.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: mormit
I remember when unleaded gas was going to be the end of the automobile..... didn't.
Boo-hoo. We Need to meet the same milage an econobox twenty years ago could hit. Stop living in the past.
Well, I recall the evolution. It did take "bringing the mountain to Mohamed" type action to get emissions reductions that they needed. I remember Chrysler tech films. They had the catalytic converter for awhile ..but couldn't pull an end run around the leaded fuel. I'm sure they tried everything short of converting the entire fuel requirements before surrendering.
I remember when unleaded gas was going to be the end of the automobile..... didn't.
Boo-hoo. We Need to meet the same milage an econobox twenty years ago could hit. Stop living in the past.
Well, I recall the evolution. It did take "bringing the mountain to Mohamed" type action to get emissions reductions that they needed. I remember Chrysler tech films. They had the catalytic converter for awhile ..but couldn't pull an end run around the leaded fuel. I'm sure they tried everything short of converting the entire fuel requirements before surrendering.
The problem with the Chevy Volt is that it will be priced just under 40K. That's a lot of $$$ unless the govt. gives a tax credit. Can buy a lot of fuel for that kinda money.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Car's we'll drive in 2014???
Moor laik cart's drahwn bye horse's!!!
Car's we'll drive in 2014???
Moor laik cart's drahwn bye horse's!!!
I hardly think turbocharged gas engines will be the savior in this situation. What some people don't realize is that the more air you pack into a cylinder, the more fuel you have to spray in to keep it from burning too lean. When trying to achieve X horsepower, either you have to start with a small 4-cylinder and turbocharge it, or use a larger, normally-aspirated 4-cylinder, one getting no better MPG than the other. Carmakers need to concentrate on smaller and lighter, and stop trying to find a free lunch with turbochargers.
A turbocharger is essentially a "free lunch". When you don't need the boost, you don't have to utilize it. Try getting rid of a larger engine's extra displacement (and all that comes with it) when you don't need it. Selective cylinder deactivation doesn't do the job, as you're still carrying around a bunch of dead weight and continue to suffer the parasitic losses. I think you're missing the point that while "X" quantity of air requires "Y" quantity of fuel, the volume of air a turbocharged engine uses isn't directly tied to the engine's RPM, unlike that of an atmospheric engine.
A turbocharged engine of equivalent output is already fulfilling the desire to reduce weight, as compared to the larger atmospheric engine, due to its reduced size. Then, of course, a smaller engine also produces improved brake specific fuel consumption figures versus a larger atmospheric engine. Also, a smaller turbocharged engine, due to its lower weight and reduced size, allows a more space-efficient chassis than can be built lighter.
Frankly, I'm not seeing how a smaller turbocharged engine fails to fulfill the "smaller and lighter" mission...
A turbocharged engine of equivalent output is already fulfilling the desire to reduce weight, as compared to the larger atmospheric engine, due to its reduced size. Then, of course, a smaller engine also produces improved brake specific fuel consumption figures versus a larger atmospheric engine. Also, a smaller turbocharged engine, due to its lower weight and reduced size, allows a more space-efficient chassis than can be built lighter.
Frankly, I'm not seeing how a smaller turbocharged engine fails to fulfill the "smaller and lighter" mission...
Originally Posted By: rshunter
A turbocharger is essentially a "free lunch". When you don't need the boost, you don't have to utilize it. Try getting rid of a larger engine's extra displacement (and all that comes with it) when you don't need it. Selective cylinder deactivation doesn't do the job, as you're still carrying around a bunch of dead weight and continue to suffer the parasitic losses. I think you're missing the point that while "X" quantity of air requires "Y" quantity of fuel, the volume of air a turbocharged engine uses isn't directly tied to the engine's RPM, unlike that of an atmospheric engine.
A turbocharged engine of equivalent output is already fulfilling the desire to reduce weight, as compared to the larger atmospheric engine, due to its reduced size. Then, of course, a smaller engine also produces improved brake specific fuel consumption figures versus a larger atmospheric engine. Also, a smaller turbocharged engine, due to its lower weight and reduced size, allows a more space-efficient chassis than can be built lighter.
Frankly, I'm not seeing how a smaller turbocharged engine fails to fulfill the "smaller and lighter" mission...
Save for the need of synthetic oil, the added parts cost, both initial and maintenance-wise, the extreme heat introduced to the surrounding areas, the need for good under-hood ventilation, the requirement of forged pistons...
If there's one thing I've been taught in life, is that there's no free lunch.
A turbocharger is essentially a "free lunch". When you don't need the boost, you don't have to utilize it. Try getting rid of a larger engine's extra displacement (and all that comes with it) when you don't need it. Selective cylinder deactivation doesn't do the job, as you're still carrying around a bunch of dead weight and continue to suffer the parasitic losses. I think you're missing the point that while "X" quantity of air requires "Y" quantity of fuel, the volume of air a turbocharged engine uses isn't directly tied to the engine's RPM, unlike that of an atmospheric engine.
A turbocharged engine of equivalent output is already fulfilling the desire to reduce weight, as compared to the larger atmospheric engine, due to its reduced size. Then, of course, a smaller engine also produces improved brake specific fuel consumption figures versus a larger atmospheric engine. Also, a smaller turbocharged engine, due to its lower weight and reduced size, allows a more space-efficient chassis than can be built lighter.
Frankly, I'm not seeing how a smaller turbocharged engine fails to fulfill the "smaller and lighter" mission...
Save for the need of synthetic oil, the added parts cost, both initial and maintenance-wise, the extreme heat introduced to the surrounding areas, the need for good under-hood ventilation, the requirement of forged pistons...
If there's one thing I've been taught in life, is that there's no free lunch.
Underhood ventilation need not be exceptional...Forged pistons are certainly NOT a requirement...
We're not talking about every econobox having to run 20+ psi of boost....
Look at what SAAB/GM did with the Ecotec in the 9-3. With the spec'd synth that thing will go 15k between changes no problem.
We're not talking about every econobox having to run 20+ psi of boost....
Look at what SAAB/GM did with the Ecotec in the 9-3. With the spec'd synth that thing will go 15k between changes no problem.
Every manufacturer that tries to boost without stronger components has always failed miserably.
I fail to see how this case will be any different.
I fail to see how this case will be any different.
2006 Mazda Mazdaspeed 6 2.3L I4 Direct Injected, Turbocharged, 270hp. EPA 19 mpg.
2009 Mazda 6 "S", 3.7L MPFI V6, 272hp, EPA 20 mpg.
I fail to see the free lunch.
2009 Mazda 6 "S", 3.7L MPFI V6, 272hp, EPA 20 mpg.
I fail to see the free lunch.
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Save for the need of synthetic oil, the added parts cost, both initial and maintenance-wise, the extreme heat introduced to the surrounding areas, the need for good under-hood ventilation, the requirement of forged pistons...
If there's one thing I've been taught in life, is that there's no free lunch.
Yeah, except some atmospheric engines already use, or specify, all of those things. A move to smaller displacement engines, with higher specific outputs, would require a more stringent component specification in any case.
As a real world example, my Volkswagens have called for synthetics for quite some time, with or without a turbocharger. There have been no significant price adjustments when the engines of choice have changed from atmospheric to turbocharged. Changes in maintenance requirements, and my associated costs, haven't been of any note. The biggest change has been the increase in lubricant costs, but that's hardly the responsibility of the turbochargers.
As for engine heat and ventilation issues, that's a subject which must be be dealt with in every platform introduced. It's called new product development...
Save for the need of synthetic oil, the added parts cost, both initial and maintenance-wise, the extreme heat introduced to the surrounding areas, the need for good under-hood ventilation, the requirement of forged pistons...
If there's one thing I've been taught in life, is that there's no free lunch.
Yeah, except some atmospheric engines already use, or specify, all of those things. A move to smaller displacement engines, with higher specific outputs, would require a more stringent component specification in any case.
As a real world example, my Volkswagens have called for synthetics for quite some time, with or without a turbocharger. There have been no significant price adjustments when the engines of choice have changed from atmospheric to turbocharged. Changes in maintenance requirements, and my associated costs, haven't been of any note. The biggest change has been the increase in lubricant costs, but that's hardly the responsibility of the turbochargers.
As for engine heat and ventilation issues, that's a subject which must be be dealt with in every platform introduced. It's called new product development...
- Status
Similar threads
