Suggest best car for frequent long trips

[motorguy222]

Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
Late model Town Car,Grand Marquis or Crown Victoria...I get 26 MPG on the road with the A/C on...Doing road trips you should be able to put 300K miles on any of those cars...I drive up to NYC from Miami a few time year and always get good MPG's...They are very low maintenance cars...I doubt you want a small car for long trips.


I say go with the Crown Vic,a nice car with a comfortable ride and safe.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

The Camry uses the same design, and it's awfully straight-forward to me. My wife, mother, and mother-in-law have all been able to figure it out without instruction.


When was the last time they had a need to put it into neutral?

Here's what the Saab 93 uses:

Notice that the stick is positioned directly next to the N when the vehicle is, indeed, in neutral.

 

[brianl703]

By the way, the Toyota which sped out of control in California last year--and which made everyone wonder why the driver didn't just put it into neutral--had that design.

I can easily see how someone might make the mistake of putting it into the + position and wondering what the heck is wrong with it when it isn't going into neutral and springing back into D--especially when the vehicle is accelerating out of control and they're in full panic mode.

I'm sure, however, that if you ask the engineers who designed this, they will be happy to tell you that there is absolutely nothing wrong with their design and any problems with it are all the fault of the driver.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
When was the last time they had a need to put it into neutral?


Every time they drive it. One passes through Neutral between Reverse and Drive.

I just don't see the big deal. But that's the great thing about choice. We all have the freedom to make our own.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
But that's the great thing about choice. We all have the freedom to make our own.


Until they cause problems, and then the choices are removed and replaced with requirements, which is why all automatic transmissions have PRND in that order. The rules currently do not prohibit what Toyota has done. That can change, and would not surprise me if it does.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: brianl703
When was the last time they had a need to put it into neutral?


Every time they drive it. One passes through Neutral between Reverse and Drive.

I just don't see the big deal. But that's the great thing about choice. We all have the freedom to make our own.

I guess that's what happens whn you put a MT guy into an automatic

At least I wasnt stomping the carpet with my left foot wondering where the clutch was But really, Ive owned over 65 cars and it took me 5 mins to get the thing in D after reversing out of the dealer parking spot. I had to put my glasses on to figure it out. NEVER had to do this on any car Ive driven. This equals bad human factor design to me. BTW I had a Dodge V6 RT in 2001 with a sport-shift auto, IIRC this went left-to-right for up and downshifting.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
This equals bad human factor design to me.


Yep. The design that Saab used is different--and it is my experience that Saab pays a LOT of attention to human factor design.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite

Hp does not matter to maintain speed on the highway. You are talking 60-80 MPH and at those speeds (2000-2500rpm) a 2+ litre 4 cyl is making about 60-70HP wide open and under 30HP at part throttle. It is "torque at rpm" that keeps a car going steady state on the open road and you are not spinning 6000 rpm!
...


I am not going to turn this into a HP vs. TQ debate because the reality is HP is a function of TQ over time with is why a lower HP engine with more TQ will be slower. Now gearing does play a very important role as lower gearing will help acceleration but not help elsewhere. Higher gearing will just make you turn high rpms for no point.

There is no debate, you can easily CALCULATE the HP the engine is making at the RPM range I mentioned. and the Hyundai would indeed make well less than 100HP and that would be at full throttle. You only need about 20-30 HP to maintain a crusing speed of 60. How many drivers would you guess require WOT to maintain speed on a highway? the 200HP 4-cylinder braggin rights are "unusable power". How much time do you spend at 6000 rpm with the car floored? Almost ZILCH. So the Ford V8 torque and HP are accessable on a daily basis(1000-4000rpm), and helpfull to speed the car down the interstate at 70 MPH at 1500 rpm. Wherein lies the fuel milage secret of the GMQ/CV - low rpm due to steep OD and tall rear gearing. I rented a pretty old CV years ago for a trip from NH to New Jersey. I got 29 MPG going ~ 70-75 on the interstate. NO [censored]. IIRC I had a hyundai Accent at the time (3 door) and NO WAY was I going to take my wife and a weeks worth of luggage in that trap to NJ. Accent worked fine as a 20 mile 1-way commuter and daily run about. Look at the cars in my sig. I am NOT big car biased.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
This equals bad human factor design to me.


Yep. The design that Saab used is different--and it is my experience that Saab pays a LOT of attention to human factor design.
I is wid you, Mang!

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
friction between the tires and road surface


This could be expected to be higher in a heavier vehicle and would be responsible for the majority of the fuel economy decrease that you would see from adding weight to a vehicle.
That would be heavily dependent upon driving conditions. If either terrain or traffic dictates anything but the most minor speed changes, then changes in momentum will gobble up disproportionate amounts of fuel in the heavier vehicle.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
wind resistance


Has very little to do with the weight of the vehicle.
Directly, no; indirectly, yes. Under real world design constraints (general vehicle shapes, market-acceptable features, tire sizing, etc., the heavier vehicles WILL generate more wind resistance. Even if the lighter vehicle and the heavier have a similar (or identical CD), it is most probable that the heavier one WILL have a larger frontal area.

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
and gravity (as when climbing any kind of grade)


Every uphill has a downhill on the other side.
And as I'm sure you know, the fuel hit for maintaining momentum going uphill is NEVER negated by the glide down the other side.



Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
With wind (or even still air), a smaller car has a smaller frontal surface area that requires less less energy to push through (or overcome) the resistance at a given speed, again - all else being equal - favouring the smaller and presumably lighter car.


Adding 1000lbs of load to a sedan doesn't increase it's frontal area.
Are you seriously contending that a Camry and a Yaris have the same frontal area???? Your cred should be important to you -- don't go there...



Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
Ultimately Newtonian physics prevail, but if you're going to cite it, then it doesn't mean anything when you leave out these other factors.


What I said was, vehicle weight has less of an effect on highway fuel economy than you might think. I suppose I should have added "all else being equal".
And how often are they all equal? Again, do you really think that a Camry and Yaris present the same face to the air in front of them?

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
Late model Town Car,Grand Marquis or Crown Victoria...I get 26 MPG on the road with the A/C on...Doing road trips you should be able to put 300K miles on any of those cars...I drive up to NYC from Miami a few time year and always get good MPG's...They are very low maintenance cars...I doubt you want a small car for long trips.


I say go with the Crown Vic,a nice car with a comfortable ride and safe.


All of the recommendations for the CV, its relative merits aside, don't count for much when the OP has stated in his subsequent post that he is looking for something smaller than this because the car is being purchased for his wife, who doesn't want something this big.

-Spyder

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
... As a professional mechanical engineer, automotive component designer, hobby race driver and general "car guy", all I can say is the camry, dynamically, does nothing well and a fews thing poorly. Such as: like ride tune/handling compromise, rear suspension kick, overly complex gear selector, understeer, intrusive center console. It pushes NO buttons on my "this is a good car" calculator. I do like its exterior styling.
Oh, c'mon now, as a professional engineer, you should be better than most at keeping a barrier in your mind between things objective and things subjective. My objection to your comments is, respectfully, that it looks a lot like you're trying to convert your own subjective opinions into objective fact.

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
- I did not compare the car to the Corvette,
I didn't say you did. My point, of course, is that you have to consider a car's characteristics in light of its mission.

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
...-Objectively the current malibu platform is carved from stone v. the camry. The previous malibu platform I had driven as a weekly rental was abysmal - so bad i returned it to the rental agency and got something else.
I congratulate GM for bringing the new Malibu as far as they have. On the other side, I really wonder where from this comment comes. I have not noticed any any "solidness" issues with either the Camry or the Avalon. Your comments remind me of the continual bragging of the car makers about how much stiffer the new version of Car X is compared to its predecessor. Maybe I'm simply too tolerant, but the last time I noticed one of my cars being perceptibly and negatively "flaccid" was when I owned an 85 Aries (yes, I occasionally admit to that...).
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
- Having a solid well damped high resonant frequency unitbody is VERY important first step in the making of a good car.
Seriously, I don't see any problem with the Camry in this regard.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The opel epsilon II has this. BUT, I didnt like the Malibu's (electric assist?) power steering feel during quick transition or the high beltline + short side glass low roof - But I wasnt drive out the car by vanilla engineering, when I exit the car I usually thought - not bad for its intended market - good show GM (and overdue!) That said a 1992 Mazda 626 was prob a better car dynamically than either of these current models.
I was right with you until the 92 Mazda comment...

Half-seriously, if one is to believe car maker hyperbole about how they've been super-stiffening cars over and over, well, compared to today's cars, a 92 Mazda would have been about as stiff as some over-cooked pasta.

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I am comfortable with my choices and i dont need anyone to validate them. If someone is HATING my yaris I will defend it where it is defensible, and concede where it's sloppy ( as in handling dynamics).
And I'm right with you there. My only experience with a current gen I-4 Camry was a rental I had for a few days when the Prius was in for a computer update. Seemed fine, but I was moving and had it loaded "to the gills" with cargo most of the time. By contrast, I am VERY experienced with the hybrid version, of course. I'll admit that the hybrid is an odd bird, sort of. It's heavier than a current V-6, but has better weight distribution than any of the other Camrys, given that both the heavy traction battery, and the 12V, are located in the rear, with trunk access. The total system output puts its accel performance about on par with the previous generation's 3.0L V-6 (when fed regular gas -- yes, I owned one of those too...). I think that the more even weight dist makes the car feel better than the gassers, especially the nose-heavy V-6. No, it will never mimick a 'vette or Miata, but it always gives me the feeling that it's going exactly where I point it, without slop, and without much lean until the cornering gets pretty intense. From a dynamic perspective, what else would you want a "family sedan" to do?

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I am also happy to criticize and talk about the compromises made in the selection of any new car - and there are many of them.
Fair enough. Let's get to it!

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
If either terrain or traffic dictates anything but the most minor speed changes, then changes in momentum will gobble up disproportionate amounts of fuel in the heavier vehicle.


Highway driving, which is what we are talking about here, generally consists of minor speed changes.

Quote:
Are you seriously contending that a Camry and a Yaris have the same frontal area???? Your cred should be important to you -- don't go there...


No, I'm saying that adding 1000lbs of load (luggage, passengers, dirt, bricks, etc.) to a vehicle doesn't increase it's frontal area.

Quote:
And how often are they all equal? Again, do you really think that a Camry and Yaris present the same face to the air in front of them?


You are the one who brought up weight as if it were the sole determining factor in the difference of the fuel economy one might find between a Camry and a Yaris.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
This equals bad human factor design to me.


Yep. The design that Saab used is different--and it is my experience that Saab pays a LOT of attention to human factor design.
I is wid you, Mang!


Before long, I'm going to start another thread about this. For now, I'll just add that "human factors" is a huge field. From my G35 experience into the Prius (a total of nearly four years), I was starting to think that I had a SERIOUS back problem. I had tried all the little add-on doo-dads, pads and the like, and my back was still killing me.

Then I got the Camry hybrid. Leather seats and adjustable lumbar. I'm six ft tall, with a long torso and short-ish legs. The seat in my Camry feels as if it they designed it exactly for me. I just love it. No back pain in two years, despite having driven the the car for over 55k miles in 25 months.

It's too bad that we can't all get our seats custom poured from foam of our back doc's prescription for just the right firmness of foam. My Camry could be every bit the dog that ARCO-G thinks it is, and I'd still love it for the seat. I could go on about how comfortable it is, but I'd probably commit an RSP violation...

 

[brianl703]

I love the driver's seat in my Saab 93. I drove that car 2200 miles in 2 weeks and I never felt uncomfortable. I'm over 6ft and I have long legs--there are few cars which really have enough legroom for me to comfortable.

In fact, the Saab 93 has spoiled me so much that I realize how bad the legroom is in other cars.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Quote:
Are you seriously contending that a Camry and a Yaris have the same frontal area???? Your cred should be important to you -- don't go there...


No, I'm saying that adding 1000lbs of load (luggage, passengers, dirt, bricks, etc.) to a vehicle doesn't increase it's frontal area.


The weight distinction was never brought up in the context you describe. It was brought up in the context of comparing the mileage of the larger and heavier Prius to the smaller and lighter Geo Metro. The original point was that drawing conclusions from any similarities in their mileage ignores the fact that the Metro is smaller, lighter, and has a smaller frontal surface area. And its also much more cramped inside, as would be expected.

This is not about added weight, just for the sake of weight alone, but that with more weight comes a typical larger body (higher and or wider) which presents a larger surface area that requires more energy to overcome the larger volume of air it has to move through.

That's not like throwing a thousand pounds of bricks in the trunk.

As has been shown, increasing size has three effects (on surface friction, wind resistance, and increased weight that must be moved using energy to do so); you can downplay them, but that doesn't mean they aren't present and have an effect on fuel economy.

-Spyder

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
If either terrain or traffic dictates anything but the most minor speed changes, then changes in momentum will gobble up disproportionate amounts of fuel in the heavier vehicle.


Highway driving, which is what we are talking about here, generally consists of minor speed changes.
And... My point is that either through the driver consciously applying technique, or leaving it to the well-programmed computer, the HSD system STILL generates fuel economy benefits, even on what appears to be steady, flat land driving. For whatever reason, I do find that in rolling hilly terrain, I can beat the computer driving manually. On truly flat terrain, it's not worth competing with the computer. Either way, however, the HSD Camry will still beat the the I-4 gasser unless the driver of that car is applying EXTREME hypermiling. Of course, if the HSD driver did that, he'd beat the straight I-4. Despite the propaganda to the contrary, if you drive a lot and own the car for a while, it will more than pay for the initial price difference.

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
Are you seriously contending that a Camry and a Yaris have the same frontal area???? Your cred should be important to you -- don't go there...


No, I'm saying that adding 1000lbs of load (luggage, passengers, dirt, bricks, etc.) to a vehicle doesn't increase it's frontal area.
OK, fair enough, but a car loaded with a half-ton of anything (even feathers

) will require far more fuel to overcome to overcome momentum than one without the half-ton of feathers... No way around that.

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
And how often are they all equal? Again, do you really think that a Camry and Yaris present the same face to the air in front of them?


You are the one who brought up weight as if it were the sole determining factor in the difference of the fuel economy one might find between a Camry and a Yaris.
Yes, and I thought I adequately clarified that. I did NOT say it was a SOLE factor, and if you inferred that from what I said, well, I should have been more clear -- I apologize for any confusion. My REAL point was that I continue to object to comparisons between Geo Metros (and Aveos, etc.) and even the Prius. It's simply not fair to compare the two TOTALLY DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO HIGH-FE TRANSPORT.

The tiny Metros (and like company) offer one solution to economical transport, and it's a perfectly valid one, if those cars fit your mission. The Prius, and even more so the TCH, offer larger, more initially expensive solutions, but ones that work for the right buyers, just as much as a Metro works for the right owner of that car.

Back to the OP. If a CV is too big, he or she MIGHT consider a hybrid (Prius or Camry, or other brand as well) if it meets the performance parameters. If it doesn't, they should pass. Very simple when one backs out the hype and propaganda.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
The original point was that drawing conclusions from any similarities in their mileage ignores the fact that the Metro is smaller, lighter, and has a smaller frontal surface area.


The original point was that the Metro is lighter. Other factors which would account for the fuel economy differences--and have a greater impact on that--were not mentioned.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
The original point was that drawing conclusions from any similarities in their mileage ignores the fact that the Metro is smaller, lighter, and has a smaller frontal surface area.


The original point was that the Metro is lighter. Other factors which would account for the fuel economy differences--and have a greater impact on that--were not mentioned.


But again, there's no more point in comparing a Metro to ANY of the Toyota hybrids, even the Prius, since the Metro is TINY compared to all of them. Different solutions for different buyers -- just that simple.

When Toyota finds it worthwhile to drop an HSD system into a Yaris, then we can continue this discussion. Until then -- it will remain bogus in the extreme.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
The original point was that drawing conclusions from any similarities in their mileage ignores the fact that the Metro is smaller, lighter, and has a smaller frontal surface area.


The original point was that the Metro is lighter. Other factors which would account for the fuel economy differences--and have a greater impact on that--were not mentioned.


They were implicit just based on the difference in size and corresponding difference in frontal surface areas between them and the effect that has on energy consumption when more air resistance has to be overcome.

I made that point, and you equated the weight difference as being no different than dropping a ton of bricks into a Metro and calling it the same thing.

Whether the distinction with regard to different frontal surface area effects was originally made or not, doesn't obliterate the point.

IMHO this has been elaborated on in enough posts now that there's not much to be gained by going through it all again.

The OP has indicated mileage was the prime concern, and that a smaller vehicle was desirable and gave a couple examples of what he had in mind. The relative merits of those or any similar alternatives would be more productive and helpful to him I think.

-Spyder