We should bring in some 3-cylinder cars again

[Popinski]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The Smart has a 3 cylinder, they seem to be quite popular around here.

I test drove one last year. The automotive industry has a lot of work ahead of them before they can make a 3-cylinder engine that will sound and feel somewhat closer to a 4-cylinder. The one in the Smart is a disgrace, IMO. On top of that, its MPG isn't a whole lot better than Yaris/Echo which has more room, practicality, and a better engine.



I should have added the Smart car with the Geo Metro. I've been hearing nothing but terrible news about the "Smart" car's performance and cost of owning.

\
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
How about turbo 2 cylinders:

http://www.icars.sg/2010/14283/fiats-new...nd-500c-models/

48 mpg city and 64 mpg hwy according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_500_%282007%29#Fuel_consumption_.28EC_1999.2F100.29

This is better on highway than my prius (worse in city).

Progress is clearly coming. Say good buy to full size trucks and SUVs for commuting. Two key words: peak oil.


THAT IS SO COOL!! Fiat 2-cylinder car that's faster than smaller 4 cylinders and gets 64 miles to the gallon!!!! I hope they bring that car to the USA! It sounds cool too! CHeck out out on Youtube!

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

If people really were worried about MPG then they/we need to drive 55 mph. My vehicle will nail high 40's to 51mpg at that speed. On regular gas using normal oils and easy to work on. No DI this, boost that or such.


This expresses things perfectly. While the speed limit is 65 mph or higher in some areas, cars will get their best fuel economy at slower speeds.

Our cars can both break 40 mpg without trying at 55-60 mph. Raise that to 75, and the Fit is lucky to see 34 mpg. The Cruze does about 38 mpg at 75 thanks to having better aerodynamics.

It's a tradeoff between going faster and using less fuel. I'd rather save $10 in gas and arrive a half-hour later compared to risking a crash/ticket to spend more on gas. 30 minutes of my time now is an acceptable tradeoff to save $10 in gas now, and potentially hours/$$$$ later dealing with an accident.


If you both want to do 55, then do it, and in the right lane... My car consistently gets it's best MPG at 62 MPH.

 

[rjundi]

The idea of less cylinders equating to better fuel economy automatically is well past.

Why not continue to engineer current engine blocks/designs that can be used in a few applications with extremely high economy and also power deriving engines hopefully with natural aspiration.

I am a huge fan of turbo(forced induction) vehicles however most everyday consumers it does not always make sense.

 

[Trav]

I drove a new Skoda Fabia last year with a VAG 3 cyl, it ran okay but had more vibration and roughness than a small 4 cyl Lupo, fuel economy was also less in real world driving than the 4.
Tax wise it will be cheaper in some Euro countries.

A Nissan Micra 1.0 ltr 4 cyl, has more power, is much smoother and gets better mileage.
I cant see any reason to go to 3 cyl when a smaller displacement 4cyl runs so much better.

Top Gear real world tested the Fiat 500 2 cyl and concluded the mileage claims were exaggerated and the engine was rough running in comparison.
Citroen went down the 2 cyl road for years with the 2cv.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Trav

Top Gear real world tested the Fiat 500 2 cyl and concluded the mileage claims were exaggerated and the engine was rough running in comparison.
Citroen went down the 2 cyl road for years with the 2cv.


Thanks for the reality check. I also know the turbo 2 cyl is more expensive to purchase.

Now, I would not put too much stock into Top Gear testing. This guys have huge anti-fuel efficiency bias. When they tested Prius for MPG they determined it was worse than BMW (they drove it at top speeds). I don't think BMW can beat my 53MPG lifetime average in my Prius in real word driving.

 

[Spazdog]

Honda had a 2 cyl.

http://www.honda-s800-club.freeserve.co.uk/N600engine.JPG

I actually drove one. It was suprisingly quick from 0 to about 45. Probably due in part to the 10" wheels. But you did not want to travel on the freeway in that thing.

And you would probably be injured or killed in a collision with anything larger than a skateboard.

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Honda had a 2 cyl.

http://www.honda-s800-club.freeserve.co.uk/N600engine.JPG

I actually drove one. It was suprisingly quick from 0 to about 45. Probably due in part to the 10" wheels. But you did not want to travel on the freeway in that thing.

And you would probably be injured or killed in a collision with anything larger than a skateboard.

But then folks will get out on the highway in a smart car!

 

[Spazdog]

The "Dumb For All" (Smart ForTwo) has a high strength safety cage.

There is nothing to absorb the energy of the crash so you bounce about like a pinball, that's not much better... but it will take a [heckuva] lot of energy to crush that safety cage and the occupants inside of it.

I still don't like the Dumb For All but not for safety reasons.

 

[jcwit]

Ya a smart is going to bounce with a front end or rear end hit with a semi going 70 plus, OK. Bouncy, bouncy like a red rubber ball.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: jcwit
Ya a smart is going to bounce with a front end or rear end hit with a semi going 70 plus, OK. Bouncy, bouncy like a red rubber ball.


bouncy bouncy into other vehicles that are still going freeway speed.

Still better than being in an early '70s Honda N600.

They used to joke that those cars were made out of old beer cans and C-ration cans US G.I.s left behind.
I think that is an insult to the structural integrity of the C-ration can.

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: jcwit
Ya a smart is going to bounce with a front end or rear end hit with a semi going 70 plus, OK. Bouncy, bouncy like a red rubber ball.


bouncy bouncy into other vehicles that are still going freeway speed.

Still better than being in an early '70s Honda N600.


Maybe, but not by much.

 

[Spazdog]

I saw a crash test with a Yaris and a Camry and a Dumb Forall a Mercedes.
The Yaris' passenger compartment folded and deformed. The Dumb ForAll's passenger compartment stayed intact.
Granted, the Dumb ForAll occupant's brain and other vital organs were still travelling forward at the same speed....that's not good when the car is impacted in the opposite direction like a baseball off a bat. But if you survive the trauma of having your brain slam into your skull at least your body won't be crushed.

I've driven a Z600 It would crush like a Natty light can against a frat boy's forehead.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

If people really were worried about MPG then they/we need to drive 55 mph. My vehicle will nail high 40's to 51mpg at that speed. On regular gas using normal oils and easy to work on. No DI this, boost that or such.


This expresses things perfectly. While the speed limit is 65 mph or higher in some areas, cars will get their best fuel economy at slower speeds.

Our cars can both break 40 mpg without trying at 55-60 mph. Raise that to 75, and the Fit is lucky to see 34 mpg. The Cruze does about 38 mpg at 75 thanks to having better aerodynamics.

It's a tradeoff between going faster and using less fuel. I'd rather save $10 in gas and arrive a half-hour later compared to risking a crash/ticket to spend more on gas. 30 minutes of my time now is an acceptable tradeoff to save $10 in gas now, and potentially hours/$$$$ later dealing with an accident.


Believe it or not but my Charger gets 1-2 MPGs better going from 65-70. Anything over 75 and it starts to depreciate though.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
It's funny that overseas that they buy cars that are nimble and gas saving. They'd rather use the nimbleness to avoid accidents. I absolutely despise the "if your in smaller car your going to die in accident". The downright most ignorant thought to man kind.


The familiar, almost certainly false, mantra of the small car set: "I'll use my nimbleness to avoid accidents."

Do you know of an insurance company that gives a "nimbleness" discount to a car? I don't.

My insurance company doesn't give a discount on the Solstice for being small and nimble. It does give a discount to the other two Pontiacs and two Jags for being large cars. That tells me all I need to know about what the bean counters think will cause them to pay out less money in the event of a collision.

F=ma is not negotiable.

 

[wander2039]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
It's funny that overseas that they buy cars that are nimble and gas saving. They'd rather use the nimbleness to avoid accidents. I absolutely despise the "if your in smaller car your going to die in accident". The downright most ignorant thought to man kind.


The familiar, almost certainly false, mantra of the small car set: "I'll use my nimbleness to avoid accidents."

Do you know of an insurance company that gives a "nimbleness" discount to a car? I don't.

My insurance company doesn't give a discount on the Solstice for being small and nimble. It does give a discount to the other two Pontiacs and two Jags for being large cars. That tells me all I need to know about what the bean counters think will cause them to pay out less money in the event of a collision.

F=ma is not negotiable.


Apparently you know very little how on how insurance works.

 

[addyguy]

It really bothers me, the OP's condition of not mentioning the Sprint/Metro et al - those cars were very reliabl, well-built, and delivered good mileage for the time they were built in.

They were very, very good cars for what they were designed for.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I like big cars - when I steal their gasoline, they haven nice big tanks and I get lots of free gasoline. Then I flatten their tires so they wont drive anymore. He He.
I need a big car = I live in fear. I am Weak. I am underendowed. I cant drive.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
It's funny that overseas that they buy cars that are nimble and gas saving. They'd rather use the nimbleness to avoid accidents. I absolutely despise the "if your in smaller car your going to die in accident". The downright most ignorant thought to man kind.


The familiar, almost certainly false, mantra of the small car set: "I'll use my nimbleness to avoid accidents."

Do you know of an insurance company that gives a "nimbleness" discount to a car? I don't.

My insurance company doesn't give a discount on the Solstice for being small and nimble. It does give a discount to the other two Pontiacs and two Jags for being large cars. That tells me all I need to know about what the bean counters think will cause them to pay out less money in the event of a collision.

F=ma is not negotiable.


Apparently you know very little how on how insurance works.


Who cares about insurance? I care about me and my family. Insurance is just money, not people.

Nimbleness. That's no help. You rarely get to see it coming. There's just a big bang and you may wake up later if you were in a decently made car.

Ignorance is what allows you to presume your choice of car upon me. Thank god you aren't in charge of my life or my car purchases.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite

I need a big car = I live in fear. I am Weak. I am underendowed. I cant drive.

You know how many times I've heard, "I have to have a truck. I'm too hard on cars." by people essentially using their trucks as passenger cars? Not towing or carrying heavy loads.
More than I care to admit.
I interpret that as, "I can't drive no car, I'm a bad driver and I am compensating for other shortcomings."

 

[wander2039]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
It's funny that overseas that they buy cars that are nimble and gas saving. They'd rather use the nimbleness to avoid accidents. I absolutely despise the "if your in smaller car your going to die in accident". The downright most ignorant thought to man kind.


The familiar, almost certainly false, mantra of the small car set: "I'll use my nimbleness to avoid accidents."

Do you know of an insurance company that gives a "nimbleness" discount to a car? I don't.

My insurance company doesn't give a discount on the Solstice for being small and nimble. It does give a discount to the other two Pontiacs and two Jags for being large cars. That tells me all I need to know about what the bean counters think will cause them to pay out less money in the event of a collision.

F=ma is not negotiable.


Apparently you know very little how on how insurance works.


Who cares about insurance? I care about me and my family. Insurance is just money, not people.

Nimbleness. That's no help. You rarely get to see it coming. There's just a big bang and you may wake up later if you were in a decently made car.

Ignorance is what allows you to presume your choice of car upon me. Thank god you aren't in charge of my life or my car purchases.


Huh I never said anything what people should drive nor did bring up the insurance bit. The only ignorance is thinking a bigger car will save your life. Well first since everybody is starting to think that do you actually assume if you slam your so called wonderful SRT8 into another that you're going to be better off than 2 small cars slamming into each other? Or live in a head on crash with a semi? And again frankly I've never mentioned what people should drive or not I'm arguing against the stupidity that smaller cars are unsafe. And I've been in plenty of wrecks in my younger years with small cars a few with the engine in the firewall and guess what I'm still here.