no, i prefer a powerful, smooth, fuel efficient engine. i couldn't care less how many cylinders that engine may or may not have.
this is like asking, "do you prefer two exhaust tips?" it's completely meaningless.
this is like asking, "do you prefer two exhaust tips?" it's completely meaningless.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
I rented one for a few days and drove it in upstate NY about a month ago. Horrible torque steer and it's not easy to launch as a result...nor particularly confidence inspiring for the same reason. Body roll is awful and the brakes are average at best. It is certainly no corner carver and not particularly good in a straight line either. I'd bet my Maxima is almost as quick and it was less expensive...although it suffers from pretty bad torque steer as well and a very poorly designed rear suspension (it is fine on smooth roads but horrible on bumpy roads).
None of the cars you listed should have lost to you given equal drivers with the possible exception of the Mercedes.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
While getting worse gas mileage than my 5 year old Maxima and still offering the same build quality Chevrolet is known for. I wouldn't exactly call that an advantage. I sure wouldn't trade in my Nissan for one that's for certain.
I prefer I4 myself, reliablity and fuel economy are best for when SHTF.
I'd rather spend my money on ammo and other fun things than on wasted gasoline or trips to the mechanic.
I'd rather spend my money on ammo and other fun things than on wasted gasoline or trips to the mechanic.
There is more to gas mileage then engine size. My little 1.8l miata gets the same gas mileage as my dad's 4.6l v8 mustang. Mine turns twice the RPMs on the interstate and it needs to have any power. Even my old 5.0l mustang with 3.73s gears did around 24mpg on the highway which isn't far behind my miata at 26mpg but it did suck down some gas around town.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Doesn't matter. The miata(window sticker) is rated 22/27 while the v8 mustang is rated 18/26. Even the camaro with its huge 5.7l engine is rated 18/27. They all get around the same mileage but my miata sure isn't anywhere near as fast even with the after market turbo. Just did a 500 mile round trip and got 25 up and 27 back in it. Mazda has to gear the hell out of the miata to make the 1.8l do anything while the big v8s get nice cruising gears and just coast down the highway and still have plenty of power.
thecoolnessrune
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2005
- 9,673
- 583
- 126
I almost found that shocking the first time I drove a small car. When I was driving my friends 2006 Accord with the I4, I was shocked that I was doing 2500RPM to go 60mph..
My Expedition was at 1600RPM with the 5.4L and I found that the 4.6 did around 1800 (probably why their fuel economies are so close even though there's near a 1L difference) and my Bronco never got past 1400.. (351W for the win! Ima totally mod that thing in a few years
)Still, can't be denied that the country roads to my home were still doing 27mpg on the Accord while the Expedition rarely breaks 16. Though of course the Accord can't hold 9 passengers while holding cargo and towing our boat. 2 entirely different purposes that makes me glad we have the freedom to get what we choose. I don't deal with rednecks saying nothing less than 35" tires should be allowed on the road. And I don't have to deal with the anti-SUV brigade telling me if its not a Lotus Elise then it's an abomination to all things sacred. I can get what I want and enjoy it.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
Um, I had a 1994 5.0l Mustang GT with 3.73 gears and the best I could do on the freeway was 17mpg...which is close to what I got around town with it. That sucker was turning at almost 3000 rpms at 65mph in 5th.
With V6's pumping out around 250Hp these days that's plenty for a mid sized car,
but for a pick'em up truck a V8 is ideal..
but for a pick'em up truck a V8 is ideal..
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Sounds like that particular Mustang wasn't taken care of properly
And you would be wrong. I took excellent care of it. I bought it used with 36k miles on it and it had a 2.73 rear gear ratio when I bought it. That got me around 17mpg in town and low to mid 20s on the freeway which is pretty much what it was rated at when new. After I changed the rear gears highway mileage went to shit and town mileage dropped a little down into the mid teens. We're talking about a 13 year old car here.
What's also funny is that Edmunds.com (same place I used to confirm the fuel economy rates of my old Mustang) rates a brand new Silverado at 16/20mpg city/highway so either you don't know how to calculate fuel economy or you have some kind of magic truck.
Toastedlightly
Diamond Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 7,214
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Sounds like that particular Mustang wasn't taken care of properly
And you would be wrong. I took excellent care of it. I bought it used with 36k miles on it and it had a 2.73 rear gear ratio when I bought it. That got me around 17mpg in town and low to mid 20s on the freeway which is pretty much what it was rated at when new. After I changed the rear gears highway mileage went to shit and town mileage dropped a little down into the mid teens. We're talking about a 13 year old car here.
What's also funny is that Edmunds.com (same place I used to confirm the fuel economy rates of my old Mustang) rates a brand new Silverado at 16/20mpg city/highway so either you don't know how to calculate fuel economy or you have some kind of magic truck.
So, you changed the car for performance and bitch about it?
Ktulu
Diamond Member
- Dec 16, 2000
- 4,354
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Sounds like that particular Mustang wasn't taken care of properly
And you would be wrong. I took excellent care of it. I bought it used with 36k miles on it and it had a 2.73 rear gear ratio when I bought it. That got me around 17mpg in town and low to mid 20s on the freeway which is pretty much what it was rated at when new. After I changed the rear gears highway mileage went to shit and town mileage dropped a little down into the mid teens. We're talking about a 13 year old car here.
What's also funny is that Edmunds.com (same place I used to confirm the fuel economy rates of my old Mustang) rates a brand new Silverado at 16/20mpg city/highway so either you don't know how to calculate fuel economy or you have some kind of magic truck.
Well thanks for mentioning the mods afterwards. Also, EPA ratings do not equal real world numbers, some get lower and some get higher depending on many factors. If you want proof, I've got a few pics of my mileage, but you'd still probably dismiss those somehow so there's no real reasoning with you.
Maybe I am exaggerating a little since its been over a year since I sold it but my worn out old 153k mile 89 notch 5 speed did at least in low 20s highway. I got around 12-14 in the city though. I didn't put the gears in it but all the calculators said it had 3.67s in it which I have always just assumed meant 3.73s with my tac/speedo just being off a little but it could have been 3.55s too. The miata turns 4k RPMs at 75mph in 5th.
I wouldn't mind getting an M45. Gas is not a problem since that would be a weekend car anyway. I still have my beater Mazda6.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Sounds like that particular Mustang wasn't taken care of properly
And you would be wrong. I took excellent care of it. I bought it used with 36k miles on it and it had a 2.73 rear gear ratio when I bought it. That got me around 17mpg in town and low to mid 20s on the freeway which is pretty much what it was rated at when new. After I changed the rear gears highway mileage went to shit and town mileage dropped a little down into the mid teens. We're talking about a 13 year old car here.
What's also funny is that Edmunds.com (same place I used to confirm the fuel economy rates of my old Mustang) rates a brand new Silverado at 16/20mpg city/highway so either you don't know how to calculate fuel economy or you have some kind of magic truck.
So, you changed the car for performance and bitch about it?
I'm not bitching about it. Show me where I was complaining about it? You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was pointing out that I had a car with the same setup as someone else and never got anywhere near the mileage he was claiming.
You might also want to work on your reading comprehension. I mentioned that it had 3.73 gears in my post. No stock Mustang GT came with 3.73 rear gears in 1994...guess you didn't know that though.
I sold that car long ago anyway so who cares?
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Not necessarily a V8, but more displacement always leaves room on the table to make more power without increasing boost (boost = heat and higher compression ratio = detonation). Which of course means you can run on pump gas instead messing with leaded race gas, nitrous (small IAT cooling shot), meth, etc.
A V8 of course is the only practical way to increase displacement once you get to a certain size, and beyond that, V10, and so forth. But not every car needs it.
To those who prefer a smaller 1800 lbs car with 200+ HP and say you don't need a big engine to go fast, well if you think 200+ HP on a 1800 lbs car is impressive, how bout a 1900 lbs car with 800+ HP? No reason to decrease power just because you decrease weight.
Also just because you can use more recent technology to make the same power with a smaller engine, how bout keeping the big engine still and applying the technology to that, and in turn getting even more power? If a 300 HP V6 can replace a 300 HP V8, then take whatever it took to make that V6 have 300 HP and then get 400 HP out of the V8, for example. The bigger engine is always going to have more POTENTIAL, it doesn't matter if a 400 HP B18C whooped a 205 HP 454 or not, that 454 *could* be built the same way and have 2000 HP, something you aren't ever going to do on a standard gasoline 1.8L engine. At the end of the day the difference in power of two engines is going to be proportional to the difference in their displacement, all else held equal.
Again, not every car needs that kind of power, but I'm just giving my counterpoints to common fallacies.
A V8 of course is the only practical way to increase displacement once you get to a certain size, and beyond that, V10, and so forth. But not every car needs it.
To those who prefer a smaller 1800 lbs car with 200+ HP and say you don't need a big engine to go fast, well if you think 200+ HP on a 1800 lbs car is impressive, how bout a 1900 lbs car with 800+ HP? No reason to decrease power just because you decrease weight.
Also just because you can use more recent technology to make the same power with a smaller engine, how bout keeping the big engine still and applying the technology to that, and in turn getting even more power? If a 300 HP V6 can replace a 300 HP V8, then take whatever it took to make that V6 have 300 HP and then get 400 HP out of the V8, for example. The bigger engine is always going to have more POTENTIAL, it doesn't matter if a 400 HP B18C whooped a 205 HP 454 or not, that 454 *could* be built the same way and have 2000 HP, something you aren't ever going to do on a standard gasoline 1.8L engine. At the end of the day the difference in power of two engines is going to be proportional to the difference in their displacement, all else held equal.
Again, not every car needs that kind of power, but I'm just giving my counterpoints to common fallacies.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
What kind of street legal car weighs 1900lbs and makes 800hp though? A Formula One car weighs about 1300lbs and makes 800hp but it definitely is not street legal. Most people don't own track only cars...I know I don't, so I assumed that we were talking about street legal cars here.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Yup.
My 4.6L "big V8" in stock form in a heavier car with the load of a belt driven supercharger has the same EPA rating as the lighter Evo and STI with their smaller 2.xL turbo 4 cyl engines. I've seen 25 mpg if I keep my foot out of it.
Performance costs energy, it doesn't really matter how you make that performance its going to take the same energy one way or another.
5L @ 1000 RPM = 2L @ 2500 TPM in terms of air flow.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter