Proof please
I don't see a marked increase of the tonnage on the vehicles except for SUV's.
More composites and plastics are being used which lowers weight.
You blinded support of the U.S. giant SUV really shows.
Proof please
I don't see a marked increase of the tonnage on the vehicles except for SUV's.
More composites and plastics are being used which lowers weight.
You blinded support of the U.S. giant SUV really shows.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Sorry, Dave, it's a known fact among car buffs that safety improvements, added size, and more options have led to a marked increase in vehicle weight in the past 20 years.
Let's use the Honda Civic as an example: in 1990, it weighed 2322 lbs. off the showroom floor. A similar 2007 model weight 2904 lbs.
Or the Toyota Camry: in 1990, a 4 cyl. model weighed 2811 lbs., a similar 2007 model today weighs 3373 lbs.
Your blind stupidity really shows. Who pays you to be this stupid?
:roll:
BTW, I drive a Subaru.
Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Dave, it's a known fact among car buffs that safety improvements, added size, and more options have led to a marked increase in vehicle weight in the past 20 years.
Let's use the Honda Civic as an example: in 1990, it weighed 2322 lbs. off the showroom floor. A similar 2007 model weight 2904 lbs.
Or the Toyota Camry: in 1990, a 4 cyl. model weighed 2811 lbs., a similar 2007 model today weighs 3373 lbs.
Your blind stupidity really shows. Who pays you to be this stupid?
:roll:
BTW, I drive a Subaru.
I asked for a "marked" increase. The weight of 3 adults is hardly "marked". :roll:
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Dave, it's a known fact among car buffs that safety improvements, added size, and more options have led to a marked increase in vehicle weight in the past 20 years.
Let's use the Honda Civic as an example: in 1990, it weighed 2322 lbs. off the showroom floor. A similar 2007 model weight 2904 lbs.
Or the Toyota Camry: in 1990, a 4 cyl. model weighed 2811 lbs., a similar 2007 model today weighs 3373 lbs.
Your blind stupidity really shows. Who pays you to be this stupid?
:roll:
BTW, I drive a Subaru.
I asked for a "marked" increase. The weight of 3 adults is hardly "marked". :roll:
The Civic's 25% increase in curb weight is not a "marked" increase??
:roll:
Kindly STFU.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Dave, it's a known fact among car buffs that safety improvements, added size, and more options have led to a marked increase in vehicle weight in the past 20 years.
Let's use the Honda Civic as an example: in 1990, it weighed 2322 lbs. off the showroom floor. A similar 2007 model weight 2904 lbs.
Or the Toyota Camry: in 1990, a 4 cyl. model weighed 2811 lbs., a similar 2007 model today weighs 3373 lbs.
Your blind stupidity really shows. Who pays you to be this stupid?
:roll:
BTW, I drive a Subaru.
I asked for a "marked" increase. The weight of 3 adults is hardly "marked". :roll:
This is comedy gold! I bet every time a thought enters your head you trip and choke on your gum.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Dave, it's a known fact among car buffs that safety improvements, added size, and more options have led to a marked increase in vehicle weight in the past 20 years.
Let's use the Honda Civic as an example: in 1990, it weighed 2322 lbs. off the showroom floor. A similar 2007 model weight 2904 lbs.
Or the Toyota Camry: in 1990, a 4 cyl. model weighed 2811 lbs., a similar 2007 model today weighs 3373 lbs.
Your blind stupidity really shows. Who pays you to be this stupid?
:roll:
BTW, I drive a Subaru.
I asked for a "marked" increase. The weight of 3 adults is hardly "marked". :roll:
That is a 20% increase in weight in both of his examples.
If the engine is the same efficiency, then there must be a loss in economy.
If the engine is improved, then why the extra weight. Remove the weight and improve the economy.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
granted, the camry was basically a compact car in 1990.
the 1991 base model was 2690 lbs. according to carpoint.
the accord went from being a 2482 lbs. compact to being a 3128 lb midsize.
the growth in size of the models was largely due to the sales success of the ford taurus. in 1991 it was a 3097 lb midsize with an iron block v6 as opposed to the i4s in the camry and accord.
as for safety features not increasing weight, ask yourself if steel door beams and airbags weigh nothing. cars now have aluminum engines, weight saving composites and plastics, and yet they still weigh more than they used to.
of course, the move to overhead cam from pushrod has increased engine weight by quite a bit as well.
the 1991 base model was 2690 lbs. according to carpoint.
the accord went from being a 2482 lbs. compact to being a 3128 lb midsize.
the growth in size of the models was largely due to the sales success of the ford taurus. in 1991 it was a 3097 lb midsize with an iron block v6 as opposed to the i4s in the camry and accord.
as for safety features not increasing weight, ask yourself if steel door beams and airbags weigh nothing. cars now have aluminum engines, weight saving composites and plastics, and yet they still weigh more than they used to.
of course, the move to overhead cam from pushrod has increased engine weight by quite a bit as well.
I tend to hate SUV, not out of environmental concern(I've long since given up and don't really give a crap any more), but simply because the vast majority of people who drive them can't drive worth ****** and are accidents waiting to happen.
And when they do happen, you know the dumbass in the SUV is gonna survive while some poor schmuck is gonna get squashed under that 2+ ton SUV.
Well, the fact that the obstruct the view of everyone else on the road is annoying too, but that merely extends into the SUV drivers(the ones who definitely don't need big cars that is) being somewhat assholish, and that can be said about most people at one point or the other, so I guess I can live with that.
And when they do happen, you know the dumbass in the SUV is gonna survive while some poor schmuck is gonna get squashed under that 2+ ton SUV.
Well, the fact that the obstruct the view of everyone else on the road is annoying too, but that merely extends into the SUV drivers(the ones who definitely don't need big cars that is) being somewhat assholish, and that can be said about most people at one point or the other, so I guess I can live with that.
Can you please provide a link to the automobile manufacturer that produces this 3.0L diesel engine in a full-size 4x4 pickup?
The pickup my father uses in his line of work, is the exact same model the others have been using for years. They usually put around 300-400k miles on them before they trade them in and get a new one...with a lot of life still on them.
And you are wondering where that extra 9mpg comes from? The lack of speed. 8.8 seconds is very reasonable, whereas 10.3 seconds is unsafely slow. What if you pull out onto the freeway and realize you need to get up to speed before traffic comes? You're comparing apples to oranges. Any racing fan can verify that 1.5 seconds is a night and day difference in 0-60mph.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
A brilliant reply from another forum I will post here:
AKADriver said:
There's no market demand for lower vehicle emissions, either. Not everything should be left up to markets. Leave fuel economy up to markets and it's pretty clear that the market is on a collision course with a severe interruption of the oil supply sometime soon.
It's the government's job to regulate markets that are in danger of crashing, or pose a threat to the economy. We are not living in a pure laissez-faire market economy. Never have been.
TheSSG Said:
But that's the problem; Economists can never bring themselves into Reality...They dwell in the imaginary land of total free markets, where economic laws dictate EVERYTHING! Nothing else matters....
And I LOVE the whole "SUV owners don't WANT better gas mileage, obviously, because they buy them!"
WTF!?!??! NO! They want/need a Large vehichle, and they COMPROMISE and ACCEPT the TERRIBLE gas mileage.
Seriously, go sit at a gas station and take a survey of SUV owners:
"Excuse me Sir/Ma'am, would you like your SUV to get:
A. Better Gas Mileage
B. The Same Gas Mileage
C. Worse Gas Mileage"
And when "A" does not COMPLETELY SLAUGHTER "B" and "C" in this survey, I will agree that the Market does not WANT better fuel economy...
And it's not like we need Super $$$ technology to get a 4% increase...Hell, the Union of Cencerned Scientists sat around and found a way to get an SUV up to 28mpg, and only adding $500 to the total cost of the vehicle...
Yeah, SUV owners are HAPPY with their MPG :roll:
I see the "I [heart] My MPG" bumper stickers on those SUVs ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!
AKADriver said:
There's no market demand for lower vehicle emissions, either. Not everything should be left up to markets. Leave fuel economy up to markets and it's pretty clear that the market is on a collision course with a severe interruption of the oil supply sometime soon.
It's the government's job to regulate markets that are in danger of crashing, or pose a threat to the economy. We are not living in a pure laissez-faire market economy. Never have been.
TheSSG Said:
But that's the problem; Economists can never bring themselves into Reality...They dwell in the imaginary land of total free markets, where economic laws dictate EVERYTHING! Nothing else matters....
And I LOVE the whole "SUV owners don't WANT better gas mileage, obviously, because they buy them!"
WTF!?!??! NO! They want/need a Large vehichle, and they COMPROMISE and ACCEPT the TERRIBLE gas mileage.
Seriously, go sit at a gas station and take a survey of SUV owners:
"Excuse me Sir/Ma'am, would you like your SUV to get:
A. Better Gas Mileage
B. The Same Gas Mileage
C. Worse Gas Mileage"
And when "A" does not COMPLETELY SLAUGHTER "B" and "C" in this survey, I will agree that the Market does not WANT better fuel economy...
And it's not like we need Super $$$ technology to get a 4% increase...Hell, the Union of Cencerned Scientists sat around and found a way to get an SUV up to 28mpg, and only adding $500 to the total cost of the vehicle...
Yeah, SUV owners are HAPPY with their MPG :roll:
I see the "I [heart] My MPG" bumper stickers on those SUVs ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Put the crack pipe down.
Ask yourself this simple question, which is worse? An SUV that gets 15 mpg and gets driven 10k miles per year, or an economy car that gets 30 mpg and gets driven 20k miles per year?
But wait, you'll say, what about the damage to the roads caused by the SUV's increased weight? BZZZT... wrong answer, the SUV paid the same amount in gas taxes to drive half the distance.
You see, economists (being informed, educated persons) do live in reality, as opposed to uninformed, uneducated know-nothings on the internet. Free markets are reality. They exist no matter what governments do. If laws are passed against them, then free markets simply become black markets. So the issue becomes a balancing act. How much free markets are we willing to tolerate to stay away from the black markets we can't tolerate?
As to the rest of your attitude, see my sig. Mencken was talking about TheSSG and you. I mean, really, what Prius owner doesn't want better gas mileage? In some utopia in some alternate universe, gas costs nothing and cars get infinite mileage...
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Pardon me, but both your posts do not demonstrate a lot of car knowledge.
First, hp is torque in a similar way that matter is energy. The formula for calculating hp is hp = (tq*rpm)/5252. Put absolutely as simply as possible, torque is work (rotational) while hp is work over time. The G5 has a faster 0-60 than the Jetta because, while the Jetta has more torque and thus is able to output more work, the G5 can do a similar amount of work faster. Make sense?
Second, the extra 9mpg comes from the fact that diesel contains more energy per volume than gasoline, and diesel engines (with their higher compression ratios) are more energy efficient than gasoline engines.
I guess I didn't word my post very well. I was only trying to say that, while diesel will get better MPG (and yes I'm aware of the differences), that it's not the only reason and that 10.3 second 0-60 is VERY slow whereas 8.8 is more than adequate. I'm not a diesel expert, either, and 3ChordCharlie hasn't provided me with a link as to where I can purchase a 3.0L Full-size diesel pickup that can tow and haul a huge load. I'm nto saying they don't exist...do you know of any? I'm simply interested.
Edit: I'd like to think I know more about cars than the average person, but I guess compared to you, it probably seems like I know jack sh!t
.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Nope, I don't know of any and I don't think there are any. An engine is an air pump. The more air pumped, the more fuel than can be safely mixed with the air, the more fuel burned, the more power that can be produced. Without some type of forced induction, the amount of air that can be drawn is limited by displacement and rpm (and contrary to popular myth, high rpm is less efficient than large displacement). Subsequently, a 3.0L full-size diesel pickup would be less efficient than a larger displacement one, assuming the same weight, tasks, and power output.
The funny part of this argument is money. The left is all up in arms saying that we need to roll back the Bush tax cuts to pay for current expenditures. Meaning they think we are not taking in enough tax dollars at this point.
So, lets do a little pretending. Lets pretend through mandates the US Gov. reduces US gas consumption by 10% in 5 years. They would then lose 2.5 BILLION dollars in tax revenue. Lets say they continue the trend of 5% every 5 years, in 20 years we are down 10 billion dollars or so.
Wait!! I got it! Lets just tax the rich some more. Lets have 2% of the people in this country cover the 10 billion dollar loss (not to mention the losses in the following years)
The government is not going to make any ?real? effort to lower our gas consumption for the simple reason that they collect approximately 25 billion dollars in taxes from gas every year.
Edit:
Sorry, did the math quickly while at work. That should be BILLIONS not trillions.
So, lets do a little pretending. Lets pretend through mandates the US Gov. reduces US gas consumption by 10% in 5 years. They would then lose 2.5 BILLION dollars in tax revenue. Lets say they continue the trend of 5% every 5 years, in 20 years we are down 10 billion dollars or so.
Wait!! I got it! Lets just tax the rich some more. Lets have 2% of the people in this country cover the 10 billion dollar loss (not to mention the losses in the following years)
The government is not going to make any ?real? effort to lower our gas consumption for the simple reason that they collect approximately 25 billion dollars in taxes from gas every year.
Edit:
Sorry, did the math quickly while at work. That should be BILLIONS not trillions.
Since the whole US economy has a gdp of 12 trillion per annum I wonder who's bank account that 25 trillion goes into?
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Why is that reply brilliant? Seriously, go sit at a gas station and take a survey of SUV owners:
"Excuse me Sire/Ma'am, would you like your SUV to get:
A. Better Gas Mileage at the expense of power and performance
B. The same Gas Mileage
C. Worse Gas Mileage but improved power and performance
And when "B" and "C" COMPLETELY SLAUGHTER "A" in this survey, I will agree that "brilliant" post isn't really brilliant.
Your right, I made a mistake with the math. Its supposed to be billions, not trillions. However, that is just the Federal take. Those numbers only account for the 18.4 cent per gallon tax the Feds have. Most, if not all, states have an additional tax as well which equals more money they would have to account for.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter