OK, large engine not very highly tuned? or smaller engine tuned to the max?

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: CraigRT
I'd take the 3.5.. just as much power if not more, and likely more dependable (but that's up for debate)

and just WHY would you assume that??

I KNOW for a fact that my 5.0 Liter mustang ran for 5 yrs and 80k miles with ZERO engine problems. i'd take my chances with that.

heh, well i won't argue much, but the 3.0 and 3.5L Nissan engines are on the 10 best engines list EVERY YEAR.
my dads Maxima has 100,000 kms and it LITERALLY runs like BRAND new... so "i'd take my chances with that"
like i said, it's up for debate.. i prefer Nissan over Ford... sorry if i offended you!!!!

 

[Black88GTA]

My Mustang has a 4 cyl in it, and weighs in at about 2800 lbs. It's also for winter use only . That car, with a whopping 105hp is not very fun to drive, but works well in the snow.

I'd say that a larger motor not very highly tuned would be the better bet. A little motor is forced to work a lot harder to do the job in most cases than a larger one, but a larger motor, as stated, just won't work in some applications.

If you're one of those people who takes a sh!t just before leaving work just so your gas mileage improves 0.000001 MPG on the way home, then the larger motor is probably not for you. Usually (not always) the smaller one will get better overall mileage, although many vehicles with newer V8s put up better numbers than a 4 cyl from even 10 years ago. A lot depends on your personal driving style also.

Plus as already stated, the little motor is already maxed out. There's nowhere to go as far as performance increases. The larger motor can always be souped up for better HP/torque numbers, but usually at the expense of gas mileage.

It basically depends what you want out of the car, and personal preference. I prefer the larger, smoother, more powerful V8 in the Trans Am over the buzzy, loud, weak 4 cyl in the Mustang. Course that's my preference. Some people like it the other way round.

 

[huesmann]

Bigger engine better. WTF do you want to have your peak HP at 6000 RPM and beat the sh!t out of your motor when you can get it at 4000 RPM and take it easy on the mill?

 

" Isn't minority opinion how change and progress happens? No, can't be, the world is the way it is because everyone thinks the same.

So, basically, your point is that, because the majority does it, it's right?"


"The subaru is definatly my favorite car by far out of all of them that I have owned."

As I pointed out, that is a minority opinion...


"I prefer to try and find a middle road in these discussions..."

...Since your opinion is of the minority, by default it can't be middle of the road. That's my point! I won't even try to pretend my opinion is middle of the road. Don't care if it is or not! Johann asked a question, and I answered it with plenty of facts, and a dash of opinion... OK, a dollop!

You're incredibly horrible at arguing semantics.
In fact, since you have no response, but to argue a complete implied fallacy, you have no credability but your obvious zealot opinion.
Once again you fail to do nothing but provide an opinion you try and pawn off as fact.

Then you argue that since the rest of the mindless zombies are doing it in america, it's right. So since my opinion goes against the majority, it has no credability.

Weak, at best.

So, since the majority is white, they are right? The majority of people think MONSTER CABLES are superior, so I guess that makes them right? The majority thought there were WMD's in Iraq. The majority voted in the tax rebate like llamas. The majority voted in this joke of a president. The majority of people eat at McDonalds...
I can go on forever.
Why is it that the rest of the world isn't driving land tanks, but we are? Are we right? We definatly arn't the majority.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Nearly everybody in the US that doesen't drive a truck disagrees with you, though."

The question is, "... large engine not very highly tuned? or smaller engine tuned to the max? ...which is preferrable."[/i]

For racing OR daily commutes, the big engine loafing along is preferable to constant high RPMs. Even a fair portion of the 50% of US drivers, who don't drive trucks, would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas mileage. I contend that the money saved for gasoline is a pittance compared to the fatigue and annoyance of 'buzzing around' in the econobox. Not to mention the extra cost of the FWD drive train, suspension and foreign or exotic parts in general. It's not really even a fair comparison!

I think that's where our perceptions differ.

For one, at highway speeds, a big V8 cruises at only a slightly lower RPM than a 4cyl, of course depending on the cars in question, and the 4cyl will still get better gas milage.

For the sake of the argument, I'll agree with your "...would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas milage.". But what does that mean? Gas prices aren't going to be going down anytime soon, so gas prices are a big concern. If you take a look at the roads in Europe, the SUV is basically nonexistant.. due to $$$.

As for the cost of maintenance/ownership argument, I contend that it costs about the same to own nearly any car. Clearly, there are cars that are less reliable than others.. but in general, I think it does. The argument being that even though the replacement parts are cheaper, they break more. Crown Vics and the like may be the exception to this rule, since they are quite reliable.

The bottom line is that the car makers cater to the public. They give us what we want(and sometimes what they think we want...). If people wanted Crown Vic type cars, they would make them.. but they don't.

You do understand that different people need different things, right? That's the whole premise behind the car makers catering to the public. You like your full size V8 powered vehicles. That's what you buy, thats what you drive.

Others like their Camrys, Accords and Civics. That's what they need, and that's what they drive. Their cars are no less important or whatever than yours. They do a job, and they do it very efficiently. That is the whole point.

If a 125HP 4-cylinder engine will get you from point A to point B, what is the point of an even more powerful V8(in the same car)? All it does is reduce efficiency and cost the owner more. I don't really know how much simpler it can get, lol...

I don't really understand how you cannot agree with that. Personal preference is one thing, but you can't let it cloud your view of the world. It isn't a conspiracy. It's all about the needs of the individual.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Nearly everybody in the US that doesen't drive a truck disagrees with you, though."

The question is, "... large engine not very highly tuned? or smaller engine tuned to the max? ...which is preferrable."[/i]

For racing OR daily commutes, the big engine loafing along is preferable to constant high RPMs. Even a fair portion of the 50% of US drivers, who don't drive trucks, would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas mileage. I contend that the money saved for gasoline is a pittance compared to the fatigue and annoyance of 'buzzing around' in the econobox. Not to mention the extra cost of the FWD drive train, suspension and foreign or exotic parts in general. It's not really even a fair comparison!

I think that's where our perceptions differ.

For one, at highway speeds, a big V8 cruises at only a slightly lower RPM than a 4cyl, of course depending on the cars in question, and the 4cyl will still get better gas milage.

For the sake of the argument, I'll agree with your "...would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas milage.". But what does that mean? Gas prices aren't going to be going down anytime soon, so gas prices are a big concern. If you take a look at the roads in Europe, the SUV is basically nonexistant.. due to $$$.

As for the cost of maintenance/ownership argument, I contend that it costs about the same to own nearly any car. Clearly, there are cars that are less reliable than others.. but in general, I think it does. The argument being that even though the replacement parts are cheaper, they break more. Crown Vics and the like may be the exception to this rule, since they are quite reliable.

The bottom line is that the car makers cater to the public. They give us what we want(and sometimes what they think we want...). If people wanted Crown Vic type cars, they would make them.. but they don't.

You do understand that different people need different things, right? That's the whole premise behind the car makers catering to the public. You like your full size V8 powered vehicles. That's what you buy, thats what you drive.

Others like their Camrys, Accords and Civics. That's what they need, and that's what they drive. Their cars are no less important or whatever than yours. They do a job, and they do it very efficiently. That is the whole point.

If a 125HP 4-cylinder engine will get you from point A to point B, what is the point of an even more powerful V8(in the same car)? All it does is reduce efficiency and cost the owner more. I don't really know how much simpler it can get, lol...

I don't really understand how you cannot agree with that. Personal preference is one thing, but you can't let it cloud your view of the world. It isn't a conspiracy. It's all about the needs of the individual.

so what is the difference then, if you are going to say that a 125 hp 4 cylinder will get you from point a to point b, then why not just say that a 75 hp 4 cylinder will also do the job just fine.

but if 75 hp is just fine, than why not 45 hp??


OTOH, if i have a 125 hp 1.5 Liter I4, it will have to stay at 6k rpm a LOT more than if i had a 195 hp 5.0 liter V8. it will be more wear and tear on the vehicle long term with the smaller engine and it will use quite a bit of gas, more than just what the epa guestimates. where as the v8 will surprise you in gas mileage and will last a lot longer.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Nearly everybody in the US that doesen't drive a truck disagrees with you, though."

The question is, "... large engine not very highly tuned? or smaller engine tuned to the max? ...which is preferrable."[/i]

For racing OR daily commutes, the big engine loafing along is preferable to constant high RPMs. Even a fair portion of the 50% of US drivers, who don't drive trucks, would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas mileage. I contend that the money saved for gasoline is a pittance compared to the fatigue and annoyance of 'buzzing around' in the econobox. Not to mention the extra cost of the FWD drive train, suspension and foreign or exotic parts in general. It's not really even a fair comparison!

I think that's where our perceptions differ.

For one, at highway speeds, a big V8 cruises at only a slightly lower RPM than a 4cyl, of course depending on the cars in question, and the 4cyl will still get better gas milage.

For the sake of the argument, I'll agree with your "...would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas milage.". But what does that mean? Gas prices aren't going to be going down anytime soon, so gas prices are a big concern. If you take a look at the roads in Europe, the SUV is basically nonexistant.. due to $$$.

As for the cost of maintenance/ownership argument, I contend that it costs about the same to own nearly any car. Clearly, there are cars that are less reliable than others.. but in general, I think it does. The argument being that even though the replacement parts are cheaper, they break more. Crown Vics and the like may be the exception to this rule, since they are quite reliable.

The bottom line is that the car makers cater to the public. They give us what we want(and sometimes what they think we want...). If people wanted Crown Vic type cars, they would make them.. but they don't.

You do understand that different people need different things, right? That's the whole premise behind the car makers catering to the public. You like your full size V8 powered vehicles. That's what you buy, thats what you drive.

Others like their Camrys, Accords and Civics. That's what they need, and that's what they drive. Their cars are no less important or whatever than yours. They do a job, and they do it very efficiently. That is the whole point.

If a 125HP 4-cylinder engine will get you from point A to point B, what is the point of an even more powerful V8(in the same car)? All it does is reduce efficiency and cost the owner more. I don't really know how much simpler it can get, lol...

I don't really understand how you cannot agree with that. Personal preference is one thing, but you can't let it cloud your view of the world. It isn't a conspiracy. It's all about the needs of the individual.

so what is the difference then, if you are going to say that a 125 hp 4 cylinder will get you from point a to point b, then why not just say that a 75 hp 4 cylinder will also do the job just fine.

but if 75 hp is just fine, than why not 45 hp??


OTOH, if i have a 125 hp 1.5 Liter I4, it will have to stay at 6k rpm a LOT more than if i had a 195 hp 5.0 liter V8. it will be more wear and tear on the vehicle long term with the smaller engine and it will use quite a bit of gas, more than just what the epa guestimates. where as the v8 will surprise you in gas mileage and will last a lot longer.

I agree with and understand all your points, but that's not really how it works in real life...

As for the 75HP, 45hp part.. well, there comes a point where you get a lack of power. People want to be able to merge onto the highway and feel comfortable, not like you're in a race trying to keep ahead of the person comming up behind you, lol..

We must also consider emissions. Detuning a V8 to 150HP would be pretty pointless, and it would probably be hard to keep it clean. Obviously the car makers know a little more than we do.

I do not believe what you're trying to imply with gas milage numbers is correct. AFAIK, EPA estimates are usually pretty conservative- IE with the car driven granny-like. You can drive an Accord granny like just as easily as you can a Crown Vic. Most people never even get close to redline, unless they've got something to say, so to speak.

It's a fine line. Just because you're going to have to depress the accelerator less with the 5.0L V8 doesen't mean it's going to use less gas. It's also more than 3 times the size of your 1.5L I4.

Sigh.. I don't really know how to get my point across I guess, but it's more complicated than we're all making it out to be.

I'd like to see a V8 that gets better or even similar gas milage to an I4 in similar states of tune(turbo/turbo, NA/NA), with similar weight vehicles.......

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Nearly everybody in the US that doesen't drive a truck disagrees with you, though."

The question is, "... large engine not very highly tuned? or smaller engine tuned to the max? ...which is preferrable."[/i]

For racing OR daily commutes, the big engine loafing along is preferable to constant high RPMs. Even a fair portion of the 50% of US drivers, who don't drive trucks, would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas mileage. I contend that the money saved for gasoline is a pittance compared to the fatigue and annoyance of 'buzzing around' in the econobox. Not to mention the extra cost of the FWD drive train, suspension and foreign or exotic parts in general. It's not really even a fair comparison!

I think that's where our perceptions differ.

For one, at highway speeds, a big V8 cruises at only a slightly lower RPM than a 4cyl, of course depending on the cars in question, and the 4cyl will still get better gas milage.

For the sake of the argument, I'll agree with your "...would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas milage.". But what does that mean? Gas prices aren't going to be going down anytime soon, so gas prices are a big concern. If you take a look at the roads in Europe, the SUV is basically nonexistant.. due to $$$.

As for the cost of maintenance/ownership argument, I contend that it costs about the same to own nearly any car. Clearly, there are cars that are less reliable than others.. but in general, I think it does. The argument being that even though the replacement parts are cheaper, they break more. Crown Vics and the like may be the exception to this rule, since they are quite reliable.

The bottom line is that the car makers cater to the public. They give us what we want(and sometimes what they think we want...). If people wanted Crown Vic type cars, they would make them.. but they don't.

You do understand that different people need different things, right? That's the whole premise behind the car makers catering to the public. You like your full size V8 powered vehicles. That's what you buy, thats what you drive.

Others like their Camrys, Accords and Civics. That's what they need, and that's what they drive. Their cars are no less important or whatever than yours. They do a job, and they do it very efficiently. That is the whole point.

If a 125HP 4-cylinder engine will get you from point A to point B, what is the point of an even more powerful V8(in the same car)? All it does is reduce efficiency and cost the owner more. I don't really know how much simpler it can get, lol...

I don't really understand how you cannot agree with that. Personal preference is one thing, but you can't let it cloud your view of the world. It isn't a conspiracy. It's all about the needs of the individual.

so what is the difference then, if you are going to say that a 125 hp 4 cylinder will get you from point a to point b, then why not just say that a 75 hp 4 cylinder will also do the job just fine.

but if 75 hp is just fine, than why not 45 hp??


OTOH, if i have a 125 hp 1.5 Liter I4, it will have to stay at 6k rpm a LOT more than if i had a 195 hp 5.0 liter V8. it will be more wear and tear on the vehicle long term with the smaller engine and it will use quite a bit of gas, more than just what the epa guestimates. where as the v8 will surprise you in gas mileage and will last a lot longer.

I agree with and understand all your points, but that's not really how it works in real life...

As for the 75HP, 45hp part.. well, there comes a point where you get a lack of power. People want to be able to merge onto the highway and feel comfortable, not like you're in a race trying to keep ahead of the person comming up behind you, lol..

We must also consider emissions. Detuning a V8 to 150HP would be pretty pointless, and it would probably be hard to keep it clean. Obviously the car makers know a little more than we do.

I do not believe what you're trying to imply with gas milage numbers is correct. AFAIK, EPA estimates are usually pretty conservative- IE with the car driven granny-like. You can drive an Accord granny like just as easily as you can a Crown Vic. Most people never even get close to redline, unless they've got something to say, so to speak.

It's a fine line. Just because you're going to have to depress the accelerator less with the 5.0L V8 doesen't mean it's going to use less gas. It's also more than 3 times the size of your 1.5L I4.

Sigh.. I don't really know how to get my point across I guess, but it's more complicated than we're all making it out to be.

I'd like to see a V8 that gets better or even similar gas milage to an I4 in similar states of tune(turbo/turbo, NA/NA), with similar weight vehicles.......

did you know that the early mustang with 5.0 liter v8's put out like 130 HP.

wow how times have changed.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

did you know that the early mustang with 5.0 liter v8's put out like 130 HP.

wow how times have changed.

I really find that hard to believe.
I don't need a link or anything, but could you tell us where you got that information?

 

[Black88GTA]

I couldn't find much on the Mustang IIs and before (197?-1978) but I did find a chart on stock HP/Torque ratings for early Fox body Mustangs. The V-8 in the 1979 Stang had 140 HP. Uggh. I know it was lower than that for some of the 70s Mustangs though.

EDIT: After a bit more searching, I found this article. This states that the 302 V8 in the 1975 Stang had 122 HP, and the 302 in 1976 had 134 HP. Yeesh.

A V8 returned to the Mustang lineup for 1975. The 5.0-liter (302 in Amerispeak) V8 had only a two-barrel carburetor through which to breathe, and had to exhale through a catalytic converter; both conspired to limit output to an anemic 122 horsepower. Further, the automatic transmission was the only transmission available behind the V8. The addition of the catalytic converter also tempered the output of the standard four to just 83 horsepower and of the V6 to just 97 horsepower.

The model lineup for '75 was supplemented with a new "MPG" coupe aimed at budget shoppers, but the market's initial enthusiasm for the Mustang II was already waning and production dropped to 188,586 ? that's just 49 percent of the number made during '74.

Returning essentially unchanged for 1976, the Mustang II was stagnant during the year. All the variations from '75 returned with a new "Stallion" appearance package available on the fastback. But the most notorious addition was the Cobra II package that added a big rear spoiler, a fake hood scoop and blue stripes across white paint to a V8-powered fastback. The Cobra II wasn't any faster than other similarly powered Mustang IIs, but it sure looked radical and Farrah Fawcett-Majors' character, Jill Munroe, drove one on the huge TV hit series Charlie's Angels. Also in '76, the now 134-horsepower V8 was available with a four-speed manual transmission, output of the standard four swelled to a heady 92 horsepower and the V6's rating went to 102 horsepower.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Ornery

For racing OR daily commutes, the big engine loafing along is preferable to constant high RPMs. Even a fair portion of the 50% of US drivers, who don't drive trucks, would prefer the bigger engine, if it weren't for gas mileage. I contend that the money saved for gasoline is a pittance compared to the fatigue and annoyance of 'buzzing around' in the econobox. Not to mention the extra cost of the FWD drive train, suspension and foreign or exotic parts in general. It's not really even a fair comparison!

I bet my 4 banger is every bit as smooth and quiet as what you drive if not more so.

Many modern 4 bangers come with timing chains now and not belts, which last much longer.

CV joints generally don't have replacement intervals if you periodically inspect the boots.

Replacing struts is mildly shafty, but you have struts or shocks on any car.


For all your bitching and moaning about modern FWD cars, you don't seem to mention that most of them now are basically maintainance free for 100K miles besides just oil/tranny fluid/brake pad changes.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
it's all about personal perefecne and power band.

Obviously the 5L makes much more torque at a lower range.

You guys all say whats a better engine. But you gotta realize that different engines are used for different applications. For instance, a big block would not wokr in a S2000 or Elise while a high revving I4 would not work in a Mustang.

why wouldn't a high revving i4 work in a mustang?

no reason it wouldn't.

Because the Mustang is relatively heavy and teh whole appeal of it is high horsepower and high torque that shreds tires all the way till sunday.

A high revving 4cyl can't do that.

my mustang with the 5 liter v8 was about 3000 lbs. with a I4 it was closer to 2800 lbs.

not really heavy.

maybe so. but a 4-cyl wouldn't have the grunt to snap your head back the way a 5L would. Not only that, but the V8 has a certain charisma that an I4 in a Mustang could never have.

I'll put it this way: Would you ever consider a Mustang to be a Mustang if it had a I4 (and lets not talk about the 80s Mustang that came with a 95hp 2.2L 4cyl).

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

To add to what Eli said: 85hp is all we really need for a car. You only need about 15hp to keep an average car going at 60mph. Ever driven a 60hp car? I have. Was it slow? Hell ya. Did it feel slow? Definately. Did it take me from point A to point B? Yup.

Also to those who said that the smaller engine would have to be revving high..that's wrong. Ever heard of gearing?

In our Maxima with a 3L V6, the car runs at 2000RPM at 60mph and 2200RPM at 70mph. At 40mph its at around 1600RPM. The engine is silent at those speeds too. And I can garuantee that the stock Maxima can outrun any stock V8 RWD sedan such as the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic/Caprice at any speed. And you know what? That "little" V6 generates 90% of its peak torque before 2500RPM.

To cite another example, our 99 4-cyl Camry (with 2.2L engine I think) cruises at 60mph at around 2200RPM. And its silent in that speed as well. Its a 135hp car that has more than enough power for general city driving.

Ornery, you were arguing about upkeep? My friend has a 88 Camry that has over 310k kms on it. Apart from oil changes, he changed the timing belt once (and got it done for cheap), and recently got his CV joints changed. Parts only cost him $50CDN. And his uncle did the change in about 20mins.

Btw his car is still silent and doesn't have any squeaks or rattles. Engine is pretty silent as well (altho you can tell its time for him to change belts again)

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
To add to what Eli said: 85hp is all we really need for a car. You only need about 15hp to keep an average car going at 60mph. Ever driven a 60hp car? I have. Was it slow? Hell ya. Did it feel slow? Definately. Did it take me from point A to point B? Yup.

Also to those who said that the smaller engine would have to be revving high..that's wrong. Ever heard of gearing?

In our Maxima with a 3L V6, the car runs at 2000RPM at 60mph and 2200RPM at 70mph. At 40mph its at around 1600RPM. The engine is silent at those speeds too. And I can garuantee that the stock Maxima can outrun any stock V8 RWD sedan such as the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic/Caprice at any speed. And you know what? That "little" V6 generates 90% of its peak torque before 2500RPM.

To cite another example, our 99 4-cyl Camry (with 2.2L engine I think) cruises at 60mph at around 2200RPM. And its silent in that speed as well. Its a 135hp car that has more than enough power for general city driving.

Ornery, you were arguing about upkeep? My friend has a 88 Camry that has over 310k kms on it. Apart from oil changes, he changed the timing belt once (and got it done for cheap), and recently got his CV joints changed. Parts only cost him $50CDN. And his uncle did the change in about 20mins.

Btw his car is still silent and doesn't have any squeaks or rattles. Engine is pretty silent as well (altho you can tell its time for him to change belts again)

My 2.4 does not need to be revved hard to move the car around. 90 mph is 3k rpms for me.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: OS


My 2.4 does not need to be revved hard to move the car around. 90 mph is 3k rpms for me.

Cool. That was my point.

 

[Linux23]

With my Maxima, in order for me to get great performance, I have to at least rev the engine between 4K and 4500K RPM. This is from 0-60MPH, etc.

With my brothers Tahoe, although that V8 is big and loud, in order to get from 0-60MPH, the engine barely breaks 3000RPM.

I think a 3.0 - 4.0 Liter engine is a good compromise between a large engine and a small engine, IMHO.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: OS
My 2.4 does not need to be revved hard to move the car around. 90 mph is 3k rpms for me.

Cool. That was my point.

I probably should have said, I agree or something.

 

[johnjbruin]

I dont think the 3.0VQ or the 3.5VQ qualifies as the highly tuned high revving small engine. Its a moderate sized engine that has most of its power available at pretty low RPM's as mAdD INDIAN stated.

Assume
1. a 2.0L I4 Honda engine that had to be revved to get any torque
2. a moderate sized 3.5 V6, that was quite strong in the mid RPM.'s
3. A sluggish 5.0L detuned V8, as in a cprice or someting similar
4. A 4.5L V8 that infiniti/nissan makes and is pumping 333LB TQ and 340hp that is niceley tuned (and I dont mean highly tuned)

then I'd take the #4 anyday. I love that engine.
And in regard to...

And I can garuantee that the stock Maxima can outrun any stock V8 RWD sedan such as the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic/Caprice at any speed.

It owns the maxima with the 3.5VQ. From a start, or a roll, or even 100mph. Man I cant wait till the new m45 comes out.

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: OS


My 2.4 does not need to be revved hard to move the car around. 90 mph is 3k rpms for me.

Cool. That was my point.

my car can easily get to 90mph at under 3k rpm the whole time a lot faster than you could doing that
it's easy to keep an object in motion.... it's getting it all the way to 90

I love the rolling tests they do... 5mph or so all the way to 60 or so.... doesn't allow the little engines to rev to 9k and drop the clutch to get the fast times and shows just how much of a dog the engine is.... when i hit the gas at any time I want to move...

 

[johneetrash]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
it's all about efficiency

Tell me then, why does a Z06 get better gas mileage than a Neon SRT-4?

Viper GTS

it's all about gearing

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

did you know that the early mustang with 5.0 liter v8's put out like 130 HP.

wow how times have changed.

I really find that hard to believe.
I don't need a link or anything, but could you tell us where you got that information?

hehehe

i got that info simply by being old. i guess i was off by 10 hp.

i used to keep up with all those numbers in High school and college and that's what the 1st 5.0 foxbody mustangs used to put out way back then.

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: CraigRT
I'd take the 3.5.. just as much power if not more, and likely more dependable (but that's up for debate)

and just WHY would you assume that??

I KNOW for a fact that my 5.0 Liter mustang ran for 5 yrs and 80k miles with ZERO engine problems. i'd take my chances with that.

One example doesn't paint the whole picture.
Each car is slightly different in a way that each light bulb burns out at a different time.
Each driver have a different driving pattern and habit which plays a significant role in how long a vehicle lasts.

 

[FuZoR]

smaller engine !!! more fun to tune

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: SammySon

" Isn't minority opinion how change and progress happens? No, can't be, the world is the way it is because everyone thinks the same.

So, basically, your point is that, because the majority does it, it's right?"


"The subaru is definatly my favorite car by far out of all of them that I have owned."

As I pointed out, that is a minority opinion...


"I prefer to try and find a middle road in these discussions..."

...Since your opinion is of the minority, by default it can't be middle of the road. That's my point! I won't even try to pretend my opinion is middle of the road. Don't care if it is or not! Johann asked a question, and I answered it with plenty of facts, and a dash of opinion... OK, a dollop!

You're incredibly horrible at arguing semantics.
In fact, since you have no response, but to argue a complete implied fallacy, you have no credability but your obvious zealot opinion.

You have the nerve to bitch about my replies, when you're too illiterate to read and comprehend them! Christ! I pointed out that you do NOT represent the middle of the road, NOTHING MORE! Nothing to do with the majority's opinion at all.

Once again you fail to do nothing but provide an opinion you try and pawn off as fact.

Then you argue that since the rest of the mindless zombies are doing it in america, it's right. So since my opinion goes against the majority, it has no credability.

Weak, at best.

It's NOT my opinion that 50% of the vehicle purchases are trucks, that's FACT. It's NOT my opinion that a portion of the remaining 50% drive vehicles other than econoboxes and small performance cars, THAT'S FACT! It's NOT my opinion that the vehicle you prefer is in the minority, THAT'S FACT. You said, "I prefer to try and find a middle road in these discussions...", but the FACT is, you DON'T!

So, since the majority is white, they are right? The majority of people think MONSTER CABLES are superior, so I guess that makes them right? The majority thought there were WMD's in Iraq. The majority voted in the tax rebate like llamas. The majority voted in this joke of a president. The majority of people eat at McDonalds...
I can go on forever.

I've noticed that. Yipping and yapping about an argument I didn't even make! I've been ON TOPIC from the start. YOU'RE the one implying that YOUR OPINION is "middle of the road".

Why is it that the rest of the world isn't driving land tanks, but we are? Are we right? We definatly arn't the majority.

The FACT is, their governments tax the hell out of their fuel. I can only surmise that mileage is a big concern. Whether they'd prefer bigger cars and engines is debatable, but I bet they would.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Small highly tuned, with a sweet shifting 5 speed.

When I feel the need for low RPM torque. I'll give the guy a buck
and ride the bus..........