Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83
KITT222 -
Go to European car websites and you will usually see maybe 5 engine options for one car. Here in the USA we have far fewer because of the lack of diesel options and the expectation that a car must have fast 0-60 times. We are about to get the Ford Fiesta, but there are even smaller cars in the EU like the Ford Ka. Microcars make more sense in the narrow streets of "Medieval" EU cities.
Regarding more noticeable, remember that the driver doesn't start the engine, the ECU/PCM decides when to start the engine. GM wanted this to be transparent to the driver. They determined that the 3-banger was too noticeable, especially when they added a turbo. Here is my source :
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...der-12005.html
CarloSW2 |
I did notice the several engine options the several times I type .co.uk into the search bar. The Cruze alone has i think 8 variations (auto transmission options were included as a variation) and here in America there's i think 6 for the Cobalt, auto tranny option included as a variation.Only thing is that a few of the Cruze engines dont have an auto option. They have like 4 diesels. Thats why they have more motor options than we do. Wow. Who'd thought that a larger engine was lighter, cheaper, and easier to manage. I know about those micro 'city cars' I call them. The Matiz gets excellent fuel economy, but its for those in the city because of its size. Problem is, we arent an urban country, we have freeways. Lots and lots of freeways. People want to get to point B faster and faster. Cars would be faster and more economical if they stayed
smaller. The Cobalt is my example. Its larger, and more efficient than its predecessor, the Cavalier. Just imagine how great the fuel economy would be if they just re-did the car in the same size as the Cavi? The 'car bloat' leads each car to be bigger and bigger, yet more efficient than the last. If they were to stay small, imagine how great fuel economy would be!