Maybe new cars are getting more aerodynamic?

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by Playslikepage71

Well, now that they're selling trucks for bags of potatoes everyone is buying them. I can agree with the people that said the US automakers are getting shafted with labor contract issues. They also got in trouble when toyota was retooling their flexible factories while GM and co. was stuck with their junk in the wind making gigantor trucks and such.

I just find it amazing how behind the times it seems the US automakers are. It's like why does it take an 8.3L V10 to make 525HP? The Nissan GT-R does it with a 3.8L V6 with 2 turbos. If you dispute that because of the factory claimed number of 480HP, take a look at the motor trend article about the dyno tests. The Ferarri F430 makes 485 ponies with a "meager" 4.3L V8. The Corvette with it's futuristic fiberglass body rides on friggin leafsprings!! Detroit is finally catching up with the rest of the world when it comes to hybrid, diesel, and performance technologies. It may be too late though.

Horsepower is a function of the amount of air flowing into and out of an engine. Engine displacement * rotation speed = flow rate. So there is a replacement for displacement-- revs. That Ferrari engine needs high revs to make the horsepower it does.


The fact that the Corvette rides on leafsprings has nothing to do with low-tech. The car has double wishbones, with composite leafs taking the place of coil springs. The advantage of the leafs is a more compact suspension system, because you don't need reinforced structures up top to seat coils into.

[theunchosen]

I would argue that the RAV and CRV are. Platform heigh is equal to that of Jeep Grand Cherokee, and all the new "cross-overs." That category was invented to shed the title SUV, other than that they are only slightly better than their larger monster cousins.

It would require registration data to decide what car is most preferable as you said because my Honda is at 255K and I am going to gamble not one of those SUVs since say 97 made it that far.

Nevertheless, that issue in and of itself points to that fact that people are prone to using them. Ford, GM and Chrysler are pretty shoddy compared to Honda andToyotas lifetime. So if you see very many at all of those larger vehicles its a testament to how many people buy them and then upgrade to the next model year when it falls apart.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

I would argue that the RAV and CRV are. Platform heigh is equal to that of Jeep Grand Cherokee, and all the new "cross-overs." That category was invented to shed the title SUV, other than that they are only slightly better than their larger monster cousins.

On the other hand, the CRX weighs about half as much as the Suburban, something that I think is generally true of the import SUV/crossover types. (Though as I said, I don't really keep up with the different models.) But there again is more evidence against the "Americans want big cars" meme. If if was true, why would the smaller imports & crossovers be selling? Wouldn't everyone be ignoring them in favor of Suburbans & Expeditions?

So if you see very many at all of those larger vehicles its a testament to how many people buy them and then upgrade to the next model year when it falls apart.

Not really, because I'll bet it's pretty much the same people buying the big ones year after year. Which I think goes to prove my point: that while there is a segment of the American market that wants big cars, it's a long way from being the whole market.

[theunchosen]

I never said the whole market. I made a post elsewhere to the effect that if you put gas at a dollar a gallon for several months and made it look like it were going to do that forever and then you offered a car buyer a dealer with one of every make,model,color,package a huge chunk of them would chose the SUV even though it costs more.

US cars are much bigger than European or oriental counterparts. As I said in that other post you walk by a Smart ForTwo in europe and its not that big of a deal, here its like a toy. You see the A class in traffic and you feel like its a bigger vehicle on the road. My Del Sol would be a little wide to fit on most European streets I've been on(Italy, England France)

Size is why Citroen and Fiat aren't here now. . .their cars would not survive the perceived safety factor against getting hit with a semi or an SUV.

That said our cars are getting smaller and lighter and more aero. . .but if GW goes belly up or gas prices bottom out and stay there that trend will reverse.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

I never said the whole market.

But that's the implication of saying "Americans want big cars", that the whole US market wants them, when in fact only a fraction do. I'll even argue that the fraction that really wants big is smaller than that which buys big, because some of them are buying for other reasons, such as the SUV having been the automotive equivalent of the hula hoop.

Nor is the "want a big car" segment confined to the US. When I lived in Europe, there were a goodly number of big cars on the roads - even saw a couple of Hummers, though most were things like Land Rovers, or Rolls, Bentleys, and big BMWs.

"Size is why Citroen and Fiat aren't here now. . .their cars would not survive the perceived safety factor against getting hit with a semi or an SUV."

You really think so? Then why are for instance VW, Honda, Toyota, and the rest still here, and doing better than the US automakers? Their cars were as small as the Citroens (which unless you count the old 2CV, aren't all that small) or Fiats, if not smaller. I think the departure of Fiat might have more to do with its "Fix It Again, Tony" reputation, while Citroen is, of course, French.

You mentioned the Smart: well, isn't that a case in point? If Americans really wanted big cars, the Smart wouldn't sell here, would it? (It's not exactly cheap, you know.) Nor would the Honda Fit, the BMW Mini, the Mazda Miata...

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But that's the implication of saying "Americans want big cars", that the whole US market wants them, when in fact only a fraction do. I'll even argue that the fraction that really wants big is smaller than that which buys big, because some of them are buying for other reasons, such as the SUV having been the automotive equivalent of the hula hoop.

Nor is the "want a big car" segment confined to the US. When I lived in Europe, there were a goodly number of big cars on the roads - even saw a couple of Hummers, though most were things like Land Rovers, or Rolls, Bentleys, and big BMWs.

"Size is why Citroen and Fiat aren't here now. . .their cars would not survive the perceived safety factor against getting hit with a semi or an SUV."

You really think so? Then why are for instance VW, Honda, Toyota, and the rest still here, and doing better than the US automakers? Their cars were as small as the Citroens (which unless you count the old 2CV, aren't all that small) or Fiats, if not smaller. I think the departure of Fiat might have more to do with its "Fix It Again, Tony" reputation, while Citroen is, of course, French.

You mentioned the Smart: well, isn't that a case in point? If Americans really wanted big cars, the Smart wouldn't sell here, would it? (It's not exactly cheap, you know.) Nor would the Honda Fit, the BMW Mini, the Mazda Miata...

I just have 2 questions. Where in Europe did you live? and which Citroens are larger than an American car?

The reason I ask the first is not because I doubt it at all, I'm just curious because I spent a few weeks over there in 2006 and saw. . .1 SUV(something we would call an SUV it was a Rover) in 3 weeks(during said same time period I saw 2 Murcielagos, a Gallardo and an Enzo so its not like I wasn't watching).

The reason I ask the second is because the citroen cars are all like the mini(the original) and the only cars that were heavily produced/used in the US was the beetle that compared to it in size.

It may be a Hula-Hoop. . .I honestly couldn't tell you so I have to change my argument to Americans buy big cars.

I know Europe has seen an influx of models that are larger than the old school of thought but they are around the size of a 2dr civic, not a Pontiac GrandAm, Nissan Altima, Honda Accord or a slew of others. Yes most of those cars were released in Europe and yes their bodies are slightly narrower and not as long. I have a friend with a Euro Del Sol and its 2 inches less in length and 3 inches narrower(across headlights across pillars where roof splits across rear wheels, from headlights to taillights from apex of grill to tow hook)

[Playslikepage71]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Horsepower is a function of the amount of air flowing into and out of an engine. Engine displacement * rotation speed = flow rate. So there is a replacement for displacement-- revs. That Ferrari engine needs high revs to make the horsepower it does.


The fact that the Corvette rides on leafsprings has nothing to do with low-tech. The car has double wishbones, with composite leafs taking the place of coil springs. The advantage of the leafs is a more compact suspension system, because you don't need reinforced structures up top to seat coils into.

Yes sir, but you forget that a car needs to be engineered to relatively high standards to produce the revs as high as in the Ferrari's engine. In reality, horsepower is a less important number than torque, even though both numbers give a good idea of the performance of a car. And whether the car needs a lot of revs or not, it is still a more efficient use of the space. The front end of a Corvette is the most obnoxiously long piece of overstuffed fiberglass. It's the compensation car, for sure.

You are correct on you leafspring remark, however. It is an advantageous system.

As far as needing 525hp in a performance car, it has more to do with the top speed than anything else. It's getting similar performance numbers to the Elise with it's little 1.8L Toyota engine as far as acceleration and handling, despite increased weight, but it's top speed is much greater. That's why the Veyron need 16 cylinders, 4 turbos and 1000hp to go 250mph.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by Playslikepage71

Yes sir, but you forget that a car needs to be engineered to relatively high standards to produce the revs as high as in the Ferrari's engine. In reality, horsepower is a less important number than torque, even though both numbers give a good idea of the performance of a car. And whether the car needs a lot of revs or not, it is still a more efficient use of the space. The front end of a Corvette is the most obnoxiously long piece of overstuffed fiberglass. It's the compensation car, for sure.

You are correct on you leafspring remark, however. It is an advantageous system.

As far as needing 525hp in a performance car, it has more to do with the top speed than anything else. It's getting similar performance numbers to the Elise with it's little 1.8L Toyota engine as far as acceleration and handling, despite increased weight, but it's top speed is much greater. That's why the Veyron need 16 cylinders, 4 turbos and 1000hp to go 250mph.

The Corvette engine's displacement in place of revs, combined with very aerodynamic body, allow it to get better highway gas mileage than the
average economy car.

There is actually a reason it uses "old fashioned" pushrods too.... It allows the engine to be much more compact and ligthweight than a DOHC. That's why the Corvette's hood is so LOW. Every other V8/V6 sports car, except the mid engined supercars, is about as tall as a sedan.
The LS* engines in Corvettes are so compact and light that people swap them into Miatas.

The length of the hood is to allow the engine to be mounted further back for better weight distribution.

[theunchosen]

amount of power and power design is moderately irrelevant, not that I am discouraging this debate, feel free to continue.

The person who said why does it need 525 hp in the first place was more referring to the fact that why would anyone not intending to use it on the track need 525 horses.

I think I can kind of agree with that, although out in my neck of the woods there are a fair number of strips official and unofficial so people run them alot(Thunder Valley next to BMS). My car doesn't really need 100 hp because rarely do I use that much and it could be smaller to reduce weight and increase FE. On other occassions I am having a bad day and acceleration feels good.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

The Corvette engine's displacement in place of revs, combined with very aerodynamic body, allow it to get better highway gas mileage than the
average economy car.

That's a bit of a stretch. Define "average economy car".