Why are cars sold in other countries so much more fuel efficient than in the US?!

[mechman600]

Sort of related - people think I am nuts for pulling a 1500 lb tent trailer over the Coquihalla with my Toyota Matrix, loaded for bear - just over 5000 lbs total (weighed at the Hope scale).
Realistically, it pulls awesome. The slowest part (the snow shed) was 80 km/h (at 5000 rpm in 2nd for about 10 minutes), and that's because it didn't want to rev higher for extended periods of time.

[War_Wagon]

Yup, I don't think I have ever been the one to hold up traffic in the hills. There is always a semi, or some clod in a huge bus of an RV towing a Jeep that slows everyone down. Or an old VW van lol. One of my parents neighbors was over when I was visiting with the Firefly, and he said that a car that small was dangerous to drive up there, because there are a lot more deer, moose, and other wildlife on the roads and if you hit one you'd get killed. Uhhh, pretty sure if you smack a 2000 pound moose at highway speeds, you are in trouble regardless of what you are driving. But you can't really reason with people like that in regards to them not needing the kind of vehicle they think they need. He had a crew cab, cummins powered 3500 Dodge pick up.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Going up the mountain - YES.

Going down the mountain where braking power as applied to surface contact area - NO.

Several examples of this come to mind, one where a sports car is pitted against a much faster motorcycle on the track. The motorcycle was ahead until the first turn where rapid deceleration was required.

Sport cars can out brake sport bikes, it's that simple.

I have witnessed several races in different classes on the same track, and the only cars that can beat the bikes lap times have big wings and are far from being road legal.

One of my friends had a Subaru Impreza WRX STI with some additional power mods. Sure he could outcorner and outbreak my CBR 1000 F. He was not afraid to let it slide a bit. On corner exit it was byebye little dot in the mirror though.
The acceleration of a motorbike exceeds 1g in first gear, and that gear can reach 80-90 mph in some oof the sportier bikes. No 2wd car can match that, and 4wd's first gears don' t reach that far.
What a bike may lose in the corners is more than compensated by the acceleration. The mountains increase that effect.

[Xist]

An elk took out my 1990 Accord and I always think about that when I consider other cars. It dented in my grill, hood, windshield, and the front foot of my roof. However, the elk really only come out at night. If I ever decided to fold up into a clown car, I would just never drive that area at night.

[PressEnter[]]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

it's more a matter of that mentality which tends to associate the power and the amount of cylinders as how manly a vehicle is.

Yes, though it's not just manly men who want power. Recently a co-worker wanted to replace her Mercury Mountaineer, and was disappointed by comparable SUV's with V6 engines. I pointed out that many of them made much more power than her outdated V8, and she actually got angry at the suggestion.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I have witnessed several races in different classes on the same track, and the only cars that can beat the bikes lap times have big wings and are far from being road legal.

I guess this is part of an old argument, and maybe I'm too easily influenced by the automotive media on such matters. The below video is partly responsible for my perception on the matter.


Car vs. Motorcycle - Porsche 911 vs. Yamaha R1
Car vs. Motorcycle - Porsche 911 vs. Yamaha R1

In this classic Top Gear segment, Jeremy Clarkson pits a Yamaha R1 motorcycle against the Porsche 911. Find out who wins.
2006 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 - US price: $87,100 -- 2006 Yamaha YZF-R1 LE - US price: $18,000

I used to ride a Honda Hawk back in the early 1980's, my experiences with road wash on public streets would certainly dampen my enthusiasm for going all out around blind turns so often found on mountain roads.

I'd probably be a little more adventurous in an AWD Porsche 911 or Subaru than any motorcycle I can think of.

[mechman600]

Now obviously i'm not going to ride the bike because i am a heterosexual and i don't like wearing rubber trousers.

lol

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

That's why we need em both
The point was what you use it for. The claim seemed to be that Porsches etc. were made to cope well with mountains. The average motorbike copes even better, due to its good power to weight ratio. To have real fun in the mountains, take a motorbike.

Except that I've never found a way to take my dogs along on a bike.

Having said that, the excess power only comes into play when the road allows higher speeds. Any car can climb any paved mountain road in first gear and most of them in second. So where the roads get really twisty the power differences become less significant.

And block traffic for effing miles. I get stuck behind people like this all too often. Granted, for most of them it seems more a lack of driving ability than power, but still...

But I think you're still missing the point I was trying to make. It isn't as though the only two possibilites are small & seriously underpowered, or gargantuan SUV/pickup with 500 hp engines. As for instance these: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...pg-mazda-miata

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

....
And block traffic for effing miles. I get stuck behind people like this all too often. Granted, for most of them it seems more a lack of driving ability than power, but still...

Huh? How is this related to what I wrote?
You cannot be blocking traffic if your gearing allows your car to go as fast as the road allows for, and you do so. Something grippier might be held up slightly, at most.
Even so I let everyone pass that I can't shake off, as fun for me does not include cornering and braking close to the limit. Oh, and I hate caravans.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

....But I think you're still missing the point I was trying to make.

If that's true, we share a vice...

Originally Posted by jamesqf

It isn't as though the only two possibilites are small & seriously underpowered, or gargantuan SUV/pickup with 500 hp engines. As for instance these: The 3-Cylinder, 40 MPG... Mazda Miata?

We are all aware of that.
(Like the Miata project, but can't believe the original gets just 16 mpg )

That Top Gear test BTW was rigged, as it should be. You cannot race a bike and car safely side by side. A R1 can corner at a 52 degree inclination, with a lateral acceleration of about 1.5 G. The Porsche gets only 1.2G at best.
But the bike in the film did not even come close to that.

The motorbikes in the race I saw were lapping 10-15 seconds faster than the 135 kW touring cars.

[Arragonis]

What is the definition of "Seriously Underpowered" ?