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

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

What is the definition of "Seriously Underpowered" ?

When we are talking power to weight ratio, and look up the vehicles that score worst in that category (compare their 0-60 acceleration times f.i.), you will find not a single small car, unless your list has serious limitations.
The small cars have to be powerfull enough to maintain motorway speeds on a headwind. So they are. And their low weight makes them reach that speed rather quickly.
There is no such thing as small and seriously underpowered anymore.

[Arragonis]

What I meant was can it be quantified in terms of a performance limit, or that really a problem with the driver and not with the car ?

I drive a "not fast" car these days but I tend to drive cooperatively. For example on 2 lane roads I leave a gap for people to pass and pull in, most people just nose up behind whatever is in front so people have to pass both in one go. On motorways I wait until it is clear before passing. I take responsibility for merging (matching the speed) and even with an official 0-60 time of 14 seconds (11.1 according to one Magazine ) I manage it every time except if I'm held up by someone else.

Motorway speeds here are higher than the US - typically 70-90+ average - and I find this no problem even with 3 cyl, 1.0 and 68hp. I did a trip in MN at ~80 perfectly safely and everyone was amazed how fast we arrived and we passed more people than passed us.

I'm still unconvinced why Americans vs pretty much everywhere else on the planet feel the need for such large and powerful cars when they don't use that power much.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

There is no such thing as small and seriously underpowered anymore.

I might have to agree with you if I examine the current market more carefully.

However back in 1986 I bought a new VW Golf Diesel, drove it for 4-1/2 years. I then bought a 1990 Geo Tracker 4WD and drove that for 19-1/2 years.

I think I drove the two slowest vehicles then available in the US market for about a quarter century, and just dealt with it.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I might have to agree with you if I examine the current market more carefully.

However back in 1986 I bought a new VW Golf Diesel, drove it for 4-1/2 years. I then bought a 1990 Geo Tracker 4WD and drove that for 19-1/2 years.

I think I drove the two slowest vehicles then available in the US market for about a quarter century, and just dealt with it.

Ha! I had the ´86 Golf Diesel too, 4-speed gearbox 'n all. 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) in 19.5 seconds, IIRC. Yet I usually found no trouble to keep up with traffic, as most people use so little of their cars potential.

The Nissan Serena minibus listed its 0-100 in 30 seconds though . It was not very big, but certainly not small compared to what's on the road here. And there were others that made the Golf look like a dragster. Kind of. Hell did it smoke if I gave it full throttle, in its dying days...

[Arragonis]

These did 0-60 in nearly 40 seconds.



(EDIT - wrong pic)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by PressEnter[]

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.

Then it's not about power, it's the perception of the amount of cylinders as a premium feature. Let's take an example from the Ford 300cu.in. straight-6 and the 302cu.in. Windsor V8...

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Then it's not about power, it's the perception of the amount of cylinders as a premium feature. Let's take an example from the Ford 300cu.in. straight-6 and the 302cu.in. Windsor V8...

The V8 weighs less than the S6.

What is quite depressing is that the S6 had 4.9 Litres and made 170hp for the power starved American masses. At the same time Mercedes only needed 2.8 litres to make 160hp in the M130 engine. Their 3.5 V8 made 200hp too.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The V8 weighs less than the S6.

In spite of that, it's still a little more fuel-efficient

What is quite depressing is that the S6 had 4.9 Litres and made 170hp for the power starved American masses. At the same time Mercedes only needed 2.8 litres to make 160hp in the M130 engine. Their 3.5 V8 made 200hp too.

It's not just about power. Old American iron also had a greater amount of torque

[PressEnter[]]

I think it's funny that my new Jetta has almost as much torque as my old '87 Bronco with the 302 V8 (236 vs. 270 ft*lb)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by PressEnter[]

I think it's funny that my new Jetta has almost as much torque as my old '87 Bronco with the 302 V8 (236 vs. 270 ft*lb)

Diesels' evolution had been comparatively quicker than gassers' evolution. And sure the turbocharger helps a lot