I want to buy a new car

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
From what I understand, it is more about how greedy the designer is when they size the turbo. It is possible to put in a (relatively) small turbo and get a nice performance gain without much lag at all (as is the case in my car), but if you really want to squeeze the max from an engine you can strap a massive turbo to it and deal with the lag. This is common in the smaller displacement cars in Europe and Asia. 200HP from 1L is totally possible this way, but you'll need to keep it above 3000RPM at all times.

There are ways around that of course, variable geometry turbos and the various twin turbo systems will get you there.

Dave is right. Chrysler started using variable vane turbos in the 90's which helped with the lag. Also, variable length/volume induction system also helped by allowing the intake manifold to have longer narrower (low volume) runners at low engine speeds with butterfly type valves that would open up at higher engine speeds to allow higher air volumes. Longer/larger/higher volume runners would be better at moving air at higher speeds, producing more power. Narrower runners would have better flow characteristics at low speed to give better low end torque.

A more knowledgeable explanation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jruZL5UCSA

Also it comes down to turbo size as well. Smaller turbos have lower inertia (faster response) but less ability to move air (lower power production). That's why twin turbos give you a lot of potential...you can have different size turbos and stage them or just have two smaller ones and and get the responsiveness you want with the airflow you want for peak power. Not sure which is the typical way twin turbo cars to it.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,747
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Funny you should link to Eric the car guy....I've been watching his videos for a while now. Engineering Explained is also nice, but the production is even worse. ;)
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
I don't exactly know why, but I wouldn't have pegged you for a car audio guy... Interesting... I put aftermarket stereos in all my previous cars (new head unit, amps, speakers, subwoofer, etc). Each car got a higher end and more sophisticated setup than the one before it. However, my Audi with the B&O system is the first car that actually has a stock system that's good enough to where I won't bother. It's not perfect, but I'm happy. The digital time alignment ("Sound Focus") set to the driver's seat is what sold it.

When I bought my car new, '96 Honda Accord, I decided to get a nice stereo so I shopped around and listened. I could definitely hear the difference between McIntosh and anything else so I bought 2x MC427 (2x100W) and an MC443 (1x 300W) for the sub woofers. I also added a 1F capacitor to keep the power supply even regardless of draw. For speakers I purchased MBQuart 6.5" Q series component for the front, MBQuart 6x9's for the rear and 2x 12" round Kicker Solo-Baric's in a custom enclosure because I liked their sound when I heard them. I don't remember the original deck but it was a high-end Alpine (external amp only) that has been replaced several times with an Alpine equivalent. For some reason the head units seem to have a maximum lifespan of about 4 years. To get digital time alignment I originally got an Alpine PRA-H400 sound processor which died several years ago when a passenger spilled a pop onto the seat above it. I junked it and am simply using the time alignment and parametric equalizer that the modern Alpine decks now contain. I also have an Alpine 12-DVD changer.

It all cost about $4000 originally including installation with an extra $600 every 4 years or so for a new head unit. All the major components are now 18 Years old, and going strong, except the head unit so I feel I got my money's worth.

Does that give you a concept of where I am at as a car audio guy? I really like how it all sounds when the settings are all correct especially if the car is not moving (Accords have a rightfully earned reputation for lots of road noise). Incredibly clean and crisp no matter how loud and It can get deafening. I rarely listen to it very loud, but passengers seem to appreciate the volume capability.

I've gotten used to it so that I really do not wish to sacrifice the sound when getting my next car. Also, note that my home stereo is crap but I never listen to music except for in the car so that doesn't bother me much.
 
Last edited:

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Yeah, that's not too far from where I was. I had CDT components in the front in my Maxima. I had to build up custom mounting rings in the doors to hold the midwoofer so the windows would clear the motor on the back. I used a 25Wx4 (RMS) Alpine deck with built in a 3-way active crossover and full digital time alignment, 12" sub in the trunk. I used the 25WPC amp in the Alpine for the two tweeters in the a pillars, and had amps in the trunk for the midwoofers (150Wx2) in the doors and the subwoofer (450Wx1). I put lead lined acoustic foam on all the door panels, and used a Dynamat like material all over the car. I didn't use any rear speakers.

FWIW, last time I looked head units didn't have digital time alignment any longer. :(
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
The MB quart component speaker system comes with an active crossover designed for the individual components specs. I considered mounting their tweeters on the front door posts but I balked at the custom install cost. Instead I mounted them in dashboard which was much cheaper. The mid's were mounted in the factory speaker holes in the front kick panels. The MB Quart 6x9's replaced the factory speakers in the rear.

I deliberately choose decks without power supplies. I didn't want the possibility of high power crosstalk to the pre-amp signals.

Rear speakers are important, even if they aren't the best, for they even out the sound. You want a preference to the front but everything coming from the front doesn't sound right. It's why front-rear fader's exist.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,747
Location
Horsens, Denmark
The car is a piece of art but if we're dreaming, I'm more enamoured by the Koenigsegg One:1.

I love the technologies used to produce the One:1 (Titanium 3D printed variable geometry turbo housing, Carbon wheels, etc). But the 918's drivetrain I'd consider superior (torque fill from the electric and AWD). I think the current winner on the suspension front would be the P1.

The Audi A3 Clubsport Quattro (which will likely never come to the US) seems to be a trending indication of what the RS3 might offer. 525 horsepower and 442 pound-feet of torque.

Yup, I'd take that. Though I do believe that electric drivetrains are gaining at a massive rate at the moment. If I can hold off replacing a car for another year or so, I doubt I'll ever go to a gas station again.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,931
Location
USA
I love the technologies used to produce the One:1 (Titanium 3D printed variable geometry turbo housing, Carbon wheels, etc). But the 918's drivetrain I'd consider superior (torque fill from the electric and AWD). I think the current winner on the suspension front would be the P1.



Yup, I'd take that. Though I do believe that electric drivetrains are gaining at a massive rate at the moment. If I can hold off replacing a car for another year or so, I doubt I'll ever go to a gas station again.

I love what they did with the P1. No disagreement there. The electric motor torque fill and incredible chassis make that car today's version of the McLaren F1.


I ignorantly feel that you're in a better environment to sustain the electric car being over in CA. There are many charging stations in my area but likely not as many as in yours. I do see quite a few Tesla Model S in my area so maybe it's better than I'm believing. Almost now at a rate of one per week.

If the RS3 comes in at a subjectively reasonable price, it might be a great car for the money.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
I ignorantly feel that you're in a better environment to sustain the electric car being over in CA. There are many charging stations in my area but likely not as many as in yours. I do see quite a few Tesla Model S in my area so maybe it's better than I'm believing. Almost now at a rate of one per week.
The charging infrastructure mostly matters if you tend to take a lot of trips longer than the car's range, and you don't have a place you can plug in at home to charge for your shorter daily trips, like commuting to work.

I'm with Dave. Superior charging infrastructure or not, if I hypothetically wanted to buy a car, I probably wouldn't even look at anything other than electrics. We're going to see a massive amount of electrics both on the high and low ends relatively soon, perhaps even sooner if some of the promising battery tech makes it out of the lab. I'm not sure where it would be useful other than the track, but that 918's acceleration is really impressive. 0 to 100 mph in 5 seconds is mind boggling.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Oddly, though, I read that Toyota has announced that they are backing off from electric and going the hydrogen / fuel-cell route since they believe it is the future. This after their electrics bombed in the market.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
I wonder if you need to follow the standard driving rules (like stop signs) if you are 8 -12 feet off the ground? Not saying that it isn't unsafe, just wondering if they technically apply to you if you are not touching the ground. Do you even have to have a driving license?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,747
Location
Horsens, Denmark
When flying, it isn't road legal, so obeying traffic laws doesn't apply at all. The most licensing you might need would be an LSA, which doesn't even require a physical.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
They claim (in their FAQ's) that it isn't an aircraft rather it is a ground-effects vehicle i.e. a hovercraft thereby no flying license needed.

FAQ said:
What is the Aero-X?
The Aero-X is an aerial all-terrain vehicle, literally. It is a surface effect vehicle, similar to a hovercraft. Like a hovercraft it uses the benefit of the surface below it to provide lift, but unlike a hovercraft it does not rely on that surface for stability, so it is able to fly higher.


Where can I fly the Aero-X?
The Aero-X can be used over private land and water, and wherever off-highway vehicles are allowed – subject to local regulation. In the US, off-highway vehicles cannot be operated over roads or in urban areas.


Is it safe?
Yes, the Aero-X is safe for its intended purposes. If you do not agree, you will get your deposit back – period.


Who regulates the Aero-X?
Surface effect vehicles and hovercraft are classified as off-highway vehicles and boats – depending on where they are operated. Over US land, off-road vehicles are typically regulated by the department of motor vehicles, and over water they are regulated by applicable Coast Guard regulations.


What standards is the Aero-X built to?
The Aero-X is designed to the Hoverclub of America Construction Regulations for Light Hovercraft, and manufactured to the Light Sport Aircraft ASTM F2972-12 standard for quality assurance.


Where is it best to fly?
As the Aero-X uses the surface for lift, it is best suited for flat terrain or undulating hills. It is not well suited to mountainous terrain or where big shifts in altitude occur. One way to think of it is as hovercraft – if you wouldn’t go there on a hovercraft, then you wouldn’t want to on the Aero-X either.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
I received my new car Friday. So far, I've driven approximately 330Km in it, 50Km of which were city driving and my average is a little over 40MPG (5.8L/100Km). Not bad for a non hybrid midsize car.

It should consume more than that though. Unlike I did with my older car, I accelerate like an elder asian just to see how much mileage I can do with the first full tank. With ~330Km so far, I still have more than ¾ of the gas left. I could therefore maybe reach 1200Km on a single tank. Most of my driving in the upcoming two weeks will be city driving, so I probably won't go much further than 1000Km.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
I must have missed it, but what did you say your new car was?

5.8L/100km is very good for any car. Given the imputation of a 70L tank, I deduce your new vehicle is some kind of 6-cyclinder car, but obviously not an SUV.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
It's a Nissan Altima with a 2.5L 4-cylinder engine. The CVT is the only one offered. First car I have that isn't a manual.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
It's a Nissan Altima with a 2.5L 4-cylinder engine. The CVT is the only one offered. First car I have that isn't a manual.

Oh no, the Coug is becoming civilized. :)

How much do you drive per year?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
Oh, that's not too much so the fuel is not really a big issue.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Sounds great, Coug. A big-pot 4 should be a perfect match for a CVT, with less need to rev noisily under even mild acceleration and less 'rubber band' effect. I noticed the difference even between the (local) 1.8L Pulsar and 2.0L Corolla; the Corolla was far more relaxed.

I wonder if it shares the same platform as the Maxima? A decent wheelbase for smooth and stable ride, not too much body weight, and I'll bet an enormous trunk for disposal of unwanted ... things ...

I also see that my deduction was right in principle; the top-of-the-range model has a 6-cylinder engine, hence the 65L tank. A 1000-1200km range is very useful, especially if you do go on a longer trip.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
It would not be a good Corvette conversation without the mid-engine rumor. :) Been hearing those for years.

No 'Vettes for me in the near future but in September I will have an XTS V Sport for a week. :)
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
Yeah...now I own everything above the floor pan in the image below, except for the front of dash panel. Earlier on during development I had the Body Side Outer panel (single stamping that goes from the base of the A-pillar all the way back rear corner of the body, in addition to all the tail lamp pockets and gutters that make up the liftgate opening). Basically all exterior BIW metal except for the roof. Image below is a CRV by the way...just a good pic to use for an example.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/11/742012cr-vtechillustrationbody-in-white.jpg

I'm also working on Cruze, Volt & Verano right now.
 
Top