Nothing I can say is going to change you and how you approach life. I choose differently and have no doubt that I'm happier for it. I am rarely angry and when I am, it only lasts for a short time.
I want to buy a new car
- Thread starter CougTek
- Start date
Nurburgring Lap Times (Wet) : 2014 Camaro Z/28
Fun/exciting video to watch. Good to know the windshield wipers work good at ~160mph, even on a Chevy.
G-Force meter in the lower RH corner of the video is cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1h75vA1Jw
Fun/exciting video to watch. Good to know the windshield wipers work good at ~160mph, even on a Chevy.
G-Force meter in the lower RH corner of the video is cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1h75vA1Jw
Nurburgring Lap Times (Wet) : 2014 Camaro Z/28
Fun/exciting video to watch. Good to know the windshield wipers work good at ~160mph, even on a Chevy.
G-Force meter in the lower RH corner of the video is cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1h75vA1Jw
That is a nice run. I'm still puzzled about why the Z28 exists and fits into the Camaro lineup. If I were a perspective buying for a top-performing Camaro, the very few reasons I can see me picking the Z28 over the ZL1 is because 1.) I'm nostalgic and 2.) I only put the car on a race track. Sure the ZL1 is 3-4 seconds off the Z28 at the Ring but I still feel like it's a better car for the money. Given the ZL1 is supercharger I feel like that lends itself to more tuning capabilities. Reducing the weight would certainly help the ZL1 if it's even possible. None the less, the Z28 is a fast ride around the Ring.
mubs
0
I want one. Been wanting one for a loooong time.
A agree completely. If it were my money, I would get the ZL1 because I never go to a track. My only guess is there a big enough niche of buyers/collectors/racers out there who are willing the pay the high price for the Z28 to make a business case for it. At least I hope.
If both cars were racing on a dry track I bet there would be much more than 3-4 seconds separating them, though.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/03/2014-chevrolet-camaro-z28-faster-than-zl1.html
I wonder if the new blown Z06 motor would fit?
The more-likely candidate would be the CTS-V since certain years actually came with an engine based on the super-charged C6 ZR1 Corvette LS9.
Indeed. I'm just a fan of the "biggest engine in the smallest car" thing. Like when VW put a Bently GT Speed W12 in a GTI.
Or like the Nissan Juke-R with the GTR's engine. That GTI is kind of ridiculous.
...or Aston Martin putting the V12 in their smallest car (The Vantage). Cool part about that is that it is still for sale.
Last edited:
Your URL goes to arctic silver thermal paste. ;-)
Fixed. Is it admin abuse to repair that link?
mubs
0
Gigantic engines in small cars reminds me of a saying in my language that goes "his balls are bigger than his head".
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
What do you guys think of the new Chrysler 200 2015? I've read two positive reviews about it so far, albeit they are probably not the most objective sources. It looks very good on paper, but...it's a Chrysler. How good can it really be? Since they've been bought by Fiat, can they have finally improved enough to make vehicles worth buying? They've built and sold below-average cars for as long as I can remember (and I can remember quite far). Is it possible, after what, at least half-a-century of poor engineering, that they've finally made a car good enough to be called a market leader?
mubs
0
Nice review, but a bit too syrupy, and as you pointed out, probably not wholly objective. Biggest concern would be durability / longevity of American cars. Can't beat the Japanese for that.
Howell
0
What is Fiat's reliability reputation in the rest of the world? I wouldn't know what Peugeot's current reputation was either since they have not been made here in so long. It used to be that you wanted a German mechanic and French or Italian lover and not visa versa.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
In fact, yes, American can and often do beat Japanese cars for that. American cars very often outlast their Japanese counterparts on longevity. It is the reliability along the way that gives them a poor reputation. American cars passing 300K miles is common, while it almost never happens for Japanese cars. They'll need several repairs for small and annoying failures in order to get there, but they will. The Japanese cars however, will need very little maintenance up to ~200K miles, but then they suffer general failure or they'll need repairs worth more than the value of the car, so that's generally the end of the road for them. Which isn't bad. You normally need 10 to 15 years to reach 200K miles, most of which will be problem free. If you plan, for whatever reason, to buy a car in your thirties and keep it untill you retired, you better choose an American car.
Regarding Fiat's reliability reputation, I think I've read that, at least up to a few years ago, it wasn't that good, but don't ask me for the source. We would need the input from one of our European members.
Howell
0
First time I've ever hard that characterisation of American vs Japanese cars and certainly not my experience. I've driven 3 Japanese cars over 200k miles. 4 cars ago I drove a Nissan. At about 100k I sucked some water into the intake and bent the piston rod on cyl 4 so badly it knocked a slot in the cylinder head and completely broke off the piston skirt below the wrist pin. I drove it another 100k miles after cleaning up the oil pan without repairing the engine. Drank about a quart per oil change.
Stereodude
Not really a
The answer is in your own post.
Howell
0
That does seem to be a good option. My memory was that they had only been back a 3 years which would not be enough data for CR. Sometimes it is good to be wrong.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Nothing official so far, but according to GM's and Ford's comparison engines, the 2015 Chrysler is a heavy drinker, despite its very low drag coefficient (0.27, compared to 0.34 for a 2014 Chevy Malibu). With a less powerful engine than most other mid size cars (184hp for a 2.4L 4-cyl), it drinks 1.5-2L more every 100Km than a Malibu, Sonata, Accord. That's appaling. It's the kind of numbers one would expect from a 2006-2008 new car with a comparable displacement, not from a 2015 model. Their 3.6L V6 Pentastar isn't better. It drinks ~1L more per 100Km than the 3.5L V6 in the Ford Taurus, which is a much bigger car.
We'll wait for the official numbers, but it doesn't look good. Too bad. It would have been good for Detroit if Chrysler could have hit a home run for once.
Last edited:
Mopar has never been known for great mileage, but I'm out of touch. The last one I had was a 1970 440, the high compression version before the real hi-test fuels disappeared. On a good day it would reach 12MPG, but was typically closer to 10 with some acceleration mixed in.
At one point today I was carrying 800lbs of chemicals in high pressure tanks and decided to light it up going up a 13% grade. 4.2MPG is a new record low for me. 
What about a VW Jetta TDI Clean Diesel?
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
IIRC, the Jetta is made in Mexico and it doesn't have a very good reputation regarding its reliability. I haven't looked at it much though.
The one I'm looking for right now, based on my researchs on safercar.gov, the IIHS web site, manufacturers' specifications and various reviews is the Chevy Malibu 2014. It test very well on impact tests and the 4-cylinder engine doesn't need a lot of fuel (8.0L/100Km in city, 5.3L/100Km on the highway). It comes with subpar tires, but that's history after a few thousand miles when you replace them. The Malibu depreciates quickly though. Last year's barely used cars dropped more than 6000$, quite a lot more than something like an Honda Accord. So I might wait until next year, hoping my car last until then (it's more than 10 years old now and I drove approximately 265,000Km with it - it's totally trashed) and buy one second-hand.
The one I'm looking for right now, based on my researchs on safercar.gov, the IIHS web site, manufacturers' specifications and various reviews is the Chevy Malibu 2014. It test very well on impact tests and the 4-cylinder engine doesn't need a lot of fuel (8.0L/100Km in city, 5.3L/100Km on the highway). It comes with subpar tires, but that's history after a few thousand miles when you replace them. The Malibu depreciates quickly though. Last year's barely used cars dropped more than 6000$, quite a lot more than something like an Honda Accord. So I might wait until next year, hoping my car last until then (it's more than 10 years old now and I drove approximately 265,000Km with it - it's totally trashed) and buy one second-hand.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
WTF were you doing with that much weight of dangerous material in your Audi? Are you so ashamed of yourself that you don't want your daughter to know you growing up?At one point today I was carrying 800lbs of chemicals in high pressure tanks and decided to light it up going up a 13% grade. 4.2MPG is a new record low for me.
mubs
0
That's pretty impressive. The Malibu I rented in 2005 on an East Coast trip gulped more fuel than my V6 Camry back home, but I guess GM has improved their act since then.
Fortunately the tanks actually packed tightly enough that they didn't shift at all. With the rear seats folded down the weight was very evenly distributed R/L and F/R, and was fairly low as far as CG goes. Other than significantly lowering the "limit" (cornering/braking G, acceleration times) it wasn't particularly risky. And accelerating up a steep grade from 15mph to 60mph isn't really dangerous either. I still average 30mpg+ when I'm not fooling around, and I'm always curious about the lower limit.
Stereodude
Not really a
My S4 won't display any number under 5.0MPG for instantaneous fuel economy. You can get it down to 5MPG short of wide open throttle, so I'm quite sure they artificially limited the displayed number to 5. By the way you should be expecting a visit from one or more three letter agencies shortly.At one point today I was carrying 800lbs of chemicals in high pressure tanks and decided to light it up going up a 13% grade. 4.2MPG is a new record low for me.
The US Jetta & Passat are built in Tennessee. I don't know which Jetta you get in Canada, but I'd guess it's the US one not the European one. AFAIK, the Golf is built in Mexico.
I'd previously thought that the number wouldn't go below 5.0MPG. It certainly wouldn't on flat ground with a normal load, even under WOT at redline. But under these conditions I managed it. You just need to try harder
And for the chemicals, I had the MSDS in the passenger seat so no worries
And if anyone was interested the tanks contained insulation for my house (binary exothermic expanding foam pressurized with nitrogen in 25kg tanks) Should be 4800 board-feet (or 2400sq.ft. two inches thick - R14 and air-tight)
Howell
0
Are you doing your attic now? Did you do all of your floors?
I did the floors in the bedrooms and filled all the wall cavities. This is for the floors in the rest of the house and the attic. There is currently really old cellulose up there with some fiberglass thrown on top above the bedrooms. The plan is to remove the cellulose (which has settled significantly), spray in the foam, and then top that with the fiberglass.
mubs
0
I suspect apart from thermal insulation, they will have good acoustic insulation properties too, eh?
There seems no end to your talents!
There seems no end to your talents!
Howell
0
Where is your ductwork? I would encapsulate the area that includes your ductwork into the building envelope for the ultimate in efficiency. You can just leave the current insulation between the joists.