Review of new Toyota Prius

[mubs]

Today's L.A. Times has a review of it. The guy gushes all over the place. When I'm in the market, this is what I'll shoot for.

More interestingly, in the first half of the review, he skewers the U.S. auto industry for saying it was impossible to achieve 40MPG for passenger cars by 2015; the new Prius gets 60 MPG today. He also skewers the Clinton and Bush administrations for buckling under U.S. auto industry pressure. I actually found this part of the review more interesting.

For those interested, the article is online here. Unfortunately, registration (free) is required.

 

[jtr1962]

Without reading the article(because I'm too lazy right now to register) I'll say before what I've said again-I'm tired of hearing the words "we can't" from the US auto industry. You can build a 75 mpg vehicle today, and you can build a 150 mpg one by 2015(assuming we don't make the switch to fuel cells by then, which we should). If they want a clue how, talk to some of the people involved in designed human powered vehicles. One of these reached 81 mph on the level, from a dead start. Another one on the drawing boards is projected to top the century mark, and to be able to maintain 75 mph for at least an hour. All this with a human motor that is 1/3 hp continuous and about 1 hp peak.

The question of one of will, not ability. Instead the automakers use clever advertising to convince more people to buy SUVs, which incidentally are the very same vehicles they make the most profit on because they are exempt from CAFE regulations. And of course you get no pressure from lawmakers to make them do otherwise. More SUVs equals more oil sales. Big oil owns Congress, and the general public is stupid enough to buy into the argument that bigger and heavier is safer. The roads would be far safer if all cars were lighter. No advantage in car-car collisions for any one type of vehicle, less damage potential when a car runs off the road. Weight is practically irrelevant in car-bus or car-truck collsions, so the SUV argument holds no water there, either. Even an SUV is so outclassed in such a collision it might as well be running into a concrete wall. Bottom line-we have a unfortunate synergistic combination of misinformation and special interests resulting in the current unfortunate situation.

As an aside, one NYC lawmaker is proposing a bill to restrict SUVs to the truck lanes on NYC highways, and ban them from local streets entirely. I for one hope it comes to a vote, passes, and is signed into law. Since the American public won't willingly purchase sensible vehicles, we need to force the automakers, through legislation, to stop selling Tonka toys and start doing what we all know they're capable of.

 

[flagreen]

If we are going to have fuel cells by 2015 then why do we need to improve mileage rates at all?

 

[CougTek]

As an aside, one NYC lawmaker is proposing a bill to restrict SUVs to the truck lanes on NYC highways, and ban them from local streets entirely.

It would only be fair since the bastards from the oil and auto industry insisted to classify them as work-class vehicules, so that they wouldn't be restricted to the same anti-polution measures as cars are. BAM! You want work-vehicule classification, no problem : out of the urban streets where no work vehicule has business.

Take that you bunch of poluting S.O.B.s!

I'm all for it. Where do I sign?

 

[Mercutio]

If we are going to have fuel cells by 2015 then why do we need to improve mileage rates at all?

Automobile emissions are a source of many things that don't mix very well with lungs, and then there's the whole issue in most of the Western World of dependence on the Middle East for oil.

And also presidents named Bush would have fewer excuses for starting wars.

The problem with Fuel Cells is that at the moment the capital investment and energy costs associated with producing cell-ready hydrogen make the technology something like 40,000 times more expensive than the equivalent energy cost of petrol. Which is why fuel cells cost a fortune.

They're still a better deal - it's better to throw tons of coal or whatever in at a single plant and control pollution there than it is to let millions of cars distribute it, but one of the big reasons why it's so long in coming is that the hydrogen-production processes are horribly inefficient and expensive.

 

[jtr1962]

If we are going to have fuel cells by 2015 then why do we need to improve mileage rates at all?

Fuel cells still require fuel to make power. Current fuel cells will probably use fossil fuels, and future ones likely LPG or hydrogen. Thus there is still the need to conserve fuel. While you can make hydrogen from water, you need lots of electricity to do so. In fact, you put more energy in than you get out, so there will be a need for even a hydrogen-powered vehicle to be as efficient as possible.

The only time efficiency might become irrelevant is if we ever invent a portable fusion power source that fits inside cars. I'm sure you realize that fusion on a power plant scale is decades away. Portable fusion devices may never be feasible.

 

[mubs]

If we are going to have fuel cells by 2015 then why do we need to improve mileage rates at all?

From the review:

"On some as-yet-unspecified date, on the golden horizon of the hydrogen economy, Detroit will deliver the ideal car, clean and powerful, trailing only clouds of noblesse oblige.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical. The most optimistic estimates put the mass marketing of fuel cells more than a decade away. It makes zero sense to give Detroit a pass on improving emissions and fuel economy now for some promised land of milk and honey in the future.
.
.
.
Tyoyota did it without subsides from the federal govenment and much less posturing than the Big Three's promises to save the world when they get around to it

... the scandal embodied in a national energy policy that is actually reducing tax benefits for clean-fuel cars (Prius buyers can claim a $2000 tax deduction on cars placed in service before Dec. 31) while offering tens of thousands of dollars in tax credits to "small business" buyers of H2 Hummers."

[/end quote]

Some numbers on the Prius:
Wheelbase: 106.3"
Trunk space: 16.1 CFT
Interior room: slightly less than a Camry
Coefficient of drag: 0.26 <----------------------------------------------------------------- !!!
Wt: 2800 lbs
Battery: 202 volt Nickel-metal hydride
Gas Engine: 1.5 Ltr, 76 HP
Electric Motor: 50 kw peak (67 HP), 295 lb ft torque
Transmission: CVT
0 - 60 MPH: 10 seconds
Std Equipment: Anti skid brakes; traction control, keyless entry; pwr windows & locks; heated side mirrors; steering wheel mounted audio & climate controls; alloy wheels; CD player; multi-function LCD display
Price: $20k

Options: Navigation system; 6-CD changer; stability control; curtain and side-impact air bags

 

[CougTek]

Unfortunately for me, Toyota has decided to sell the new Prius for 30 grands here, making it more expensive than in U.S. (According to current exchange rate, it should sell for roughly 26,400$CDN to be of equal value as the U.S. offering). That makes it a lot less tempting.

I will probably opt for a Toyota Corolla instead. It has a fuel consumption of ~45MPG, so I won't feel like a jerk while driving it. And since last year's model, the Corolla no longer is a car that garantees the driver to fall asleep when behind the wheel. It's almost a mini-Lexus rather than a small Toyota, at least according to a local, but renown, car journalist. And it cost less than 20,000$CDN.


Bill,

The fuel cells by 2015 is utter bullshit from the three big auto makers. Much like Ford's feel-good-about-itself Ballard Power collaboration advertisements some ten years ago. See any half-decent electrical vehicle by Ford nowaday? Same thing will happen with fuel cell unless they stop making dreams about it and actually deliver.

The best way to incite auto makers to move to cleaner vehicles would be for North Americans to stop buying overpowered 400hp engines that they can't use anyway and buy tons of Prius, Civic Hybrid and the like. Unless the Big Three's market share crumles in favor of Japanese's LEV cars, forget about fuel cells. Those jerks only understand money, they couldn't care less about environment and making people sick in urban areas. SUVs are a nice proof of it.

 

[CraigLC]

Well... here is where I make enemies. I will obviously be the outcast on this issue. I like powerful cars and trucks. I currently own:

2000 Trans Am
1979 Trans Am
1991 GMC Jimmy (small one not full size)

and I have a hand in various motorsports activities. Fo whomever said that size and weight of a vehicle didnt factor in a crash. I respectfully disagree. One of the major reasons I wont buy a small car foreign or domestic is the tin can feel. You can't honestly tell me you feel safer in a Kia Rio then you do in a Lincoln Navigator. How that Navigator would fare against a semi....well thats the same equation as the Rio to the Navigator. All of the Hybrid vehicles I have seen look like tin cans to me. Beyond that I am not fond of their styling. I also see that other cars in their size and option range are often much cheaper. I fully agree that our dependance on oil is frightening at times but until factories are asked to control their pollution output then nothing we do to cars will have a major impact. Just my opinion but until they control factory type pollution and make an electric car that has about 300 to 400 horse power to the ground and is bigger then a sardine can... they can keep them.

 

[Buck]

At least here is a start at getting low or zero-emission vehicles going:

Daimler Chrysler Fuel Cell Bus
Daimler Chrysler F-Call Tests in Japan
Worlds First CO2-neutral Designer Diesel Fuel
DaimlerChrysler Puts More Fuel Cell Vehicles on the Road
DaimlerChrysler Joins Forces with Hermes Versand Service to Launch Field Tests of Fuel Cell Van

There are, of course, many more initiatives taking place around the world. I have forgotten the names (remember, I'm a visionary philosopher (day dreamer)) but there are two prominent research companies in Canada that have helped Daimler with their Fuel Cell technology and are now in the process of assisting Ford in its research of Fuel Cell technology.

 

[CougTek]

CraigLC,

I figure you believe that your '79 TransAm is safer than a modern hybrid car? If yes, forgive me for laughing. And perhaps you don't realize that your '91 Jimmy is a lot more prone to make top in a curve than any car too. I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents involve road exits rather than collisions, so the argument that SUV are safer because they are sturdier doesn't hold water. You might also be interested to know that the top of trucks and SUV aren't designed to support the weight of the vehicule, contrarily to cars.

As for the need for +300hp engines, please tell me what they are good for on roads where the speed limit is 60mph (ok, let's say you can drive up to 80 or 90 without being bothered by cops). While I agree that the 105 total combined hp of the Prius might not make overtaking other cars a breeze, you can't possibly think that you need 300hp to do it, don't you? I would rather see an hybrid with a sporty road handling than with a stupidly powerful engine, only good for straight line acceleretion. But since you drive TransAM, handling must not be one of your priorities.

 

[CraigLC]

CraigLC,

I figure you believe that your '79 TransAm is safer than a modern hybrid car? If yes, forgive me for laughing. And perhaps you don't realize that your '91 Jimmy is a lot more prone to make top in a curve than any car too. I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents involve road exits rather than collisions, so the argument that SUV are safer because they are sturdier doesn't hold water. You might also be interested to know that the top of trucks and SUV aren't designed to support the weight of the vehicule, contrarily to cars.

As for the need for +300hp engines, please tell me what they are good for on roads where the speed limit is 60mph (ok, let's say you can drive up to 80 or 90 without being bothered by cops). While I agree that the 105 total combined hp of the Prius might not make overtaking other cars a breeze, you can't possibly think that you need 300hp to do it, don't you? I would rather see an hybrid with a sporty road handling than with a stupidly powerful engine, only good for straight line acceleretion. But since you drive TransAM, handling must not be one of your priorities.

See... this is what I knew would happen. these days people cant debate constructively without personal attacks.

My SUV is certainly more prone to tipping over... no denying that. I dont go screaming through corners with it. If I did I would be an idiot. Its has a 4.3 liter V6 in it which is capable for the vehicle. In a head on crash would I take a chance in my SUV versus a Prius, or any other small vehicle foreign or domestic?... yup... every time.

As for Trans Ams, I agree with you not everyone needs 300 HP...but I do. I have as much right to my 300 HP as you do to your 105. I'm not sure what you menat by my 79 not being safe and laughing about it. For its day it was as safe as anything else on the road. The old saying is true..."The most dangerous part on a car is the nut behind the wheel". It would seem I am not the only one who craves performance either. Nissan is making a tidy Profit because their cars are stylish...functional...and POWERFUL. In the last few years they have upped the stock horsepower of the Maxima and Altima and both models have seen a rise in profits. Add to that the edition of the 350Z and other car makers like your own favorite Toyota who just released the MR2 and its a growing trend that cars that have a little something under the pedal are making a comeback. I have no problem with you buying a Prius and if it makes you happy I highly encourage you to do so. I am just a little tired of people getting all high and mighty on others and deciding whats best for me. Its not just me...there are hundreds of thousands of people like me. the automotive aftermarket business is a billion dollar industry. Nascar is one of the biggest brand recognition names in the world. I certainly never attacked you personally so I would appreciate it in the future if you could keep it civil and non sarcastic.

 

[Buck]

I love powerful vehicles, like the '79 TransAm, too. Although, I'm more of a sedan-high-horsepower sort of person instead of a sports-car-high-horsepower type. For me there is something awesome about a conservative-looking, saloon type vehicle beating a Honda Civic at 0-60. For example, the new Maybach 62 even has the same 0-60 time as a new Porsche 911. That is a 6,000-pound limousine making it from a stand still to 60-mph in 5.4 seconds!

However, I must concur with Coug. The '79 TransAm would become a mess if broad sided by a Navigator -- weak roof, no door reinforcements, large door opening, no B pillar, and a poor restraint system. The same goes for other older vehicles, such as late sixties and early seventies Cadillacs. They had nothing worth mentioning in the way of crupple zones, thus upon impact, the driver would absorb the full impact -- ouch! Not to mention that until the late 80's most American brand vehicles had poor roof supports that couldn't hold the vehicle during a roleover.

For me, the look and feel of an older vehicle is all nostalia -- I just like them. They're not safer, they have worse fuel economy, and need a great deal of attention, but some of them are beautiful in my eyes. So, for me it comes down to being practical, and with my present financial situation, cheap is good, and fuel is expensive. That make something like the Prius sound better. When I have more money and can afford something from the past, I will, but until then, I can only dream of my 1967 or 1972 Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulet.

 

[Buck]

nostalia=nostalgia

 

[Buck]

In case anyone is interested, here is some technical data for the 600 series. It will list data for a 600 and the 600 Pullman. The 600 Pullman is the longer version and is the hardtop equivalent to the Landaulet. The adaptation of this 6.3 liter engine in the lighter weight 300SEL was obviously better.

Technical Data

Not a super 0-60 time for this vehicle, but I still like it. What is the technical data for the '79 Trans Am Craig?

 

[CraigLC]

Hey Buck, I can respect what you are saying and certainly I wouldn't say that a Trans Am is going to be good in a broadside collision with any truck. Most cars wouldn't be. My only point was that I don't believe a small car of todays standards would do any better. Someone mentioned above that SUVs do not fare any better in crashes then any other vehicle but that was supposed to be a major selling point. I never made the statement that my 79 trans am was a tank..just that it was average for its day in which the saftey standards for all vehicles domestic and foreign were much different then thay are today. back in 79 and into the 80's Imports like Hondas and Toyotas did not enjoy the market share they have now because most of the American car buying public felt they were cheap and crappy. This is similar to what many folks feel about the Korean cars of today like Kia and Hyundai and Deawoo. I only took offense to what I deemed was more of a personal attack rather then constructive debate.

That Benz is incredible! cool looking car a little big for my personal tastes but it looks more like someones private limo rather then a car. either way that is an awesome example of a classic Benz!

 

[CraigLC]

Not a super 0-60 time for this vehicle, but I still like it. What is the technical data for the '79 Trans Am Craig?

Sadly by the late 70's most of the American Muscle cars had lost most of their teeth. Rising gas prices forced the introduction of many smaller more economical cars. My 79 originally came with a sad little 301 Chevy engine in it which by almost anyones standards was to little for the weight of the car. I don't have the specifics of it at the moment. It has since had an early Pontiac 350 block installed which is likely taken from a GTO My 2000 Trans Am is more geared toward performance and while completely stock has dynoed at 298 Horsepower to the wheels. best dragstrip time was 13.8 but car is capable of at least a 13.6 at my elevation if I could just drive stick better. Mods are always happening though and I hope to get the 2000 somehwre close to 400 - 450 horse power to the ground. The great thing about the 2000 is that I can drive about 120 miles to the track... turn out mid to high thirteens all day and drive it home none the worse for wear, all the whill getting about 23 - 25 mpg in sixth gear there and back. Sixth gear on this car is like overdrive for your overdrive.

 

[Buck]

Interestingly enough, small cars from Korea these days are relatively safe by today’s standards and in comparison to early eighties imports they're very safe (although still not very reliable). The biggest reason is that the United States is stricter with their safety standards today. Whereas Europe has been strict for decades, the US has been late to the safety forum. Thus, European cars even from the sixties were relatively safe compared to something out of a GM plant in the late seventies. Things such as multiple crumple zones, four-wheel disc brakes (vented front), reinforced passenger compartment, reinforced roof supports, reinforced doors, are old news for them. Brands such as Peugeot, Citroen, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volvo, and many more have been punishing their cars for a very long time and following up with needed improvements.

I recall seeing a simple rollover test from Peugeot in the early eighties. A car was lifted on a track driven forklift 10 feet into the air, accelerated to 35-mph, and then abruptly stopped. That vehicle slid sideways off those forks for several yards, and then hit the floor, rolling twice, without a single compromise to the passenger compartment. The vehicle was totaled, but the passengers would have been safe.

Indeed Craig, when Japanese cars entered this country, they had very few safety standards to meet, and made that obvious by the size and weight of their vehicles. Volkswagen was also behind this curve in the US and in Europe until the 80’s (in Europe Opel was also behind). That is why you can compare a ’79 Trans Am with a Honda CVCC or Volkswagen Beatle from that era and pick the Trans Am for safety – it was safer. But this does make another interesting point, although countries set standards for safety, manufacturers can always exceed them, and this is where European and Scandinavian automakers in general have excelled for years. They have plowed the road of safety for others to follow. Fortunately, most automakers today have followed this road and we have pretty safe vehicles from all over the world. That is why a new Mini Cooper with its small size but numerous airbags is pretty safe. (You may think that it is cheating to add airbags to increase safety versus size and mass (sort of like adding extra cache to a drive to make it faster), but it works.)

 

[Buck]

That is a good quarter mile time for your 298 horsepower car. How much does the car weigh? (I know, so many questions. ) The highway patrol in my area now use the Camaro as their fast car.

 

[CougTek]

...I wouldn't say that a Trans Am is going to be good in a broadside collision with any truck. Most cars wouldn't be. My only point was that I don't believe a small car of todays standards would do any better.

Buck just explained why your TransAM would fare worst than a Prius or almost any modern car :

weak roof, no door reinforcements, large door opening, no B pillar, and a poor restraint system. The same goes for other older vehicles, such as late sixties and early seventies Cadillacs. They had nothing worth mentioning in the way of crupple zones, thus upon impact, the driver would absorb the full impact -- ouch! Not to mention that until the late 80's most American brand vehicles had poor roof supports that couldn't hold the vehicle during a roleover.

You might die as well when hit by a SUV, by your survival chances would be substantially better in a modern car.

As for the point that Nissan and others recently introduced more powerful engines, well, if you look at the specification of those new cars, their fuel efficiency is nowhere near comparable to the one of a '79 TransAM. The Infinity G35, for instance, drinks 7.7l per 100Km on highway and around 11.5l/100Km in city, for a combined consumption of less than 10l/100Km. I don't know the specifications of a '79 TransAM, but it probably drinks more than 15l/100Km combined (highway/city). Having money, I would be interested in a G35. But not in a 10+ years old dragster, even if it would be faster, for the simple reason that it would polute way too much.

BTW, I despise the "people won't tell me what to drive" argument. See where it has lead so far. United States is by far the worst polluer on the planet. Freedom is for people responsible enough to use it. For others, limits and constraints need to be set.

The whole debate about fuel economy clearly exposes how people are. We almost all love speed and the feeling of a powerful engine. However, environmentalists are ready to sacrifice a part of this pleasure for the collective well being. While others don't give a shit and only care about their little self. That's not a personal attack, that's the cold truth about this debate.

 

[flagreen]

One thing no one has mentioned yet as regards auto gas mileage is that it is only one part of the equation. Actual miles driven being the other relevant factor when considering who the real polluters are.

Craig may only drive his TransAm a few hundred miles a year where as some Salesman who owns a Toyota may drive 30,000+ miles a year and waste considerably more gasoline than Craig.

My point is that maybe before jump to any conclusions about who is being enviromentaly irresponsible here we should have all facts.

P.S. jtr1962 - Thanks for the info.

 

[CraigLC]

Whether you like the argument or not its still the argument. I dont tell you what to do and I would expect the same. Flagreen mentions something I even forgot... truth its all my Trans Ams are luxery items and I dont drive them daily. I drive my V6 sport ute which averages an admittedly poor 17 mpg city but a decent 25mpg highway with no stops...those arent numbers from a mag but my own calculations between fillups. My trans Ams combined get less then 2500 miles a year and on a year that it rained considerably like this one I got less then 1000. This is a pretty useless argument overall and I'll be stepping out now. Its obvious you are very closed minded on this subject and at the very least are unwilling to even respect others views... so have your prius if you so wish. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. Just please stay out of the fast lane. :mrgrn:

 

[Fushigi]

Craig may only drive his TransAm a few hundred miles a year where as some Salesman who owns a Toyota may drive 30,000+ miles a year and waste considerably more gasoline than Craig.

Of course, if Craig were to do that few hundred a year in a Prius, he'd go through only 1-2 tanks of gas and pollution would be even less. I have a hard time imagining filling my gas tank just once every 6 months...

Hey, I love a powerful engine as much as the next guy. But I've decided I'll temper that with the following guideline: I will not buy a vehicle that gets worse mileage than what I currently drive. Any replacement vehicle must get better mileage for me to consider it. So my current car is rated 19/27 city/highway and I average 24.5-25MPG across the 12,000 or so miles I drive a year. Simply put, regardless of vehicle type (sedan, SUV, etc.) my next car will have to be more efficient. I'd like an SUV or a minivan but won't commit until hybrids are out or some other technology is introduced to raise their efficiency.

 

[Howell]

I'd like a Charger or a Super Bee but they are beyond luxury items for me right now. I have to focus on saving for the Subaru I guess.

 

[jtr1962]

Fo whomever said that size and weight of a vehicle didnt factor in a crash. I respectfully disagree.

It's only a factor in a crash because of the presence of monster SUVs on the road. If all cars were about the same weight there would be no advantage in a collision because of weight. And besides that, the restraint system is more important. The restraints on American cars stink, period, which is why automakers have tried to use weight to compensate. The problem with that approach is that when one of the heavier cars hits something smaller the smaller vehicle gets the brunt of the impact. American automakers should be using a retraint system similar to that used in race cars. Indy cars weight under 2000 pounds yet drivers routinely survive 150+ mph accidents, even ones were the car is virtually destroyed. And as I said earlier, an SUV or econobox will both fare very poorly against a bus or SUV, so no point even worrying about that type of collision. Bottom line-make all vehicles about the same weight and use far better restraint systems. Have legal weight limits for 2, 4 and 6 passenger vehicles such that the spread in weights is no more than a factor of 1.5.

All of the Hybrid vehicles I have seen look like tin cans to me. Beyond that I am not fond of their styling.

Who cares what they look like outside? That's a spurious argument at best. How much time does the average person(not a car enthusiast like you) really spend looking at their vehicle anyway? Does the few seconds they might look justify having a stupidly boxy(and IMO ugly anyway) shape such as an SUV has? I don't think so. Regarding the "tin can feel", I can relate to that, but that has more to do with poor construction techniques than with light weight. My bicycle feels perfectly solid over bumps, and the weight(bike+rider) is not much over 200 pounds.

Just my opinion but until they control factory type pollution and make an electric car that has about 300 to 400 horse power to the ground and is bigger then a sardine can... they can keep them.

Have you ever heard of energy storage? You can have a car with a very small engine that still gets good acceleration by storing energy. No sense having a 400 HP motor when a normal driving cycle in a sensible vehicle uses an average of 20 HP. Better to just have a 30 or 40 HP motor which charges an energy storage system. For normal cruising the motor is powerful enough. For those 10 second bursts of acceleration the storage system can put 300 HP to the wheels. Incidentally, this works even for fast driving. Taking a cue from those who design HPVs, 30 HP should be sufficient to cruise at 125 mph, and the energy storage system will get you there very quickly. Best of both worlds, IMO.

Incidentally, a energy storage system also uses regenerative braking to recover some of the kinetic enegy when a vehicle slows down, and uses this energy to accelerate it later on. This partly cancels the effects of weight on fuel economy in stop and go driving. To a lesser extent heavier vehicles get poorer economy due to greater rolling resistance, but this pales next to the energy required to accelerate them. Therefore, with an energy storage system you can have somewhat heavier vehicles without a big penalty on fuel economy. Still no need for monster 8000 pound SUVs, but you don't have to have 900 pound vehicles either. Maybe you can have all vehicles within a range of 2000 to 3000 pounds, which negates the "tin-can feel" if built properly, and makes the roads safer by eliminating the big weight disparity among vehicles that currently exists.

 

[jtr1962]

And as I said earlier, an SUV or econobox will both fare very poorly against a bus or SUV, so no point even worrying about that type of collision.

This should read: "And as I said earlier, an SUV or econobox will both fare very poorly against a bus or truck, so no point even worrying about that type of collision."

CraigLC,

Point taken if you only drive 2500 miles a year in your T/As(I cycle more than that some years). However, there are many people who commute 60 miles each way, five days a week, in SUVs, and that just shouldn't be. If a person really needs a vehicle like that(off-road, carrying big loads, and towing are the only uses I see) then they should only use it for those times when it is appropriate, and drive something more sensible for those long commutes. Or better yet, just rent the SUV for the times when needed, and save the expense of ownership.

 

[Buck]

As I side note (I know I've mentioned this in another thread before) here is a pretty quick car:

Bugatti Veyron 16-4

Here are a few of the listed specs:
Top speed: 406 km/h (252 mph)
Acceleration: 0 - 300 km/h (0 - 186 mph) under 14.0 seconds
Number of cylinders: 16
Displacement: 7,993 cc
Power output: 736 kW (1001 bhp) at 6,000 rpm
Torque: 1,250 Nm* from 2,200 - 5,500 rpm

*I believe that would be equivalent to 921 foot-pounds. If I have my math correct, it is 1,250 Nm x .7375622 for the correct conversion.

 

[flagreen]

Damn Buck that is one fine automobile. Four Turbos, 64 valves and four OHC w/ roller followers. And how about that transmission?

It's definitely nice - but I was a bit diappointed by the guages as well as the styling of interior.

Anyway what real man wants a car that has a two tone 'Rouge Ventoux' and 'Noir' paint job?

 

[Handruin]

Wow!

It looks like someone took two of Craig's LT-1's engines and welded them together...

Buck, the torque is 922 lb/ft. It says so in the article. They must have rounded up.

 

[jtr1962]

I'll say this for it-about the only thing that can match the acceleration besides race cars would be fighter jets screaming down the runway.

I'm not thrilled with the interior, either. A little dated for my tastes. I'm not a big fan of analog instruments because of their inherent inaccuracy. I want the speedo to say I'm going 200 when I really am, not when I'm at 196 or 203.

BTW, do they sell whiplash insurance with that car? Accelerating that fast has got to hurt. I like vehicles that travel fast, but I prefer the more sedate acceleration of a TGV. It gives you time to acclimate yourself as the speed builds. A few minutes to get to 252 mph would be fine with me.

 

[EdwardK]

I normally would prefer not to comment on these type of topics but I agree with what jtr1962 says. What you call SUVs at the states, we lump them all as 4-Wheel-Drives (4WD) here at Australia (well, maybe in Sydney). I still believe that people can be entitled to drive SUV/4WD but not in urban/city areas. What rankles me most is these mothers drive their SUVs/4WDs just to drop off and pick up their kids from school. Firstly, their mpg will be atrocious. Then these mothers do not give a hoot about other cars. They think that they are in a very safe and large "car" such that they seem to have their own road rules. There were so many times I nearly had an accident with these so-called-mums-in-their-4WDs, it is not funny anymore. There were so many times I have to swerve onto the pavement because I know I would be worse off in an accident with one of these SUVs/4WDs against my small car.
That being said, I think farmers, surveyors and tour operators (any professional who works in the outback or travel regularly in non paved roads) should have access to 4WDs. These people are what these 4WDs are designed for in the first place.

Cheers,
Edward

 

[flagreen]

Anyone have an idea why four turbos are needed on that Bugatti? Surely two larger ones would have worked as well with half the moving parts. Space issue maybe?

 

[Handruin]

Maybe the turbines inside are smaller for less turbo lag. (spin up quicker) Perhaps they made up for the lack of boost by adding more turbos. (just my guess)

 

[jtr1962]

A couple of interesting links I came across:

Hydrogen Fuel Cells May Hurt Ozone

Just Learn To Stop Worrying About Oil And Love Hydrogen

Compressed Air Fuels City Cars

 

[blakerwry]

Just Learn To Stop Worrying About Oil And Love Hydrogen

Does that remind anyone else of Dr. Strangelove?

 

[timwhit]

Anyone have an idea why four turbos are needed on that Bugatti? Surely two larger ones would have worked as well with half the moving parts. Space issue maybe?

It's most likely for Turbo lag reasons like Handruin said. But, some engines use sequential turbos, one for low RPMs one for higher RPMs. Most 4 cylinder engines will just use just 1 turbo, and most 6 cylinder engines use 2 turbos. My best guess is because the turbos get too big or are ineffective. Plus, when the exhaust comes out of both sides of the engine it would be hard to attach something to both sides that would catch all the exhaust.

 

[Buck]

Yes, the multiple turbos are to counteract lag. The Volkswagen 1.8 liter 4-cylinder has two turbos for that same reason.

 

[flagreen]

Ah Ha! Thanks guys I'm sure that explains it. I'll tell you one thing, if I owned a car like that I would drive it on Sundays only. It is anything but an every day driver.

 

[Buck]

Indeed, that Bugatti is so much like a work of art combined with outstanding technology, I'd be worried taking that car out on the street. But just once, I'd love to gun it at a drag strip. Or even better, would be to sit at one of those traffic lights on the onramp of a freeway and smoke the guy in the lane next to you. Imagine being a young lad and learning how to drive in one of those? Any other car after that just wouldn't compare? But I'm sure the driving instructor would be impressed.

 

[CraigLC]

Wow!

It looks like someone took two of Craig's LT-1's engines and welded them together...

Thats LS1! Seriously though... insanely quick car with over 1000 horsepower. Even I don't need that much...but hey i sure would love to drive it just once. :mrgrn: