Car Talk → 2022

[Subdude]

Thought this was interesting. Kia is taking dead aim at the Scion xB.

One big outcome of current gas prices is that now America will be getting a lot fewer fat land barges and more of the cars the rest of the world drives. Ford will be selling a lot more of its European cars (Fiesta, Focus, maybe Mondeo) and GM has already turned Saturn over to Opel. Interesting times in auto-land!

Autoblog

[RedScare]

2009 will be interesting, but nothing like the 2010 models. That is when the lag time from when the automakers realized, "Oh crap, we need to make some smaller cars!", to production will end. As for mpg, if you can hold out until 2010, that is when you'll see some real advances in economy as well. Frankly, while 30 mpg is nice, I just do not see that as overly impressive. 40 mpg is when I feel like they've put some thought and engineering into it.

I'm hoping to see the return of the turbocharger, too.

[Subdude]

2009 will be interesting, but nothing like the 2010 models. That is when the lag time from when the automakers realized, "Oh crap, we need to make some smaller cars!", to production will end. As for mpg, if you can hold out until 2010, that is when you'll see some real advances in economy as well. Frankly, while 30 mpg is nice, I just do not see that as overly impressive. 40 mpg is when I feel like they've put some thought and engineering into it.

I'm hoping to see the return of the turbocharger, too.

And you shall have your wish, at least if you get a Mercedes. I believe they are adding turbos to all their lines over the next two years.

I've said this before, but it's not like the technology for higher mileage cars doesn't exist. Of course it does. Cars sold in America 20 years ago had higher mileage than anything available today. The current model of the Ford Fiesta gets about 40 mpg, and of course more with the diesel, and that's hardly exceptional. Of course, the mileage means a trade-off in size and engine power.

[jm1fd]

I'm hoping to see the return of the turbocharger, too.

You shall. Ford is working on a whole line of engines using turbocharging and direct injection under the marketing name "Eco Boost". GM is planning on putting a little ~1.4L turbo D.I. 4-cyl in their Cavalier/Cobalt replacement.

Cars sold in America 20 years ago had higher mileage than anything available today.

Indeed....of course you fail to mention that they had to meet a much lower set of safety and emissions standards than the cars of today.

[RedScare]

You shall. Ford is working on a whole line of engines using turbocharging and direct injection under the marketing name "Eco Boost". GM is planning on putting a little ~1.4L turbo D.I. 4-cyl in their Cavalier/Cobalt replacement.

Yeah, I had seen the 1.4l turbo that GM was planning, so I hoped that meant several more were in the pipeline. There were several turbo models around in the 80s, and then they all disappeared. I wondered why, but my suspicion is that the automakers found it cheaper to just build bigger gas guzzling engines, since gas was so cheap, than to build technologically superior ones.

Indeed....of course you fail to mention that they had to meet a much lower set of safety and emissions standards than the cars of today.

That is true of the smaller cars. However, look for better use of computer engineering to bring down the weight/safety ratio. After that, it is merely a matter of educating the public. Already, the largest vehicles are not the safest. Trucks and large SUVs routinely rank lower than the better engineered cars in crash tests and rollover ratings. Smart's geometry makes it remarkably crash efficient for its size...and in general. It outranks many trucks in side impact tests.

Edited July 26, 2008 by RedScare

[Subdude]

You shall. GM is planning on putting a little ~1.4L turbo D.I. 4-cyl in their Cavalier/Cobalt replacement.

Is that the Chevy Cruze? Just reading that name makes my eyeballs bleed.

Indeed....of course you fail to mention that they had to meet a much lower set of safety and emissions standards than the cars of today.

Have there been significant changes in safety and emissions standards over the past two decades? I thought the major safety requirements were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, as were catalytic converters. I really do think that the reason cars today get worse mileage is that they are a lot bigger and more powerful.

Already, the largest vehicles are not the safest. Trucks and large SUVs routinely rank lower than the better engineered cars in crash tests and rollover ratings. Smart's geometry makes it remarkably crash efficient for its size...and in general. It outranks many trucks in side impact tests.

Plenty of small cars get 5-star NCAP ratings.

[MidtownCoog]

All this small car talks saddens me...

Is a lovely V8 or V10 the new Rolex?

[TJones]

Yes Subdude, if you want HP you sacrifice fuel economy. How were cadillacs getting mid 20 fuel economy in the 80's. Look at the HP compared to today, it was roughly HALF if today's output. How were Hyundais getting 40 mpg back then ? 80hp engine does surprising well on gas as opposed to 120hp, that is why you only get 30 mpg now.

Red, I'll prove your data about smart cars wrong. We'll go rent an Expedition and a smart car. We will take out the full coverage insurance on both. We will then take turns smashing into each other in our own little side impact test, at say 50mph ? I will even let you go first with you driving in your smart car.

Edited July 27, 2008 by TJones

[RedScare]

Yes Subdude, if you want HP you sacrifice fuel economy. How were cadillacs getting mid 20 fuel economy in the 80's. Look at the HP compared to today, it was roughly HALF if today's output. How were Hyundais getting 40 mpg back then ? 80hp engine does surprising well on gas as opposed to 120hp, that is why you only get 30 mpg now.

Red, I'll prove your data about smart cars wrong. We'll go rent an Expedition and a smart car. We will take out the full coverage insurance on both. We will then take turns smashing into each other in our own little side impact test, at say 50mph ? I will even let you go first with you driving in your smart car.

No need, TJ. It occurred to me that certain drivers recognize that they are poor drivers, and they recognize the need to surround themselves with tons of metal to protect themselves from themselves. Drivers that use their vehicle as a rolling living room, complete with phone, tv and stereo, are much less attentive and much more prone to accidents, either by causing them themselves, or by their inability to avoid one. They also may have their hands full of Big Macs and cokes, reducing their ability to take evasive action. I can understand why inattentive drivers would feel the need to drive larger vehicles.

Statistics bear me out. In spite of having the heaviest vehicle fleet in the worls, US traffic fatality rates are at or near the top against nearly every other country. Despit having much smaller vehicles and hillier and curvier roads, countries such as Germany, France and Great Britain have fatality rates one half of the US. Since the vehicles are smaller, and therefore by your logic, less safe, this gap can only be attributed to the fact that Europeans actually pay attention to driving.

All this small car talks saddens me...

Oh, Coog. Live a little. There is more to life than straight lines and NASCAR.

[RedScare]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

SUVs Deadlier Than Cars

It appears that all of that steel protecting you from the great unwashed car drivers becomes your enemy once you become upside down.

But the main reason for the safety gap in S.U.V. and car fatalities, according to federal regulators, is that S.U.V.'s are more likely to roll over, a particularly deadly accident event that is a symptom of their higher ground clearance.

''It's largely a function of the rollover problem,'' said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the traffic agency. ''In certain types of crashes, you're more likely to be better off in an S.U.V., but that is offset by the fact the you're more likely to roll over.''

Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and a former top auto safety regulator, said, ''There's no question that the rollover problem with S.U.V.'s really undermines their safety.''

The traffic safety agency reported last week that there were 16.42 deaths of S.U.V. occupants in accidents last year for every 100,000 registered S.U.V.'s. The figure for passenger cars was 14.85 deaths for each 100,000 registered; pickups were slightly higher than cars at 15.17 deaths per 100,000, while vans were lowest at 11.2 occupant deaths for every 100,000 registered.

Not to mention that driving a land yacht is yawningly fun.

[TJones]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

SUVs Deadlier Than Cars

It appears that all of that steel protecting you from the great unwashed car drivers becomes your enemy once you become upside down.

Not to mention that driving a land yacht is yawningly fun.

Speaking of Landyachts Red. Josh and I were in his Burple Brute ('08 GMC Denali XL) Friday night. We were on 610 coming back from The Volcano and I was driving. Josh shows me how the new supercharger kicks in on it, and we were doing 110mph from 65mph in what felt like 2 seconds. I felt safe at that speed even with all the Navigation and TVs in it, I will agree with you that flipping upside down would be another matter for me. That is why I like it low and slow in my Beast, which I am supposed to now have back by Tuesday. SIGH!!!

[RedScare]

In a somewhat related development, traffic fatalities are way down this year, apparently due to high gas prices.

While miles driven have declined 1.8%, fatalities are down 9%. Lower speeds and a big drop in discretionary travel account for most of the drop. Late night bar driving has declined, as people cannot afford to drink, or drink at home. In other words, fewer people driving 110 in their Denali equals fewer deaths.

[jm1fd]

Is that the Chevy Cruze? Just reading that name makes my eyeballs bleed.

Yeah...I think that may be the name of it. It is the Cavalier/Cobalt replacement.

Have there been significant changes in safety and emissions standards over the past two decades? I thought the major safety requirements were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, as were catalytic converters. I really do think that the reason cars today get worse mileage is that they are a lot bigger and more powerful.

I don't know when exactly the standards were legislated into being....sometimes they'll pass a law but compliance won't be required for a decade or more. Numerous safety and emissions improvements were implemented during the mid 90s. Dual airbags were required for 1994. Side impact standards had to be complied with starting around that time, and they got tougher as the years progressed. OBDII was required to be in place by the 1996 model year.

[Subdude]

All this small car talks saddens me...

Is a lovely V8 or V10 the new Rolex?

Don't be sad! It's way too soon to be nostalgic for the big 'uns. First of all, no manufacturer is going to totally eliminate production of big engines since it is still too soon to tell if the current market for small cars is a passing fad like in the 1970s. I think the only SUV lines that have been eliminated are oddballs like the Chrysler Aspen. Bringing in more small cars just means more choices for people who don't necessarily like megatrucks.

Second, if you want powerful cars look at what's new this year, like this

and

Speaking of the new GT-R, how much do you want to bet that Toyota will revive the Supra to compete with it?

Yeah...I think that may be the name of it. It is the Cavalier/Cobalt replacement.

You know, I am surprised they would be dumping the "Cobalt" name after just one generation.

[jm1fd]

Speaking of the new GT-R, how much do you want to bet that Toyota will revive the Supra to compete with it?

I've never thought of Toyota to be the type of company to do things just for the sake of bragging rights.

[Subdude]

I've never thought of Toyota to be the type of company to do things just for the sake of bragging rights.

I wouldn't think of it as doing it for bragging rights as much as just competition. There isn't a niche where Toyota doesn't have a vehicle. It just struck me as odd that they would be leaving this one unfilled after all the publicity that Nissan has received for the GT-R.

[TJones]

I wouldn't think of it as doing it for bragging rights as much as just competition. There isn't a niche where Toyota doesn't have a vehicle. It just struck me as odd that they would be leaving this one unfilled after all the publicity that Nissan has received for the GT-R.

Most likely give something to the Lexus line insted of Toyota so they can justify the price.

Edited July 28, 2008 by TJones

[MidtownCoog]

That GT-R puts the T in Terrible (looking).

I have no love for that beast and the one armed sheet metal tech who threw it together.

I am sure the inside is cool though.

[Subdude]

Most likey give something to the Lexus line insted of Toyota so they can justify the price.

Yeah, but the Supra name has the brand equity, as they say, so my guess is that is what they would use. Maybe give Lexus a badge-engineered job. Besides, Lexus is all about luxury, not sportiness.

That GT-R puts the T in Terrible (looking).

I have no love for that beast and the one armed sheet metal tech who threw it together.

I am sure the inside is cool though.

That's what I thought when I first saw the spy shots, but I have to admit it has grown on me. To me it looks tough and direct, without all the Bangle overkill of a BMW. Except for the front fender, that is.

[sevfiv]

The Nissan kind of looks like the "fancy" (aka ridiculous) Cobalt:

[jm1fd]

Most likely give something to the Lexus line insted of Toyota so they can justify the price.

Yeah...hence the ongoing development of the LF-A.

[Subdude]

The Nissan kind of looks like the "fancy" (aka ridiculous) Cobalt:

Eeep! You're right!

[Mr. Chenevert]

The Supra will return, however not as a GT-R competitor. Simply as a 350Z class vehicle.

Lexus will not bring the LF-A to production, even though the car is almost entirely through the development cycle.

Lexus will instead focus on "green" initiatives. In fact, a new hybrid sedan will be coming out in 2009.

The GT-R may not be the best looking vehicle out there, but thats not what its strengths are. Have any of you seen the Top Gear review of the car on the track? (Not the bullet train race).

The car is insane.

[sevfiv]

Preliminary, and probably California only:

BMW's Mini brand plans to have electric cars on U.S. roads by next summer.

Mini USA Vice President Jim McDowell said Tuesday that the company is deciding whether to lease or sell the vehicles and where they'll be available. He wouldn't say how far the electric car will be able to go on a charge.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D92305IG0.htm

[jm1fd]

The Supra will return, however not as a GT-R competitor. Simply as a 350Z class vehicle.

Makes sense. It always was in that class in the past.

Lexus will not bring the LF-A to production, even though the car is almost entirely through the development cycle.

Lexus will instead focus on "green" initiatives. In fact, a new hybrid sedan will be coming out in 2009.

You work for Toyota/Lexus corporate?

The GT-R may not be the best looking vehicle out there, but thats not what its strengths are. Have any of you seen the Top Gear review of the car on the track? (Not the bullet train race).

The car is insane.

That review was HILARIOUS. The car wore out his neck!!

[Subdude]

Would Lexus not bring out the LF-A to counter the new Acura NSX?

It does seem close to production-ready.

[Mr. Chenevert]

Lexus has a bit of a timing issue. With the release of the IS-F, Lexus was positioning themselves to truly compete with the //M, AMG, an other high performance German divisions. However, on the other hand, with a corporate mandate that all of their cars will be hybrid by a certain date (I cannot remember, I think 2012), they are also going for "Green".

With $4 gas, and buyers flocking towards more efficient auto's, they are re-thinking how many F style cars they introduce. Its hard to be "Green" while introducing a gas guzzling supercar.

At this point a corporate decision has not been made, however, it is looking less likely that it will be released.

One important thing to remember is even at the $100,000+ price tag, Lexus will never make their money back on their development costs. This would have been a "look at what we can do" car for Lexus, not a profit maker.

[MidtownCoog]

With $4 gas, and buyers flocking towards more efficient auto's, they are re-thinking how many F style cars they introduce. Its hard to be "Green" while introducing a gas guzzling supercar.

Like I said earlier: The V8/V10 is the new Rolex.

[flipper]

Any other Acura fans on the board?

flipper

[travelguy_73]

Any other Acura fans on the board?

flipper

On and off. I owned an 02 TL Type S for 3 years, but the transmission troubles pushed me away from them again (though I was happy to take Honda's check to buy it back). My partner used to drive a CL Type S, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and was sad to see it discontinued. Even though they are as common as 3-series, I love the current TL, and am really worried about the redesign (the new TSX looks too much like an Altima for me and the TL will likely have the same fate). I don't quite get the direction that Honda is going with their styling, especially with the new 09 Mazda 6 coming out with a fine look.

I do like the current MDX, especially the interior.