Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

ccap41

New Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,760

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    87

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ccap41

  1. ccap41
    Dude, I can't agree more! There are soooooooo many better vehicles out there than those 15 year old little SUVs. If there is a BOGO I'll go havzies(halvsies/halfzies) with you on a pair of them so we'll each get one for 50% off. Sure thing. I'll just turn around and sell mine anyway. Neither are worth half of they are asking for IMO. That's about all I'd do as well but if we could get them for half off.. there's gotta be some left for us to profit on!
  2. ccap41
    I think people are just really too heavy-footed for turbo cars. It seems like the majority of drivers just don't know how to accelerate without 3/4 throttle(in any vehicle).
  3. ccap41
    ^ speaking of which... Where do people get their fleet sale numbers from? Are they released somewhere yet people just guess at the %? Or are people really just taking a wicked shot in the dark for the sake of "superiority"?
  4. ccap41
    It's actually a very interesting read. There are 4 different cat/truck comparisons and then they go into talking about throttle response comparison, fuel economy, the next type for turbocharger, and how they're getting bigger, stronger, and better. There is definitely a lot to read but it's very interesting and I'm glad somebody did a piece on this. It was awesome to read about the 5.0 and 3.5 and finally reading about nearly identially equipped trucks. Usually there is something fairly major that skews results based on equipment, such as a tow package and gears, and the only difference here was the panoramic roof and under side skid plates(adding up to 213lbs). Which also reminds me. This part goes out to Mr. Bong. For all of those times you preached and preached about how the F150 only weighed in a tank of gas less than a Silverado. If you've ever been under a vehicle and removed skid plates you'd realize the heaviest ones are about 20-25lbs that leaves roughly 175lbs left for a panoramic roof...which the Silverado does not even have as an option, along with a lot of other creature comforts the F150 has but this is probably the most weighty of them. Looks like it is more like a handful of tanks of fuel difference...
  5. ccap41
    To Blow or Not to Blow: Turbocharging vs. Natural Aspiration "Every new BMW on sale in the United States, save for the electric-drive i3, carries at least one turbocharger. Audi and Mercedes-Benz are nearly as turbo-centric. Even stalwarts of high-revving, naturally aspirated engines, such as ­Ferrari and Honda, are strapping snails to their engines. And on the home front, Ford has been pushing hard on its EcoBoost turbocharged engines for almost a decade now. If turbochargers haven’t won the war against ­natural aspiration yet, they certainly appear unstoppable in this, their most recent campaign for domination. Increasingly stringent fuel-economy and emissions regulations worldwide are driving this switch to forced induction because turbochargers allow carmakers to maintain performance levels while reducing engine displacement and improving EPA fuel economy. Honeywell, a leading turbo supplier, reckons that by the year 2020, 39 percent of all vehicles sold in North America will have turbos, up from 23 percent in 2015. Turbocharging’s day has been long in coming, considering that the concept has been around for more than a century. It’s been 54 years since General Motors fitted turbochargers to the Chevy Corvair Monza and the Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire, and more than 40 since the Porsche 917/30, turbocharged to 1500 horsepower, laid waste to Can-Am competitors. But turbochargers aren’t just for performance cars anymore. They are now the solution of choice for all segments of the market, from city cars to luxury cruisers to—thanks to Ford—full-size pickup trucks. Once you lose V-8–loving truckers to a turbo V-6, the war is all but over and it’s just a matter of signing the surrender documents. On the following pages, you’ll find four head-to-head match-ups of turbocharged vehicles and their naturally aspirated competitors, covering the breadth of the light-vehicle market. Beware: These are not conventional ­comparison tests. We’re focusing these stories on the characteristics of the engines and judging the suitability of engine type for each class of vehicle. We also strapped our test gear to several cars to answer the two main questions at the heart of the turbocharged revolution: Do they really save gas, and has turbo lag truly been vanquished from forced-induction engines? ..." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/to-blow-or-not-to-blow-turbocharging-vs-natural-aspiration-feature
  6. ccap41
    Alright I'll be the idiot in the room... What do all of the abbreviations stand for? HEV, PHEV, and BEV?
  7. ccap41
    Wow, that's really awesome. What kind of range could be expected with something like that F150? I assume it could be all over the place depending on how it is tuned at the moment.
  8. ccap41
    ^ Plus it's just been so damn high the last year it's inevitably going to drop off somewhere. If it is going to be in a constant downfall for a few quarters I think companies like BMW and Mercedes with all of their unnecessary models like the GLE Coupe, X6, X4, E Class convertible.. will be hurt the most.
  9. ccap41
    LOL that isn't how that works, brother. Don't bother explaining the obvious. When you have magical powers like Mercedes, you can lose money and its still okay. No one else has this ability. I mean there are some fanboy things that get thrown around but to say, "That B-class EV probably loses money, so they probably prefer that it doesn't sell. Is just ridiculous!
  10. ccap41
    LOL that isn't how that works, brother.
  11. ccap41
    Most aren't unless they're buying the V8 versions. Other than that they are usually people who just really like the look of the car. Completely agree. An average test drive will not show off its superior driving characteristics as most dealerships aren't held over race tracks or back road canyons and in that case a softer ride on a test drive will probably sell better..obviously not too soft but again, if you're not buying the V8s in these cars you're likely not the kind of person who wants the stiffest and tightest of chassis.
  12. ccap41
    The Camaro 2LT starts at $30,795, not $31,7xx.Sorry, you are correct. My bad.
  13. ccap41
    I think some might be that regardless of the performance the camaro is just more expensive. EcoBoost Premium starts at 29,6xx and a 2.0 Camaro 2LT starts at 31,7xx. Base engine to mid range engine. Camaro's v6 adds 1,500. To most people who aren't getting the V8 that's a pretty big difference.
  14. ccap41
    All I know is that I would absolutely love to get the car in the OP, ATS 2.0 AWD. I could live w/o the AWD as the ATS's wheels aren't too wide so winter traction on regular all season tires probably isn't dog $h!.
  15. ccap41
    Dude, I can't agree more! There are soooooooo many better vehicles out there than those 15 year old little SUVs. If there is a BOGO I'll go havzies(halvsies/halfzies) with you on a pair of them so we'll each get one for 50% off.
  16. ccap41
    Good lord, the best car saw a -21.5% this May over last May. Also, where are these 22,000 E Series being sold this year?!?!
  17. ccap41
    Dang look at those down GM and FoMoCo numbers...
  18. ccap41
  19. ccap41
    Personally, I think the Cruze just looks better enough to want to buy that but if you're trying to keep overall costs down the Sonic would be the better bet in saving thousands up front. Are you looking at the brand new Cruzes?
  20. ccap41
    That's a really awesome picture, I dig it! Also, I know I've said it before but those wheels really make that car look great. I'm not much of an Intrepid fan but those wheels really make it look a lot better.
  21. ccap41
    Wow, how I wish I didn't live in the mid west... Beautiful country up that way.
  22. ccap41
    The footprint of the vehicle does matter though. That's one reason trucks continue to get larger is because as they get bigger and fuel economy stays roughly the same(with the larger engines, not the engines made for fuel economy(2.7 and 3.0 diesel) ) they aren't an issue. It's a ratio basically. "First, like the current 2012–16 rules, these new standards are size based. That means there’s a formula to calculate the required CAFE—within limits—for each car based on its “footprint,” which is the product of its wheelbase and track dimensions. In 2011, for example, the required CAFE mpg for the smallest car would not exceed 31.2, while even the largest car was assigned at least 24 mpg. For 2025, these car limits go up to 61.1 and 45.6. Truck mpg is calculated in similar fashion using a different formula. For 2011, the truck mpg ranged from 21.1 to 27.1. In the 2025 proposal, it spans 30.2 to 50.4 mpg. Notice that the formula has been adjusted so that the low end of the range rises less than the high end to help accommodate large trucks. Second, because these CAFE requirements are based on size, every car company actually ends up with a different CAFE requirement, depending on the mix and size of cars and trucks that it actually sells. For every model year, each company must calculate the CAFE requirement for all models it markets and then determine the sales-weighted average for its actual mix. Therefore, a company such as General Motors, with its heavy share of large pickups and SUVs, will have a lower CAFE requirement than Suzuki, which primarily produces smallish cars and SUVs." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature "Here’s how it works. A 2010 Honda Accord has a wheelbase of 110.2 inches and a track of 62.6 inches. Multiplying those two figures yields a footprint of 47.9 square feet. If you plug that figure into the government’s formula, you get a target mpg of 35.9 for 2016. The smaller its footprint, the higher the fuel economy a given vehicle has to meet. A current Ford Focus would have to achieve 40.8 by 2016, while a Mercedes S-class will have a bogey of 31.8 mpg. The aforementioned 328i will have to hit 38.2 mpg." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-automakers-will-meet-2016-cafe-standards
  23. ccap41
    What kind of vehicles do you have? And what are you putting in them?
  24. ccap41
    That's actually a very good point considering the wheelbases are probably similar with how freakin huge Bentlys are meaning a similar CAFE score. But a more modern engine will definitely produce less overall emissions and be cleaner.
  25. ccap41
    It's quicker to 60 but slower through the 1/4. So it's a yes and no. I assume gearing played a major role in the differentiation between the two. CT6: 0-60: 6.1 1/4 mile: 14.7@92mph 300ft skidpad: 0.81g http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ct6-sedan-20t-luxury-test-review Ecoboost Mustang: 0-60: 6.3 1/4 mile: 14.5@98 300ft skidpad: 0.95g http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-mustang-ecoboost-first-test-review/ I put the road holding "ability" in for good measure because of how $h!ty the mustang handles and how superb the Cadillac does. *sarcasm*
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search