Drew Dowdell

There is a level of exhaustion one hits that not even weeks of downtime can really fix..... *posted from somewhere over Missouri* My cities since July 1 : Columbia MD Boston, MA Philly, PA Boulder CO Calgary AB Columbus OH Syracuse NY Cumberland MD Charlotte NC Dallas TX (flying home from now) Starting Sunday: San Antonio TX Austin TX Chicago IL Upstate NY Boston MA, Providence RI, New Haven CT (in one day) Miami FL Edison NJ Los Angeles CA Edison NJ Washington DC and that gets me to December 1. Between most cities, I fly home to Pittsburgh for a night or two.

Drew there are adults that should not have this much power. Anyone seen the Prince in Beverly Hills in the Ferrari this week? Also the videos we have seen on YouTube of the crashing Z06 are proof that many people are over their limits. Absolutely. Most drivers shouldn't be trusted with anything more powerful than a base Corolla and even then they can't handle it at 7/10ths.

Either they're expecting volumes of the Grand Wagoner to mimic that of the Ram (doubtful, even with Sergio's rose tinted glasses) or something else is also going in there.

Also keep in mind that the performance of these new cars far exceeds what kids should be at the helm of anyway. Even a v6 Camaro has a lot more power than what the V8 cars of 20 years ago had. The turbo 4 has more power than anything from the 80s.

No, but the Citroens seem better put together than the Fiats do. They're probably on par with initial build quality to VW (I don't know enough about long term reliability).

I know a do a lot of face palming...

I posted this elsehwere: What I'm curious about: In what way does the engine perform differently when it is in "Fool-EPA" mode that would change the performance to the end user? Does the fuel economy go down? Is there less power? Does NVH increase? Can this potentially change the performance of the engine enough to spark lawsuits after drivers get their vehicle reflashed? VW didn't do this just to spite the EPA, therefore what negative attribute is this tuning hiding?

I prefer the entire Citroën line to the Fiat and Alfa line.

Wow! I wonder what the car does differently to pass the test that it can't do while driving normally.

Oh look, a 1957 Audi TT

Due to be officially revealed tonight.

GM also makes a 4.3 PUSHROD V6 that has as much horsepower as the old 5.3 V8 and gets good fuel economy.

It's like I've been arguing in the thread about pushrods. It's all about low end torque. This new 1.5T has as much torque at 2,000 rpm as the current 2.5 produces at 4,400 rpm. As a base engine, it will do fine. Drew it is clear he has no clue or even has driven one of the Eco DI Turbo engines as it has more low end Torque than some recent V8 models and a torque curve flatter than the Bonneville. It is post like this that lose credibility in the argument and he finishes himself off. Two things- 1)I'd like to know what your response is going to be when the car comes out and reviewers say it feels underpowered. 2)Hyper, I work in the car business. I've driven and forgotten about more cars than yo can imagine. I OWNED a turbocharged car for years. Here's a news flash for you- turbo, NA, pushrod, OHC, an engine that's underpowered is underpowered. End of discussion. It's clear YOU don't know WTF you're talking about. My point is that horsepower really means squat. Horsepower is a marketing tool to market to tools. Horsepower is marketed because torque is too difficult for consumers to think about. Consumers don't get that 180 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm is much better than 180 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm for typical family sedan driving, so asking them to make the jump into realizing that 180 lb-ft @ 2000 - 4500 rpm is actually better for their daily drive than 200 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm is a bridge too far. VW salesmen used to sell their 90hp diesel Jettas with the phrase, "Horsepower sells cars, torque moves them". The one manufacturer who seems to have figured the way around this is Ford. Wrap all of that torque complexity and thaeVW phrase up in a great marketing word that people can pronounce, and suddenly consumers can get on board. Peak horsepower ratings at or near max RPM mean nothing in this segment, no matter how hard the manufacturers push that message that you can't possibly sit in traffic with less than 300 horsepower under the hood. Consumers who just want to get from point A to point B with good fuel economy will go for the 1.5T, the consumers who are worried about acceleration will go with the 2.0T, the greenies will go for the hybrid. Again, the 1.5T has as much torque at 2,000 rpm as the 2.5 has at 4,400 rpm. As a base engine, it will be fine.

Probably. The Spark just did.

It's like I've been arguing in the thread about pushrods. It's all about low end torque. This new 1.5T has as much torque at 2,000 rpm as the current 2.5 produces at 4,400 rpm. As a base engine, it will do fine.

SMK, Why on earth would you think that a body on frame vehicle can't go fast or handle well?

Well, that's the concept Maxima, not the production model.

Wow, it really grew. It looks bigger than some 10 year old Accords.

Besides, they're the only ones who can afford to fuel it.

I really don't care for Avocado, but my parents own an Avocado farm (not their main business). I had them ship me up a box to give to my best client who is having surgery on Monday. Not sure how he's going to eat even half of this.

The point being made was that the way many go on and on how wonderful the VW 1.8T is that a mere 2.4 NA spanked it in a race from a Hyundai doesn't say much for VW's new mill. The kid was driving that VW like it was a race car. It was worth the look on his face to see a Sonata move right by him so yeah it was a fun evening on Saturday actually! I never really considered the 1.8T to be anything more than a more refined replacement for the consumer grade 2.5 5-cylinder.

You're worded kinda funny.

The 1.5T is geared towards the fuel economy crowd anyway, and should deliver better low end torque. Overall, I bet it is about a wash compared to the 2.5 in driving feel, but with much better fuel economy.

.... then you voted incorrectly.