[roam]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You are even more clueless than I thought.

I avoid most things made in the USA, like the plague. Hell, even watching old war movies in which good ol' 'Mericans beat the **** out of Nazis, I'm now sitting there hoping the Nazis kick our asses. No wonder in this hooray for USA shite today.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by roam:
I avoid most things made in the USA, like the plague.

You really shouldn't you know - they make some good stuff.
(specifically: vacuum cleaners, washers, rock and roll, operating systems and Jeeps).

Cutting off your leftie nose to spite your face?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by roam:
Fat chance of that.

I can only hope.

Thank you for all of your well thought out responses in this thread. It was very enlightening.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You're right, Kilbey. I made it all up. Every GM car I've ever owned (three or 4) has gone one million miles with the original windshield wipers and tires, and battery, and brakes, etc. I have no knowledge of anything to do with automobiles whatsoever.

Thank you for that.

Look karl, all I am saying is you have a chip on your shoulder about GM. You claim to know so much about cars yet have more car trouble that anyone else on this board. I am questioning your knowlege about cars in general and you seem to go back and forth with "I was a mechanic" to that fact that you really don't know much aboutcars.

Go back to vw. I hope they make you happy. Cause GM certainly isn't. I just want you to know that vw has worse quality than GM and a higher cost for replacement parts.

[roam]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
You really shouldn't you know - they make some good stuff.
(specifically: vacuum cleaners, washers, rock and roll, operating systems and Jeeps).

Cutting off your leftie nose to spite your face?

I said most things, not everything. Big difference. So while I can dismiss the crud, I can enjoy the few decent things left in the States.

Sorry to get your true-blue English hopes up there.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
You really shouldn't you know - they make some good stuff.
(specifically: vacuum cleaners, washers, rock and roll, operating systems and Jeeps).

Cutting off your leftie nose to spite your face?

Jeeps? Those stupid gas guzzlers?

I remember how Steve Jobs was talking about how he had a washing machine imported from Europe because they cleaned the clothes better and used less energy.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Jeeps? Those stupid gas guzzlers?

Yep. This just shows how much you don't know. My Jeep runs exactly the same mileage as the 1.6 Ford Focus I've had the "pleasure" of for the last month.

Really. Exactly the same.

So. Gas guzzler?

[Cody Dawg]

I love Jeeps.

I brought a brand new one home for the night before I went back and decided to buy a Suburban instead. The Jeep is GREAT except for the fact that it was just too small for our family of 5 plus a dog - our extra "kid" - making it six spaces needed for seating.

I love the Suburban. I would buy another one in a heartbeat and I'll probably buy another one when I want a new one. It has everything I could ever want in a car and then some. I have the motorized bucket seats in both front and back (passenger seats right behind front seats) and a big foldaway bench seat in the very rear - all in leather - and it is totally loaded. We bought the car after the hurricanes slammed us and we were realizing that we couldn't fit everything we wanted to in our vehicles to make our escape.

After Frances nailed us we bought the Suburban. When Jeanne came along we were prepared.

Yes, it was pricier than the Jeep, but it's worth it. We got the loaded model. I love that vehicle and it drives like a charm.

Now, for what it's worth, I also have a Saab and I love that car also. I've owned a VW Cabriolet and I loved that car also. I've owned a Mercedes sedan and it was great - sturdy. I take good care of my cars and keep them like new.

Of all the cars I've owned, the Suburban is probably the nicest.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Thank you for that.

Look karl, all I am saying is you have a chip on your shoulder about GM. You claim to know so much about cars yet have more car trouble that anyone else on this board. I am questioning your knowlege about cars in general and you seem to go back and forth with "I was a mechanic" to that fact that you really don't know much aboutcars.

Go back to vw. I hope they make you happy. Cause GM certainly isn't. I just want you to know that vw has worse quality than GM and a higher cost for replacement parts.

Whooosh!

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Whooosh!

2nded.

[OldManMac]

Went right over you, just like I thought. Sad.

[Cody Dawg]

KarlG, I like VWs also. The Phaeton is an awesome piece of work and the Touareg may just be a car that I buy someday.

[OldManMac]

The Touareg was Motor Trend's SUV of the year last year, and it gets outstanding ratings as a real SUV. Interestingly, the Phaeton uses the same underbody as the Audi A8, and the Bentley Continental GT Coupe. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon.../F01-70300.htm But, don't take my word for it; I only spent 14 years working in car dealer service departments, and I don't know anything about cars.

[Cody Dawg]

Hey, KarlG, you were a service writer?

That's a great gig - you gotta know what you're talking about! (The good ones can make a great living at it, also - $$$)

I love the Touareg. I looked at that car but like the Jeep, it just wasn't quite large enough for our family. I hate minivans also. That left either the Cadillac Escalade or the Suburban and we went with the decked out Suburban instead. My spouse was trying to tell me that the Cadillac and the Suburban are pretty much identical and we saved about $5,000 going with the Suburban instead.

[OldManMac]

Yes, I was. I started out as a mechanic, on VWs, in the mid sixties. When I came home from the Air Force in the early seventies, I became a service writer, then a shop foreman, and then a service manager. I've also worked as a service manager for a Ford and Chrysler dealer. The Cadillac and the Suburban are built on the same chassis.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Went right over you, just like I thought. Sad.

And what I said went miles over your head. You didn't even feel the breeze.

So, what is it karl? You haven't worked on cars in over 30 years and your still an expert?

I guess I should be the one to break it to you. Karl, cars have changed a bit since you were a middle aged man. There have been serious improvements in both basic mechanics and electrical systems. You might not be completely up to date. Your 14 years as a car dealer service dept. reception desk worker from 1961 to 1975 is a bit dated. And since you haven't worked on a car in 30 years your skills will need to be updated as well.

Keep reading the detnews.com and the freep.com to keep up to date.

Lastly, light a smoke and chill out. I'm going to bed.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
Just found those.

Link please. I can't find those photos.

[Cody Dawg]

You know, Kilbey, just because someone doesn't work on cars doesn't make them less of an expert.

My spouse runs a large company that is automobile related (service industry) and he is the person who helps determine whether or not his company will pay for a customer's motor or motor damage if they claim that one of our locations has damaged their vehicle (as in a mechanic damaged the vehicle.) He never works on cars, but he can get under the hood of a car and tell all kinds of things about that vehicle. He testifies in court or in front of insurance adjusters and is a professional witness, in some cases, for other companies.

Just because someone isn't working on a car doesn't make their knowledge worth any less.

As usual, Killjoy, er, Kilbee, you're just nasty and mean. I feel sorry for you. You must be a very unhappy person in your life because you never, ever, have anything nice to say to anyone.

Good thing you're going to bed - maybe you'll wake up a nicer person tomorrow.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
And what I said went miles over your head. You didn't even feel the breeze.

So, what is it karl? You haven't worked on cars in over 30 years and your still an expert?

I guess I should be the one to break it to you. Karl, cars have changed a bit since you were a middle aged man. There have been serious improvements in both basic mechanics and electrical systems. You might not be completely up to date. Your 14 years as a car dealer service dept. reception desk worker from 1961 to 1975 is a bit dated. And since you haven't worked on a car in 30 years your skills will need to be updated as well.

Keep reading the detnews.com and the freep.com to keep up to date.

Lastly, light a smoke and chill out. I'm going to bed.

I never claimed to be an expert, but, like many other things, you make deductions based on what you want to see. I stated that I hadn't worked on cars professionaly in a few years; that doesn't mean I don't keep up with the basics. I also never stated that I worked as a service dept. "reception worker from 1961 to 1975; another deduction you picked out of your hat. I worked as mechanic from 1965, until 1972, then I became a service advisor (writer), which involved a little bit more than reception; it involves sales skills and technical knowledge, because one has to explain to the customer what their car needs, and has to sell it to them. Then I became a shop foreman, who is responsible for assisting the mechanics when they run into problem diagnoses. Then I became a service manager, who is in charge of the entire service department, including the mechanics, service advisors, shop foreman, and frequently dealing with customers as well. All those positions require technical knowledge. I'm quite well aware that there have been major changes, and I never claimed to know what they entailed in detail; you seem to keep bringing that up, not me. You've also said I have a chip on my shoulders against GM, which is utterly false. If you had read some of the things I've posted in the last few car threads, you would have noticed that I said that if I ever buy a domestic nameplate again, it would be a GM product, but once again, you deduce whatever you want. Somehow, and I haven't figured this out yet, you came to the brilliant deduction that, because I've had a lot of problems with my Grand AM, and some of my family members have had problems they shouldn't have at the mileage those problems occured, that I wasn't an auto mechanic, as if it were my fault that my Grand AM needed to have the control arms replaced at 66K, and it needs them again at 120K, when I've never had such a problem with any of the imports I've owned. Or that I needed an AC compressor replaced at 75K, and I need another one now, or that I had to have the intake manifold gaskets replaced at 84K, and that is a known problem with 3.1L V6 GM engines in the mid to late 90s. Or that front brakes need to be replaced about every 25K, when I've never had to replace front brakes on any other vehicle I've owned before 90K, and that GM is known for the short life of it's brake pads. Or that I had to replace the alternator at 74K, which is way earlier than any other vehicle I've owned. None of these repairs have anything to do with whether the car is owned by a mechanic, or a little old lady, so your allegation that I'm not a mechanic, based on the problems I've had, is, quite bluntly, stupid. Had I read Consumer Reports before I bought the car, I would have know to stay away 95 - 98 Grand AMs, as their reports, which are based on acutal customer feedback, listed several of the problems I've had with this car. The 97 model year was one they specifically stated to stay away from. Next time I'll know better.

I have nothing that I have to prove to you, so get over yourself, and stop making ridiculous assertions that you can't prove yourself, and don't talk to people in a condescending manner ("I guess I should be the one to break it to you. Karl, cars have changed a bit since you were a middle aged man.") This is a pattern with you here, with others as well; you can't seem to debate anything. You take things to a certain level, and then you start attacking people. Do you always work this hard to show your insecurities, or does it come naturally?

Now go ahead and make some more allegations based on whatever you want to deduce. I'm through playing your childish little games.

[Athens]

Originally posted by KarlG:
They won't go broke and simply disappear, but they will lose their number one spot as the world's largest automaker to Toyota, by the end of this decade. It's amazing to think that, 4 decades ago, they had 60% of the automotive market in the U. S. It's just another sign of America's decline in importance on the world stage.

Would help if American Car's wernt junk. Up here I would say a good 75% of the cars are imports, VW, Honda, and Toyota being the biggest ones.


Update, looking out my Work Window I see 7 imports and 1 Domestic parked in the parking lot across from my hotel.

[Cody Dawg]

I love your site, Athens.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That's probably true about automaking.

But at least we have Microsoft...for a while.

Until Mr. Gates follows Dell's lead, HP's lead, and countless others and outsources everything to India.

Apple outsources to China by the way

[goMac]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Go back to vw. I hope they make you happy. Cause GM certainly isn't. I just want you to know that vw has worse quality than GM and a higher cost for replacement parts.

I have to agree. My parents used to have a VW Golf. It was constantly having issues. They finally sold it and got a Volvo.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by goMac:
I have to agree. My parents used to have a VW Golf. It was constantly having issues. They finally sold it and got a Volvo.

And my wife drove a Golf for ages that was 100% reliable. We can trade anecdotal evidence until we're blue in the face. Fact is that if you get a lemon, you've got a lemon. That can happen whatever make of car you've got.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
And my wife drove a Golf for ages that was 100% reliable. We can trade anecdotal evidence until we're blue in the face. Fact is that if you get a lemon, you've got a lemon. That can happen whatever make of car you've got.

Lounge arguments - anecdotal evidence = crickets chirping

[OldManMac]

And I owned a diesel Rabbit, bought new in 1982, that I, and my wife, drove for eight years, and put on 245,000 miles, with the original clutch, no engine work (other than replacing a timing belt), the original starter, and alternator, and it still looked good and ran good, getting 45mpg, when we traded it in. I also owned a 1986 Golf diesel, which we drove for 4 years, put on 170,000 miles, and experienced no major problems with.

I also owned a 1989 VW Fox, bought new, drove it for eleven years, with 195,000 miles on it, and no major engine problems. That car was driven several times with only a quart of oil in it, once for 50 miles, clattering like a diesel (it was a gas engined car), and I put three quarts of oil in it, and drove it another 50,000 miles before I traded it in, running fine.

I've also owned three Beetles, and a VW 411 station wagon, and experienced no major problems with any of them. I've also owned other imports and domestics.

All cars require routine things like brakes, exhaust, belts, etc., but even there, the imports I've owned have gone much longer before requiring these than the domestics I've owned.

As I've stated here before, if I buy another domestic nameplate, it would be a GM, based on their current ratings as the tops in quality for domestic names. But I would do a lot more research than I did when I bought the 97 Grand AM that I bought used four years ago, used.

[Cody Dawg]

The fact is that a car is comprised of thousands of parts and those parts are made by different companies and a car is only as good as the sum total of all of its parts.

Case in point, the Ford Explorer.

Firestone put crappy tires on those vehicles and guess what happened? The tires blew out and people died. Ford suffered tremendously for that issue and probably still does.

I had a VW Cabriolet (nicknamed Cadbury because it was a beautiful chocolate brown and had a creamy tan leather interior and I thought it looked like a chocolate bar) and I loved that convertible. LOVED IT. It ran very well. Nary a problem ever.

Meanwhile, my spouse says that he would be very reluctant to buy a VW nowadays because being in the business he is in, he hears that they have a lot of problems with certain models.

HOWEVER, he did say that the Touareg is exceptionally well built, along with the Phaeton.

I think that every single manufacturer probably has issues at one time or another, to be honest. My Mercedes kept making a zinging sound at certain RPMs, definitely not normal, and they kept bringing that car in over and over again. I was very frustrated. But, I'm not about to say that all Mercedes are bad cars and not built very well. I know that it was THAT particular vehicle. I then went out and bought a Saab instead. Some people think that Saabs are crappy cars, but I think they're awesome. I've had a Saab since 1995 and will always own one. I think they are underrated by most people.

Also, probably most important, it really depends on how people take care of their vehicles, doesn't it? I mean, HONESTLY? KarlG probably takes very good care of his vehicles. I know we do.

1 ounce of prevention is worth 1 pound of cure with matters of health...and cars.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I love your site, Athens.

Thanx LOL I wish I had the time to make it better, I only really get one day a week to work on it with my schedule and hours. And im going more for content right now, just getting as much as I can up before I start tweaking it a bit.

[Athens]

Originally posted by goMac:
I have to agree. My parents used to have a VW Golf. It was constantly having issues. They finally sold it and got a Volvo.

My Friends 1986 GTI has 420 000KM on it and still going strong.

Generally American Cars break down a lot sooner and need more overal work BUT they are cheaper and parts are cheaper. I much rather have a used domestic over a import for that reason. American cars are crappy new cars but decent used cars.

Imports usally last longer to begin with but when do start having problems they are usally more serious, cost a lot more to fix from labour and parts and make shitty used cars.

Thats my opinion on what I have seen with all my friends cars. LOL and some had American cars as first cars but they ALL drive import now.
Me Honda Prelude 1987 230 000KM
Chris VW GTI 1986 400 000+KM
Turkay Mazda Cronis 220 000KM
Danny Toyota Tercel 1992 210 000KM

With the exception of the Mazda all are in good working order.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roam:
I avoid most things made in the USA, like the plague. Hell, even watching old war movies in which good ol' 'Mericans beat the **** out of Nazis, I'm now sitting there hoping the Nazis kick our asses. No wonder in this hooray for USA shite today.

You are a rare breed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roam:
Damn right.

Got any evidence to back that up?

[Skip Breakfast]

Can ANY of you stay on topic?

If Lutz stays at GM for another 5 years, things will turn around for them...if he can deliver product.

The problem with GM is that whenever they have a success, they bleed it dry and wait forever to refresh, and frankly, folks can't wait 10-12 years between model changes *cough*Cavalier*cough*Saturn*cough*S10*cough*.

Killing the Caprice off was a stupid decision.

Selling $42,000 Buick Park Avenue Ultras which are incapable of competing with cars half of it's price is another stupid decision.

Offering the same Trailblazer under 6 different brands (that's right...SIX) is absurd.

If you're dumb enough to think the Escalade and Suburban/Avalanche are much different, that's GM's success.

What GM fails to do is prioritize on the product AND the price. They've also done a dismal job of catering to a young demographic (outside of Hummer and recently, Cadillac)

The Corvette is one of the best cars GM has ever made. Why can't they invest that kind of commitment to a passenger sedan and pickup truck and kick Toyota's and Ford's a55?

Don't even get me started on motors. If I see that 3.8L one more time...

I won't buy a GM product until they use decent interior parts, offer a stick in everything, and go DOHC all of the way.

I hate Toyota's, too.


Heh. I'm digressing.

p.s. My Mexican-built Ford Focus was put together than my Tennessee-built Nissan Sentra was.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Skip Breakfast:
Can ANY of you stay on topic?

If Lutz stays at GM for another 5 years, things will turn around for them...if he can deliver product.

The problem with GM is that whenever they have a success, they bleed it dry and wait forever to refresh, and frankly, folks can't wait 10-12 years between model changes *cough*Cavalier*cough*Saturn*cough*S10*cough*.

Killing the Caprice off was a stupid decision.

Selling $42,000 Buick Park Avenue Ultras which are incapable of competing with cars half of it's price is another stupid decision.

Offering the same Trailblazer under 6 different brands (that's right...SIX) is absurd.

If you're dumb enough to think the Escalade and Suburban/Avalanche are much different, that's GM's success.

What GM fails to do is prioritize on the product AND the price. They've also done a dismal job of catering to a young demographic (outside of Hummer and recently, Cadillac)

The Corvette is one of the best cars GM has ever made. Why can't they invest that kind of commitment to a passenger sedan and pickup truck and kick Toyota's and Ford's a55?

Don't even get me started on motors. If I see that 3.8L one more time...

I won't buy a GM product until they use decent interior parts, offer a stick in everything, and go DOHC all of the way.

I hate Toyota's, too.


Heh. I'm digressing.

p.s. My Mexican-built Ford Focus was put together than my Tennessee-built Nissan Sentra was.

I agree with most of what you said, except the DOHC part. A nice pushrod engine is reliable and produces plenty of torque.

The 3.9L 3800 os the best engine GM has ever made. EXTREMELY reliable, great emmisions, lots of torque and horsepower, and very easy to work on. I know of plenty of people with over 500,000 miles on them and a couple with over a million miles on them. You can spercharge it and intercool it and it still has the same reliabilty with 50% more horsepower. When GM gets rid of the 3800 I'll know that electric powered cars are finally here.

[roam]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
And my wife drove a Golf for ages that was 100% reliable. We can trade anecdotal evidence until we're blue in the face. Fact is that if you get a lemon, you've got a lemon. That can happen whatever make of car you've got.

Exactly. If I was to judge Apple on the utter lemon of a laptop they sold me, I'd never buy them again. Luckily, though, my previous Powerbook was pretty amazing, and the rep. of Apple isn't badly tarnished.

[roam]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Got any evidence to back that up?

Yes, me. A walking example of laughing at such **** sold in the States, and refusing to buy them.

[roam]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are a rare breed.

Really? Not from where I'm standing, or what I've seen/experienced across the world. I'd wager you are the one stuck in a cave, pluckin' his banjo, especially based on the mondo bizarro world you talk about in here.

[Athens]

Originally posted by roam:
Yes, me. A walking example of laughing at such **** sold in the States, and refusing to buy them.

The fact he is from the Banana Republic proves he is a fruit cake and we should move on LOL.

Only thing American I don't like are Cars for the most part. Most other things are fine.

[roam]

Originally posted by Athens:
The fact he is from the Banana Republic proves he is a fruit cake and we should move on LOL.

Oh how that is utterly wasted on your feeble mind. you thilly thing. I'd probably take you more seriously if you didn't have all the ,LOLs everywhere when you type.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Kilbey:


The 3.9L 3800 os the best engine GM has ever made.

I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, but why on earth do you need a car with a 3.9l engine in a country where the speed limit is 65 mph? Shouldn't car makers concentrate on the development of lower emission, higher efficiency engines?

[Link]

Originally posted by veryniceguy2002:
Chevrolet tried to market cars against Pontiac, and Cadillac against Brick... what's the point?

LOL funny but true. That'd be like Ford saying their crown vic can kick a lincoln towncar's ass.

I'd like to see a few things:

1. German car companies stop imitating others (some BMWs look like hondas, the latest VW jetta looks like a toyota, and the latest VW passat looks like a nissan)

2. Chevy take some of that R&D they're dumping into putting more plastic on the chevy tahoe frame and trying to sell it under 50 different names and stick that into midsize sedans

3. More diesel and hybrid cars!! I wouldn't mind a ford 500 or chrysler 300c with a diesel or heck, a diesel hybrid *grin*

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, but why on earth do you need a car with a 3.9l engine in a country where the speed limit is 65 mph? Shouldn't car makers concentrate on the development of lower emission, higher efficiency engines?

I actually meant 3.8L.

And are you being serious?!?! The speed limit on my daily commute is 70 mph. My Bonneville with a 3.8L got almost the same mpg as my 2.2L does. 29mpg vs. 32 mpg. And it moved a much larger vehicle!

Automotive engineers are concentrating on the "development of lower emission, higher efficiency engines". Just not complete concentration. The reason: not everyone wants a tiny powerless car. They have to sell their cars to make money you know.

[Link]

Just because the engine is small doesn't mean it has to sound like a cat being electricuted when you're getting on the freeways

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
. The reason: not everyone wants a tiny powerless car. They have to sell their cars to make money you know.

I've driven cars with top speeds way in excess of 70 mph that came with 1.6 and 1.9 liter engines. Neither of these was small, slow or underpowered. I can testify to that because I took them on the German Autobahn where, as you probably know, there is no speed limit and cars traveling at speeds of 140 mph and above are routinely encountered.

So, I am not sure where you're getting the 'tiny powerless' idea from. Which still leaves me wondering why in a country with a low speed limit (that I am in favour of for both safety and environmental reasons) you need to build engines that you'll never have the ability to use to their full potential. Seems like a colossal waste of resources to me.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I actually meant 3.8L.

And are you being serious?!?! The speed limit on my daily commute is 70 mph. My Bonneville with a 3.8L got almost the same mpg as my 2.2L does. 29mpg vs. 32 mpg. And it moved a much larger vehicle!

Automotive engineers are concentrating on the "development of lower emission, higher efficiency engines". Just not complete concentration. The reason: not everyone wants a tiny powerless car. They have to sell their cars to make money you know.

I def wouldnt say my 2.0L Honda Prelude is powerless, it dosent struggle at 115MPH (180km/h)and it dosent have any problems accelerating or going up hills with a heavy load inside. And its 18 years old.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I've driven cars with top speeds way in excess of 70 mph that came with 1.6 and 1.9 liter engines. Neither of these was small, slow or underpowered. I can testify to that because I took them on the German Autobahn where, as you probably know, there is no speed limit and cars traveling at speeds of 140 mph and above are routinely encountered.

Disclaimer: I am not any kind of automotive authority.

When I was in Germany I had a 1984 BMW 520i. It had a 2l six cylinder engine, and it was pretty fast on the Autobahn. It had no problem quickly accelerating up to speeds well in excess of 100mph. I typically cruised at about 110MPH (i.e. 170km). That car was downright zippy.

When I came back to the US I bought a 1985 BMW 325e. It has a 2.5l six cylinder engine, and a smaller body. Nevertheless, it was as slow as mollases compared to my 5er. You could feel the engine struggle.

The main difference between the two cars was that the 5 series with the smaller engine had no emissions equipment on it. The 3 series had all the EPA required equipment. As I say, I am no automotive expert, but I would assume that was why the bigger engine was so much less powerful than I expected. In fact, the only car I have had that struggled worse was a 1982 Buick Skylark with a 2.5l engine, and again, with the emissions crap.

I don't know what you drove in Europe, but I think this could be at least partly responsible for the US impression that smaller engines equal underpowered.

Incidentally, I don't agree that US driving is that much slower than Europe. Germany is a bit of an exception of course, but in general my experience on European highways is that actual speeds driven average around 75 - 85 mph regardless of what is posted. It's not much different from that in the US, even in places that still have the 55MPH limit. Most places seem to have upped that to 65 or 75, which means you can easily drive 85 without attracting police attention.

The main difference between US and European highway driving isn't speed, it's distance. Americans often drive 12, 14, 16 hours a day for two or three days straight without thinking that is unusual (because it isn't). I don't think too many in Europe do that so routinely. Those kind of highway miles are a lot more comfortable in a larger vehicle. The standard European subcompact is well suited to cramped European cities, but not to highway cruising. So a subcompact with a 1.1l engine won't sell so well here.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I've driven cars with top speeds way in excess of 70 mph that came with 1.6 and 1.9 liter engines. Neither of these was small, slow or underpowered. I can testify to that because I took them on the German Autobahn where, as you probably know, there is no speed limit and cars traveling at speeds of 140 mph and above are routinely encountered.

So, I am not sure where you're getting the 'tiny powerless' idea from. Which still leaves me wondering why in a country with a low speed limit (that I am in favour of for both safety and environmental reasons) you need to build engines that you'll never have the ability to use to their full potential. Seems like a colossal waste of resources to me.

The difference between a small, efficient, gutless engine and a huge, wasteful V8 is one of "feel". It's the torque which makes the driving style of each machine feel different - and some people (myself included) will always prefer the feel of a meaty engine with large amounts of torque.

The same argument could be said of almost anything with regards to waste. For example, do you really need that dual G5 or would a single G5 do? Aside from the additional power used, there's extra fuel used to deliver it to you due to the extra weight.
As another example, do you really need to eat that steak? You know it cost 16 times more resources (including fuel) to make than an veggie equivalent... ...and while the cow is busy churning out CO2 and methane, the veggie equivalent's crop is busy absorbing CO2 and kicking out oxygen.

So there's your answer: You'll still eat your steak because you like it. You'll still get a dual G5 because you like it. People will still get large engined cars because they like them.

[Cody Dawg]

Sherwin: That's an awesome point and post that you've made there.

You're so right about the torque. Last night we went to a beach area that you have to drive through sand to get to and the feeling of driving through the sand with the Suburban was really great because it went through the sand with ease and I knew we weren't going to get buried.

And, of course, it was kind of fun.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The difference between a small, efficient, gutless engine and a huge, wasteful V8 is one of "feel". It's the torque which makes the driving style of each machine feel different - and some people (myself included) will always prefer the feel of a meaty engine with large amounts of torque.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Small engines do not need to be gutless.

Get yourself into a BMW with a 2 liter engine and you'll encounter all the torque you can handle. Get yourself behind the wheel of a turbo charged 4 cylinder Saab and prepare to be blown away. The same goes for Subarus, Porsches, Audis and many other high performance cars equipped with small engines. It's just a matter of intelligent engineering.

Now, question for the car people in here: Is the fuel consumption of a large engine comparable to a smaller, higher output engine?

And Cody: My old 1964 Landrover with all of 65 horsepowers from a 2.5 liter engine beats most modern SUVs off the road. I sold it because as much as I loved it I couldn't really justify driving it anymore, being a treehugger and all that.

[Cody Dawg]

You shouldn't have sold that Landrover. That thing must be really cool.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roam:
Yes, me. A walking example of laughing at such **** sold in the States, and refusing to buy them.

That's what I thought. No substance. There are people that will try to buy American made only brands in this country. They outnumber you.