Cool Cars

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by lumberjim
i dont think you have the horse power. this is a new dohc high out put motor. i think yours has 190....

i think....

215, the high output came first. Actually the '03 motor tested out at more but Chrysler advertised 215. The low pressure motor came later. You've been shaking down the banks for kickback pens too long.:p

[lumberjim]

wow, you're right, i have.

There was a time when i would have known that. I still try to keep abreast of what's what with the cars, but my time is not my own, and product knowledge is of cursory value to me at best. The salesmen made it seem like this HO turbo was new. I had a turbo limited at the time, and they told me that the one coming had more horses.....i hope this blue one is still here by the time my jeep sells,....and that they let me take it....it looks like a freaking hoot to drive. the GT has better sneakers on it, and the suspension is sport tuned. I liked the one i had, so i bet that GT is a blast.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes it is. Torque steer is an issue, but traction control will keep you out of too much trouble, if you’re not paying attention. Turn that off and you better be on top of it.

I took my car in for service yesterday and they snapped off a wheel stud. The service manager came to me, with hat in hand, telling me they couldn’t fix it until Monday for a multitude of reasons, so they gave me a ’99 Breeze with 45k on it. I told him, “Hey, shit happens, call me when it’s ready.” I’m now in solid with the service manager.

[Clodfobble]

but my time is not my own,

Clearly not! It belongs to the Cellar!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Undertoad
No hemi?

The PT's a hemi, UT. It's just a 146 CI hemi instead of a 348.
Actually the 220hp and 245ft/lbs from 146ci, is more impressive than 340hp and 390ft/lbs from 348ci.

Of course the 5.7 liter has several times the sphincter tightening power, but that's what my '57 in for.

[lumberjim]

so i drove the aforementioned blue gt cruiser convertible....

i expected better off the line torque, but first gear is a bit thin, and it doesnt really get moving until you get to 30 mph or so. then it goes right to 60 in a flash. the main complaint i had was that as i was not wearing sunglasses, i had several bits of debris get in my eyes. the wind was extreme. i drive my wrangler topless all the time and do not have that issue. i may be too tall for the car. i didnt get a chance to corner it aggressively as it was just a run out for wawa coffee, and i didnt want to spil it.

it looks really cool, but i was dissapointed overall with the driving experience.

[jinx]

No farvergnugen?

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by jinx
No farvergnugen?

dunno....i'd have had to take it around some corners and see if it bent. light torque steer, but as i said, it does not pull really hard right off the line like the jetta did....or ut's GTI

oh, and it was an automatic transmission

[xoxoxoBruce]

If I floor mine from a stop it seems to bog a bit, but a half throttle start to 8 or 10 mph, then floor it, it explodes. The motor has to be fully warmed up, though. Probably for the electronics to let everything work. That's why I have a blower instead of a turbo on the Chevy. Gotta remember too, the PT weighs as much as the Chevy, at 3400 lbs + me.
I think the wind buffeting is due to the shape of the car. The wagon, with the window down, is pretty turbulent.
That Breeze they loaned me, would literally leap of the line, and then collapse with a wheeze at 15mph.

BTW, I an oil & filter change, tires rotated, 2 new wiper blades(not refills, whole blades), 2 wheel studs & lug nuts, and a new wheel & mount and balance, for $58.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

BTW, I an oil & filter change, tires rotated, 2 new wiper blades(not refills, whole blades), 2 wheel studs & lug nuts, and a new wheel & mount and balance, for $58.

guilt can be a wonderful thing, no?

i would expect that the tech that snapped your studs did the job for free.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by lumberjim



guilt can be a wonderful thing, no?

i would expect that the tech that snapped your studs did the job for free.

They told me they were going to have a flat rate guy that doesn't work Saturdays, do it. That was one of the problems on Saturday, the flat rate guy had the tools locked up.
I think I've figured out who's fault it was. I had to replace that tire since the last rotation. I think the Goodyear dealer at Namens(sp?) Road, did it.
That's why I try to build a relationship with the dealer's service department.

[evansk7]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Actually the 220hp and 245ft/lbs from 146ci, is more impressive than 340hp and 390ft/lbs from 348ci.

Of course the 5.7 liter has several times the sphincter tightening power, but that's what my '57 in for.

US-made cars tend to have very low power outputs for their size - why is that?

My (2003 model) 3 litre ford engine gives me only 220bhp, which means I'm getting less hp than half the other people in the office who drive BMWs, Hondas and Scooby's. There's one guy in the office drives an Impreza type P.. 277bhp from a 2L engine. And better fuel economy than me..

So c'mon, all you 'merkins... explain the fascination with big engines and low power output for a confused brit?

Kev (delurking for the second time this decade)

[Undertoad]

Our resident grouch and engineering fanatic tw would tell you that it's evidence of the US car companies being unable to compete correctly. He measures everything in hp per liter. We should restart this debate now that there's an actual cars forum and more car people around.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by evansk7


US-made cars tend to have very low power outputs for their size - why is that?

My (2003 model) 3 litre ford engine gives me only 220bhp, which means I'm getting less hp than half the other people in the office who drive BMWs, Hondas and Scooby's. There's one guy in the office drives an Impreza type P.. 277bhp from a 2L engine. And better fuel economy than me..

So c'mon, all you 'merkins... explain the fascination with big engines and low power output for a confused brit?

Kev (delurking for the second time this decade)

'Cause we're smarter.:p
America is a big place and has room for big cars. Big cars mean more weight and bigger engine compartments. So if you have the room, the cheapest way to make the torque necessary to move that weight, especially with the more and more popular automatic transmissions and power robbing accessories, is a large displacement engine. Oh, we had engines that made one hp per cubic inch(16.4cc), back in the 50’s, but they didn’t have the longevity the average motorist wanted.
In the early 70’s Detroit was hit with a double whammy, oil embargo and emissions regulations. Over the last 30 years they have evolved to lighter cars with smaller engines that are 99% cleaner. Electronics have played the biggest role in this evolution. My car has more computing power than most mainframes had 30 years ago. It also cost more. There are many, many European cars that have lots of power but won’t pass American safety and emission laws.
I’ll let TW tell you how our cars would be more efficient if the MBAs had built a supercollider and Bush hadn’t lied to help his oil business buddies.

[russotto]

HP/liter is, when it comes down to it, a meaningless measurement. It correlates to some interesting things but it's not all that interesting in itself. HP/lb is a far more interesting measurement, for instance. HP/$ is also to the point.

Large displacement engines tend to develop their power at low RPMs, which has advantages for hauling large weights (such as the big cars those engines are in), and for noise. It also has some positive impact on "drivability", though in an automatic that's more a matter of transmission design and in a manual it's a matter of drivers not wanting to wind the engine up. Thing is, though, if you drive a small-displacement engine up in its powerband, you tend to eat fuel just like a large displacement engine...