What car should I buy?
My 20 yrs. old car is really creaky, and I'm afraid it'll fall apart soon. So, I'm looking around for a new car. When it breaks down, I'd know what I want and go out to get it. Rather than asking only Jim, trusting he knows a lot about cars :D, I thought I'll put it here to see what everyone else thinks.
I'm thinking between the Camry or the Altima. As for the Camry, I'm looking at the LE or SE. What one do you think is better? As for the Altima, I'm looking at the 2.5S. I'm looking for another dependable, stable car that'll last me for 20+ years. If you want to suggest another car, I'm willing to spend around the price range of a Camry or Altima.
The camry & altima are both very good cars & i dont think you'd go wrong with either of them. I'd suggest that whatever you get, get the best you can reasonably afford. Sounds like you'll hold on to the car for many, many years & you want something that has all the bells & whistles that you would want. I've had my car for 7 years now & i wish i had gotten all the bells & whistles i could've. Jim & i have actually had this discussion as i've been dreaming of my next brand new car.
To add another option to the camry or altima, have you looked at a subaru legacy? Comparable in size & price as both camry & altima. I own an impreza & i still love it 7 years later! Ask jim, he says i should be working for subaru since i can't say enough good things about them! They're extremely reliable & dependable & hold their value well. They're all wheel drive all the time so you have more control & really feel the tires gripping the road. You know when you drive through a puddle on a highway & you feel the tire slip? Doesn't happen in a subaru! They use boxer engines, which means it's horizontally opposed so the center of gravity is lower than most other vehicles. This makes going around turns so much fun! I'm at 105,000 miles & (knock on wood) haven't had any issues at all. Just regular maintenance. Ok, i could really go on forever but i'll spare you... I'd highly suggest taking a subaru out for a test drive & see what you think! Good luck!
In the 2014 Consumer Reports buyers guide, the Camry LE scores better than the Altima 2.5, but both are recommended cars. Consumer Reports also loves Subaru as a brand.
Here's the pages for mid sized sedans. They think the $29k Camry hybrid XLE is best overall in that class.
Consumer Reports gives the Legacy an average owner satisfaction rating Amanda so stop being so satisfied with it…! ‼
But UT, Amanda is above average. :blush:
I know an Altima owner who absolutely loves her Altima. Over 200,000 miles and as reliable as the sunrise.
She's been looking for a year for another Altima the right color/price/mileage, and swears she'll have nothing else.
ETA: She's keeping the old one, too.
Buy a white one, Lola.
You'll look cute in it.
She'd look cute driving a pile of dogshit.
She'd look cute driving a pile of dogshit.
Ewww...I don't think anyone would look cute in dogshit. :-/
There's this lady who's been telling me to buy a new car and sell the current one to her.
Buy a white one, Lola.
You'll look cute in it.
I probably will buy a white car. My current one is white too.
I'm thinking between the Camry or the Altima. As for the Camry, I'm looking at the LE or SE. What one do you think is better? As for the Altima, I'm looking at the 2.5S.
SE and LE is mostly about peripherals and colors. How much do you want to spend on the stereo, GPS map system, fancier floor mats, etc.
As others demonstrate, start with Consumer Reports. Then what others are saying will not be overlooked or misunderstood.
Do not waste money on a six cylinder engine or turbo. Those are mostly for the naive who drove, for example, GM (Chevy) cars. And then suffered obsolete technology and balky engines. Better quality and engineering goes into the automaker's benchmark engines - the four cylinder.
View Consumer Report's recommendations and previous year history for each cars. Important facts are in every April issue. All discussed models have a reliable history. But again, never take anyone's word for it. Read it yourself to learn what details are more important.
Also read Consumer Report's page entitled "Used Cars to Avoid". That further illustrates which cars have had 'lesser' histories.
Also view history for the many Chevy models. To appreciate why your considerations are superior and what some consumers (and reporters) foolishly called reliable.
Do not get deceived by an all-wheel drive myth. All wheel drive means getting started easier. To do that, all wheels must fight each other once you get moving; resulting in less stability and control at higher speeds. That means increased tire wear, less gas mileage, and higher costs. Some all-wheel drive models add expensive computers to reduce those problems. If working the farm, then you might need all-wheel drive for the driveway. But all-wheel drive only increases safety and handling in advertising myths.
Why do rental fleets buy white cars? They are statistically safest. The car hardest to see in inclement weather is red. Another critically important feature is orange (not red) rear turn signals. Cars with red rear signals are more often hit because red cannot be easily seen in snow, sleet, heavy rain, fog, etc. Orange cuts through bad weather resulting in increased safety.
My step daughter SWEARS by Altimas ,
her first was an ex rental car ,
she drove the HELL out of that thing (300,000+ miles ) ,
I NEVER had to come rescue her .
Plus Toyotas have TINY steering wheels ,
Just my 2 cents
I have had nothing but the best experience with Toyotas. Bought a Tercel in 1986, back when it came with optional 4-wheel drive - drove it into the ground 15 years later with more than 200,000 miles on it. We similarly drove a Corolla into the ground over 15+ years, and currently own a basic level Camry that will not give up, and a 2005 4Runner that is my 'baby' - it's in Colorado now but will come back east in 2014 with 170,000 miles on it, still going strong. I love and recommend Toyotas. They are reliable, dependable, honest cars.
Lola - buy yourself a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through your head
Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. Knock'em dead!
Do not get deceived by an all-wheel drive myth. All wheel drive means getting started easier.
Or additional traction any time you notice slipping happening in a two-wheel-drive system. Or even if you don't notice it even though it's happening all the time.
Meanwhile you may notice that in your standard 2wd car there are often times you have to "get started". You may in fact notice that you have to stop all the freakin time. Stop signs, red lights, traffic, infant in the middle of the road. Remember, infant blood is more slippery than freezing rain. And evil states apply infant blood to finished roads to dedicate them to Satan.
To do that, all wheels must fight each other once you get moving; resulting in less stability and control at higher speeds. That means increased tire wear, less gas mileage, and higher costs.
Uh-oh,
the 2014 Subarus get MPG in the 30s highway if they have CVT.
Some all-wheel drive models add expensive computers to reduce those problems.
ALL 2WD, 4WD and AWD cars have computers. It's 2013.
But mostly AWD reduces those problems through a gearing system called a center differential. If you've had 4WD without center diff, you know what it means. Without center diff you can't even turn the vehicle while in 4WD in dry conditions. With it, all tires can turn at different speeds, and turning is normal.
Marketing? Every FWD car since the late 80s has been marketed as having "traction control" to prevent slippage. Traction control is really a computer. (Not an *expensive* computer. Again, it's 2013.)
And traction control prevents torque steer, where the car actually
turns when only one front tire has traction. In my 1985 VW, front wheel drive, the steering wheel once jerked right out of my hands when hitting a bad pothole in wet conditions. By 1988, veedubs had computers, and would apply ABS to individual wheels to avoid that problem. They still do. It's kind of barbaric to have your car hit the breaks on the wheels that are spinning harder, to avoid problems while you accelerate, but that's what all 2WD cars do these days.
If working the farm, then you might need all-wheel drive for the driveway. But all-wheel drive only increases safety and handling in advertising myths.
Mysteriously, these things apply to farm driveways if you're working the farm, OR if you're just
visiting one.
A farm driveway, or really, any stretch of road that has mud, snow, ice, wet leaves, heavy rain, damp grass, sand, large potholes, or gravel. If you don't encounter those, feel free to avoid AWD. Perhaps you live in southern California, or maybe you only drive 2 miles from your garaged home to your garaged office, or maybe you got all your facts in the 80s and stick to them like a religion.
Lola - buy yourself a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through your head
If I have oodles and oodles of money! I'll get a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through my hair as I drive to see you. ;-)
Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. Knock'em dead!
If I have money and don't give a shit about anyone else, I'd buy a mini Cooper. :-D. I share the car with sister, and I have to consider driving my mom and my nephew. And sometimes when I go anywhere with my nephew and his parents, we take my car because they bought a 2 door car. Why? Cuz we have a sedan. :-/
But mostly AWD reduces those problems through a gearing system called a center differential.
Center differential is also where problems are created. If all wheels run independently (as in other cars to have better safety), then four wheel drive does not get you started. That center differential must have what was called positrack. It intentionally causes wheels to fight for control at higher speeds so that four wheel drive can get you started. It also reduces traction and stability on the highway.
Stability control computer is an expensive solution not found in saver cars. Required to monitor those wheels fighting each other. It even applies brakes to one wheel to keep the four wheel drive from doing what is too common - a roll over. That computer is not found and not needed on a 'safer' car. Although GM did try to promote that expensive computer system using expressions such as anti-lock brakes.
All-wheel drive only provides one useful function - to get you started. It does not provide more safety once moving and does not provide better vehicle stability. It means braking may not be as good. Many four wheel drives add that expensive stability control computer and other expensive hardware because four wheel drive can even mean less effective braking. Because so many all-wheel drive vehicles flip or more easily lose control on highways.
Spend more to have less safety? The advertising forgets to mention why these vehicles are more dangerous to people inside and outside. It contradicts to requirements defined by Lola Bunny.
The car guys noted a better vehicles for Alaska. The caller was considering a Jeep. A vehicles better described as barbaric; is that technically obsolete. They recommended something more reliable and better for Alaska's roads - a Subaru. But that is not the relevant venue. Relevant are facts introduced in every April issue of Consumer Reports.
I enjoy how you chose the 60s (!) marketing (!) term "positrack" which was used to market only GM (!) vehicles with RWD (!).
Mona Lisa Vito: The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can't make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!
Vinny Gambini: And why not? What is positraction?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark had a regular differential, which, anyone who's been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing.
[the jury members nod, with murmurs of "yes," "that's right," etc]
Vinny Gambini: Is that it?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, there's more! You see? When the left tire mark goes up on the curb and the right tire mark stays flat and even? Well, the '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle, so when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along its edge. But that didn't happen here. The tire mark stayed flat and even. This car had an independent rear suspension. Now, in the '60's, there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest.
A classic scene which tells us about the benefits of "posi-track" in the 1960s.
Center differential is also where problems are created. If all wheels run independently (as in other cars to have better safety), then four wheel drive does not get you started. That center differential must have what was called positrack. It intentionally causes wheels to fight for control at higher speeds so that four wheel drive can get you started. It also reduces traction and stability on the highway.
No no no, Positraction was GM's name for their limited slip differential, other companies had other names. The limited slip differential was in the center of the axle, usually rear, to feed power to the wheel with the most traction. Without it, if the right rear was on ice you were going nowhere because only one wheel was driven out of four.
The center differential is a whole different animal, splitting the power between the front and rear axles.
Stability control computer is an expensive solution not found in saver cars. Required to monitor those wheels fighting each other. It even applies brakes to one wheel to keep the four wheel drive from doing what is too common - a roll over. That computer is not found and not needed on a 'safer' car.
The NHTSA seems to disagree with your opinion.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability Control Systems As part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes, this rule establishes Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126 to require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 Kg (10,000 pounds) or less. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations. NHTSA estimates ESC will reduce single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34% and single vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59%, with a much greater reduction of rollover crashes. NHTSA estimates ESC would save 5,300 to 9,600 lives and prevent 156,000 to 238,000 injuries in all types of crashes annually once all light vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC.
You do realize stability control systems originated on high end European cars, especially high performance models, don't you? Didn't think so.
Although GM did try to promote that expensive computer system using expressions such as anti-lock brakes.
Anti-lock brakes are on ALL cars since 2007. It's the law.
All-wheel drive only provides one useful function - to get you started. It does not provide more safety once moving and does not provide better vehicle stability.
With one wheel driving, you'll be in for a lot of fun in slippery going.
It means braking may not be as good.
May? May, from the fountain of truth?
Many four wheel drives add that expensive stability control computer and other expensive hardware because four wheel drive can even mean less effective braking. Because so many all-wheel drive vehicles flip or more easily lose control on highways.
We, along with the NHTSA, already debunked that shit.
The car guys noted a better vehicles for Alaska. The caller was considering a Jeep. A vehicles better described as barbaric; is that technically obsolete. They recommended something more reliable and better for Alaska's roads - a Subaru.
Talk radio? ADAK, is that you?
The quadra driveII system in my Jeep is a mechanical system. Not an expensive computer. It uses the vari-lock gear to slip power to any of the 4 wheels that are getting traction.
http://icpcitation.com/variloc_theory.htm
You are clearly out of your depth, tw. Why dont you sit a few plays out.
Oh, and I was out driving in the snow today, and it works GREAT!
Lola, if you decide on the Altima, give me a call. I'll help you with it.
Get a Cooper Lola !!!
No don't. It was my friend's dream car and it's gone already. uncomfortable
A classic scene which tells us about the benefits of "posi-track" in the 1960s.
So that a car does not crash, all wheels must rotate independent of each other. Positrack and other systems used in all-wheel drives must keep wheels from rotating separately. Otherwise one wheel will spin and no other wheel will move the vehicle. Positrack (as noted earlier was just another word for how it is still done.
Four wheel drive gets you going. That same system then makes a vehicles less stable and less safe at higher speeds. Jeeps are particularly barbaric - less safe. Just one of many reasons why all-wheel drive vehicles roll over or spin off roads at higher speeds. And why they eat tires faster.
Many just know all-wheel drive is safer because feelings say so. Same advertising myths ignore another fact. Cars with anti-lock brakes also crash more often. Why do numbers contradict popularly held beliefs? Most of us even believed a lie about Saddam's WMDs - because only spin said it must be so.
A safety feature that should be standard in an Altima or Camry is speed sensitive steering. Far more important than all-wheel drive or anti-lock brakes. Just another reason why those vehicles are rated batter. But rarely known to many only informed by advertising.
Same advertising myths ignore another fact. Cars with anti-lock brakes also crash more often. Why do numbers contradict popularly held beliefs?
So I went to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
ABS not reducing crashes was an early finding during the lifetime of ABS. Studies in 1995-96 showed no differences in crash numbers. and yet ABS dramatically improves your ability to stop. How could that be?
Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.
Makes sense right? You've just improved your car's stopping power by a large margin. So now you don't hit the car in front of you, but the vehicle behind you, which doesn't have ABS, rear-ends YOU. The improvement resulted in the crash.
Also, in the first decade of ABS, half the people didn't know how to use it:
A 1994 Institute survey of drivers with antilock-equipped cars found that more than 50 percent in North Carolina and 40 percent in Wisconsin incorrectly thought they should pump the brakes.
So... what happened when ABS became more broadly available? Especially since today it's required on all cars? A 2009 study on the long-term effect of ABS says...
A more recent federal report concluded that ABS reduces overall crash involvement risk by 6 percent for cars and 8 percent for pickups and SUVs but has no effect on fatal crash risk.
So, ABS improves your chances of not hitting things when you're at non-fatal speeds. Well sure. Under slippery conditions, drivers tend to be below fatal speeds, whereas if you're going 80, fatality is in the reaction time hitting your brakes at all.
Bottom line: once numbers are provided, another tw canon falls.
ABS does NOT allow you stop faster. ABS allows you brake as hard as possible, while retaining the ability to control(steer) the vehicle around shit.
ABS is better than skidding though, isn't it? You can stop faster without ABS if you are very familiar with your brakes and stopping hard just under the threshold of foot pressure that would lock up the wheels and put you into a skid. But most people aren't practiced enough to do that, so ABS gives them the next best thing. And a significant fringe benefit is being able to steer while standing on the brake pedal, pushing it through the floor.
ABS is a great equalizer. Makes average drivers almost as good as top drivers at stopping.
I fucking love my Hyundai Sonata.
217,000 miles with no problems. Just routine maintenance.
Still looking great apart from the rust and the slight smell of dead deer in the trunk when it rains...
All the electronic shit still works.
i'd like to see YOUR numbers that say that 4WD makes a car less stable at speed, tw. or is it just an opinion based in feelings?
If you're going down a wet road at 55 mph, and you hit a long puddle...like the kind that form in lanes where the road has rippled from use..... and the tires on the right side begin to hydroplane.... (most 2 wheel drive cars are actually ONE wheel drive)
.... if that drive tire happens to be the one to lose traction suddenly and begins to spin faster because the gas is still being applied and there is no resistance from the surface...
.... the driver senses the loss of traction, maybe corrects course to get away from the puddle, and now that wheel that had been spinning extra fast because it lost traction, GRABS the drier spot, and weee! your car jerks, maybe you get back into the puddle, suddenly slowing, and wooo! you're in a spin.
the car that shunts power to the tracking wheel when it detects spin maintains even acceleration the whole time as they swerve around the dickhead in the honda that just bought it in front of them.
Roll over occurs more in vehicles that have high centers of gravity and narrow tracks. I don't know what that has to do with 4WD. The Wrangler will roll if it's been lifted 6 inches. The worst culprit back in the early 90's was the Bronco II. VERY tall and narrow. The Suzuki got all the press, but the Bronc was worse. I put 1.5 inch spacers (3" wider track) on my commander and a 2.5" lift kit. It's a 5200 lb vehicle. plus it has YAW control...VDC ...it engages the ABS to correct detected roll....
I'd imagine it would roll more easily than an Altima... but it's not scary to drive at all. It really did do a great job in that snow on Sunday. The Nitto Dura grappler tires are new and excellent, as well.
As for ABS, bruce is right. it's not supposed to make you stop FASTER. it's supposed to help you stop SAFER.
Off road or in deep snow, ABS lengthens stopping distance because a locked up tire will amass a pile of dirt or snow in front and that actually aids in deceleration. but how often do we really drive in that condition?
ABS can lengthen stopping distance on wet roads as well. The focus is on safer stopping, as you say, so the brakes adjust to avoid locking the wheel. You're not supposed to pump or feather anti-lock brakes because the system does it for you.
I love, love, love my 2005 4Runner. And I'm getting it back! Yay! It has never gotten stuck - in deep mud, driving across snowy fields, you name it. Although it did once go into a 4-wheel slide on I-80 in the PA Alleghenies and almost took me through the too-low guardrail of a high bridge. Wasn't its fault; I forgave it, once my heart restarted.
The others have already provided the numbers, so I'll throw in a little experience ... my 2005 4Runner was one of the last SUVs to have true 4WD. You have to shift over to it manually at low speed. You can then shift to a lower differential if needed. Not only does 4WD get you going, it gives you immeasurably better traction and control in snow and mud of various depths. It's not meant to be used above 50-55 mph and the owner's manual is emphatic about this. Of course - if conditions warrant 4WD, you shouldn't be traveling that fast. But if you have to navigate country roads and steep hills in a severe snowstorm (Canadian or American), you'll do it at relatively low speed, far more safely in 4WD than in 2WD or all-wheel drive. 4WD is good for much more than just getting going. My $0.02.
[YOUTUBE]0PmxnShlfZI[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]t09ExAUgtyE[/YOUTUBE]
[youtubewide]Mebye7T71fY[/youtubewide]
THIS IS IMPRESSIVE
check out the amount of articulation this thing gets. around 17 & again at 55 seconds... you see the wheels stretch down to stay in contact with the ground, and squish up to allow it to climb over things...
ABS does NOT allow you stop faster. ABS allows you brake as hard as possible, while retaining the ability to control(steer) the vehicle around shit.
Why do cars with ABS brakes have higher crash rates? And why did GM promote them as a solution to stopping on ice? Spinning myths (and the resulting spinning car) is easy when a majority of consumers are educated by hearsay and advertising. Most people only believe the first thing they are told. Then get angry rather than learn when ABS realities are reported.
Both ABS and all-wheel drive were promoted as safer. If true, then someone said why. Nobody did for one simple reason. Only recited was an impression promoted by hearsay and advertising.
All-wheel drive cannot work properly if wheels are not designed to fight each other. That interlocking means four wheel drive gets one moving. Accurately reported is to not use all-wheel drive above 50 because all-wheel drive means the wheels fight. 50 MPH severely decreases safety. All-wheel drive also decreases safety at 30. Just not as much since at 50, since higher speed means these vehicles often roll over. A result of interlocked and fighting wheels.
Lola Bunny asked about safer and more reliable cars. Speed sensitive steering makes them even safer. Since that means a driver knows about black ice and other dangerous conditions unknown to SUV drivers.
:facepalm: No, no, no. Speed-sensitive steering does NOT mean that a driver knows about black ice (where are your numbers proving that SUV drivers don't know about black ice and other dangerous conditions, tw?). It means that the steering is closer to pure rack-and-pinion at lower speeds and has a little play at high speeds, so that amateur drivers don't inadvertently twitch the wheel at 110 mph and throw themselves across the median.
And you're confusing 4WD with all-wheel drive. All-wheel drive assigns more drive to the wheel(s) with traction. 4WD drives equally from all four wheels. All-wheel drive was engineered for higher speeds; 4WD is meant for low speeds. Do not use 4WD above 50 mph.
Tw, How do wheels fight one another? What do you mean by that? And, how does it results in the rollover?
tw's throwing around information he heard decades ago, and even the little that has some basis of truth is sadly out of date.
But this isn't helping Lola because being an urban Texan, I doubt she needs anything capable of real tough going, just family transportation. ;)
It means that the steering is closer to pure rack-and-pinion at lower speeds and has a little play at high speeds,
Heavy power steering so common in SUVs means you cannot tell when tires start losing traction. With speed sensitive steering, you can actually feel which wheel has struck ice. Know that a road is turning to ice long before the crash can happen.
There is no significant increased play at higher speeds. Once a car is moving more than 5 MPH, then power steering is no longer useful. It only keeps the driver ignorant of road conditions. Twitching at 110 is not eliminated by speed sensitive steering. Vehicles with worst steering keep power steering always on. To mask an inferior design and poor tracking. Especially true of some vehicles that did not use rack-and-pinion (ie trucks and SUVs).
A 'not informed' driver 'feels' safer when power steering is always left on. No speed sensitive steering is why some SUV drivers *feel* safer on ice. They have no idea. Power steering always left on also masks a crappy steering system. And can increase the automaker's profit by $20.
Lumberjim - why do I keep posting this here and in another thread. And you still do not read it?
Again: All-wheel drive and 4 wheel drive are functionally same. The original 4 wheel drive was so tightly interlocked that Jeeps would even flip over front to back. Newer designs 'loosened' that interlock while new names were invented for each variation. But in every case, wheels still must be interlocked. Otherwise it (4 wheel / all-wheel) does not get you started.
Lumberjim, your own video demonstrated 4 wheel drives unable to move when some wheels spin and the interlock is too loose. If any one wheel spins on ice and the wheels are not interlocked tightly, then the engine only spins that wheel faster and spins no other wheel. Even your video demonstrates what I kept saying here and in other threads.
Sometimes you can hear tires fighting even in a parking lot. If tires rotate independently, then a screech on sharp turns does not happen. Some SUVs are so tightly interlocked as to even screech tires while turning into a parking space. Sales brochures forget to mention that.
Interlocking is, for example, why I found a new all-wheel (4 wheel) drive truck under a porch. His truck went off road, through a mailbox, and ended up underneath the porch. Why? He was using all-wheel drive. He believed popular myths rather than learn why interlocked wheels decrease safety and control at speed.
Posted again are many reasons why 4/all wheel drive means less safety at speed. And why it is necessary to get the vehicle started. The next useful reply will finally say why interlocked wheels are safer; why tires do not fight for traction.
Myths about four/all wheel drive and ABS (which the same people repeatedly deny without saying why) are irrelevant to Lola Bunny who is asking for a safer and more reliable vehicle. Who will tell her she needs all-wheel drive ... by saying why.
Lola, have you looked at the new Sentra? It's really come a long way. Looks very similar to the Altima. Much bigger than it used to be.
http://m.nissanusa.com/?original_path=/sentra&dcp=ppn.63023882.&dcc=0.240189300#_frmVehicleLandingIt has speed sensitive variable power assist steering. And ABS!
I think you should get a three wheel drive car, lola. You only need three points of contact to level an object (three points to describe a plane). Four is too many, and invariably one doesn't actually make contact, but will if pressure is applied at the right point causing the object to wobble -like a table or a chair. if we redesigned furniture with three legs, we'd nevery need to wedge wonky legs again. they don't make three wheel cars any more -and they look stupid, but if you have three wheel drive, it's effectively the same. plus you can bling out the fourth wheel or use it as a lazy Susan. You definitely want Abs, but you can always ad them afterwards using an intense workout program.
... you see the wheels stretch down to stay in contact with the ground...
I saw a tow truck the other day. I was really annoyed with it because I was waiting to jaywalk, and it was the only car on the road, but it was going really slow, so I had to wait a long time. It was towing a van, and wasn't a very big tow truck. When it got in front of me, I realized why it was going so slowly. the pavement had slight ripples to it, and every time it hit a ripple, the tow truck's front wheels bounced off the pavement and lingered in the air a few inches above the pavement for at least a few seconds. This was at about 10 mph. Almost no weight on those front wheels. I watched it for as long as I could, because I figured it was going to smash in to something, but it was going straight, and had no trouble doing that. I wish I could have seen it try to turn.
Lola,
more important to you than the ABS and AWD debates is the radio.
I'm not being patronizing. I'm dead serious. Many new cars have very difficult to operate radios, controlled by touch screens. You cant' just reach over with your eyes on the road and turn the knobs by feel or push the familiar buttons. You need to pull over to operate the damn things. It's a safety issue. When you get in any of these cars to try them out, see if you can operate the radio while driving. Also see if you can adjust the climate control. Turn on the defrost. These should be very simple things, and some cars get them wrong. It's a trendy thing now to put touch screens in cars and I'm dismayed by it. Touch screens have no business in cars. If you can't operate it by feel with a split second glance, it shouldn't be in a car.
You may find that an otherwise great car is dead to you because you can't operate the radio or turn on the defrost without pulling over.
Having said that, based mainly on the consumer report ratings and my own gut feelings and preferences, I would say that if money is of little concern, you should get the CR top rated Hybrid Camry XLE for $29K. If money is of great concern, you should get the Hyundai Sonata GLS for $22K. If you fall somewhere in the middle, you should look at the Honda Accord LX for $23K and the Camry LE for $23K. I'd also look at the Mazda 6 Sport for $24k and the Nissan Altima 2.5 S for $23K. All are excellent choices.
I'm not generally a fan of 6 cylinder engines. They have more power, which comes in handy about 1% of the time you are driving, but is never absolutely necessary. And they get poor to mediocre fuel economy 100% of the time you are driving. I'd focus on the 4 cylinder models. They all go fast enough to get you a speeding ticket and will keep up with traffic.
You cant' just reach over with your eyes on the road and turn the knobs by feel or push the familiar buttons. You need to pull over to operate the damn things. It's a safety issue.
Just turn on the cruise control, that way the car drives itself and you can devote your full attention to the radio... or making a sandwich. :unsure::smack::lol2:
Maybe sixes aren't needed where YOU live Glatt, but around here with micro short passing lanes, curvy roads, and a preponderance of cotton tops and seasonal tourists, not having six cylinders adds 15 minutes to a commute.
It's true that more power can come in handy. But it comes with a tradeoff.
YMMV, literally.
I don't call trading safety for savings a good deal. :headshake
I'd be curious to see any studies that show cars with 6 cylinder engines are safer than cars with 4 cylinder engines.
I would expect insurance rates to be higher on cars with 6 cylinder engines based on them being more likely to be involved in accidents because there's more power in a 6 cylinder engine for a driver to abuse.
I would like to see a study showing 6 cylinder cars have more accidents than 4 cylinder cars. I think that's complete bullshit, along with the idea that drivers of 6 cylinder cars drive faster, or more recklessly. You said yourself speed is limited by the rest of the traffic.
I will agree however, if your situational awareness, and driving skills suck, having the power to evade and avoid is useless to you. You might as well get a 4 cylinder and spend the time until somebody nails you, daydreaming about how you'll spend that 12 cents you saved on gas this week.
It's amazing how much our sense of identity gets wrapped up in cars. Myself included.
Kids today don't even really want cars. Not in the cities anyway. Car club memberships like zip cars are all the rage. We've got 3 car sharing companies in DC.
I was just as much of an asshole driver when I had 4 cylinders as I am now. Maybe more so. Being stuck behind someone, unable to pass for 45 minutes because they wouldn't pull over and my 4 cylinder car unable to over take them and get back into my lane led to me taking risks so I didn't have to get stuck like that again. I also got one of the two tickets I've gotten in my life for unsafe passing because I couldn't get back into my lane before the stripes changed.
My mileage is usually 26mpg, but I have a sticky caliper and haven't had a chance to fix it so my mpg has dropped to about 20. It's taking about 100 miles of travel from a tank of gas. (about $20 bucks - I need to fix that asap)
I admit to being impatient when I am going to an appointment, I can be perfectly chill otherwise. Still, slow driving, e.g., 40 in a 55 frosts me. Especially when the driver is blissfully unaware of other cars and is marveling at the local splendor.
40 in a 55 is completely unreasonable. Unless there's ice on the road or something. Even then, you should pull over and let cars pass.
I can only think of a couple times in my life where I really wished I had that extra power. And one time was in a rental car. I had pulled over at some roadside vendor north of Toronto on Canadian thanksgiving weekend. Traffic was extremely heavy with absolutely no breaks and the ramp to get up to speed was relatively short with no merge lane. After waiting several minutes for any break, I just pulled an asshole move where I got up to speed and barged my way in. Somebody let me in. Come to think of it, accelerating wasn't the problem, it was simply finding a gap to coincide with the end of the ramp. I didn't like that.
You're right, it wasn't the rental car - it was the insane traffic and bad design of Hwys 400 and 11, north of Toronto. (And Hwy 69, which is a death trap.) Driving there anytime is hair-raising. In winter, just to add spice, Hwy 400 routinely gets white-outs.
It helps though, if you're able to accelerate fast enough to be going faster than traffic by the time you get to the end of the merge lane.
CoughHemiCough
AhemV8Ahem
Snort 5.7LTRSnort
Oh, and. ..
Choke11.4mpgChoke
Psst... your Hemi ain't a hemi, it's a wedge.
What's this now? It says hemi right on the deck lid! 2 plugs per cylinder....
It's an '06 5.7 ltr. I did notice that subsequent years removed the HEMI logo. .... have I been living a lie?!
What is the difference tween em?
Mopar (Jeep) is trading on the reputation of the hemis of old, starting with the 241 ci through 392 ci in the 50's, but particularly the 426 ci from '66 to '70. The 426 was the motor that swept NASCAR, until they outlawed it. The name hemi was slang for hemispherical combustion chamber head design (which allowed better air flow in and out, at high rpm), as opposed to the 383 ci through 440 ci big block Mopars which had a wedge head design.
Around Y2K they tried to build a new V-8 engine with hemi heads but couldn't make one pass emission standards and mileage demands. The only true hemi in the lineup was the 4 cylinder PT Cruiser.
Enter the marketing boys. Since hemi is a slang term having no legal definition, but conjures up the rump-de-rump of Mopar's hayday, we'll use it anyway. So what does Hemi mean? Nothing much, it's a marketing term for their V-8 motors.
By the way, the 426 ci ground pounding "elephant" motors they're alluding to... they only sold 11,000 total in the 60's.
It's an '06 5.7 ltr.
A 5.7 liter Chrysler engine was 60 hp/liter in the 2006 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum. By the 1990s, that was an obsolete technology. A 5.7 liter engine in a 2006 Dodge Durango was less - only 59 Hp/liter.
Minimum for any gasoline car since 1992 was 70 Hp/liter. Another of so many reasons why no car needs a six or eight cylinder engine.
Higher performance engines also mean less pollution. Another problem with obsolete technology Hemis.
To make them noisier - so the naive wish it is a high performance muscle car - the 5.7 liter engine in the Dodge Charger was a pathetic 44 Hp/liter. More noise means it is burning more gas uselessly in the exhaust pipe - to enthrall the penis. Low performance (ie 44 Hp/liter) indicates a vehicle of less quality and shorter life expectancy. Crappy (noisier) engines also identify consumers easily brainwashed by myths and soundbytes. As if names such as Hemi, Mustang, or Camaro prove it is better.
A car built in the past 20 years with a V-8 is for consumers who are manipulated by soundbytes; will spend more for an inferior (obsolete technology) product. What was innovative in the 1960s was also obsolete technology by the 1980s. Hemi is a name from ancient history - when cars were being designed by engineers; not by bean counters.
Thanks, man. I was having difficulty describing to Amanda what flavor of crazy you were. That oughta do it, though.
"My penis is enthralled.' That's great. That's tw-an for 'gives me wood', right?
Well, yeah. The hemi gives me a semi.
Thanks, man. I was having difficulty describing to Amanda what flavor of crazy you were.
You do not even know the basics of cars. A finance guy with little knowledge about the product. You probably even drive a V-8. No wonder you only post insults.
I know the basics of your mom
I know the basics of your mom
Basic knowledge says V-8 engines have long been obsolete technology. Recognizing your ignorance, you do what a child does in anger: attack with insults. Deny reality.
You have and post no facts. Just a misguided belief in an obsolete technology. You believed an advertising sales gimmick – Hemi. Cheapshots and naivety do not change reality. A world's lowest performance 2006 engine is a Hemi in a Dodge Challenger.
Advertising easily manipulates the naïve. But worry if you wake up some morning to find a talking Gecko making your breakfast. You do believe in Geckos, don’t you? Advertising says so.
If Lola Bunny wants a chauffeur, I'll work for only fringe benefits (wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more).
Tom,
I reply to you with insults because you are nearly impossible to communicate with. You don't listen to what people say, you just keep repeating yourself. I've said multiple times in this very thread that I have a 2006 Jeep Commander that has a 5.7 ltr V8. Yet, a couple posts ago, you say I probably drive a V8.
I've been on this forum since 2003... In the car business the whole time, and 8 years before that. How could you seriously say that I don't know the basics of cars? I've helped several people buy cars... Hell, I even spearheaded buying a car for someone. I know you know that because you contributed to it!
I would like to get to know you better so that we could communicate effectively. How can we do that? You wanna meet up for beers some time or something?
After Lola Bunny gets her new car, I don't think we'll have to worry about her coming back here saying "I could've had a V8! :smack:"
Just picked up my kid in town after a nice snowfall, I still love my Suzuki SX4.
[youtube]EUbjBANcEEY[/youtube]
Its a very fun speed racer.
But, but... 4 wheel drive... you could be killed... and maimed... and hurt. :eek:
Gee, I heard that somewhere...
If you really want to hate me, my favorite vehicle ever was a 1986 CJ-7.
Oh no, not hate... just pity for your inability to think as an adult, and making childish choices endangering your family and the planet. I weep for mankind. :mecry:
So my PT Cruiser is a Hemi? Vrooooooooooom LOL My tractor's hydraulic pump took a crap so I hooked a chain to my PT Cruiser and dragged a 700 bale of hay out to my cows the other day...
Heee I need another truck :rolleyes: What do you all think of FORDs?
I don't know much about Fords (my peekup is a Toyota) but my Dad's Farmall 460 is a hemi.
TW - You seem like a learned man, possibly an engineer? Simply curious. I've noticed you are quite disagreeable, anti-authoritarian, and quick to "put down" others. I wonder if your anger stems from sexual frustration or perhaps your mother didn't breast feed you?
I reply to you with insults because you are nearly impossible to communicate with. You don't listen to what people say, you just keep repeating yourself. I've said multiple times in this very thread that I have a 2006 Jeep Commander that has a 5.7 ltr V8.
GM had executives with 30 and 40 years of experience. So why did GM sell cars so bad as to even cost $200 more than their selling price? 30 and 40 years of experience in the auto industry resulted in almost car knowledge. Years of employment do not define knowledge. Especially when it comes from working in finance. You can be insulted or you can read a fact based in corporate history. Be emotional or logical.
Posted facts are unpopular and unknown because so many believe propaganda (ie advertising and hearsay). I have a nasty habit of mostly exposing such myths. As you remember from 2003, I accurately defined Mission Accomplished as deceit. Lies were exposed even using concepts proven 2000 years before Columbus existed. Only the fewer saw or agreed. That conclusion was extremely unpopular. And it was based in facts with total disregard for anyone's emotions. Since emotions are disingenuous.
Defined was another simple and irrefutable fact. A 2006 Chrysler 5.7 liter (Hemi) V-8 is a lowest performance engine. Reasons why were provided: Dodge Charger was only 44 Hp/liter. Even most Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Chevy (and high failure) engines from 10 years earlier were superior - 52 Hp/liter. A 2006 Hemi in a Dodge Challenger was inferior even to low performance and high failure rate GM engines. But many know otherwise due to hype, hearsay, and emotion. Sorry if that makes you angry. But reality means adults swallow and ignore their emotions. Reality means learning how easily hype and lies created a Hemi myth. Demonstrated is the honesty that more concerns fewer adults. And the reasons why with numbers that accompany honesty.
To communicate, post facts with numbers. Don't post feelings. Or another popular myth is, “I do this therefore it must be better.” Chrysler’s 1960s Hemi was a standard performance engine. A Chrysler Hemi thirty years later was one of the worst engines in 2006. Thirty years later, Hemi was associated with crap and obsolete technology - when one learns numbers and ignores propaganda.
Nothing here or in my other posts are "disagreeable, anti-authoritarian, and quick to "put down" others." Only facts were stated as facts; without emotions or 'put downs'. Reality remains reality no matter how it makes one feel. Adults deal with reality. Lying to someone to only make them feel good - that is what children want.
A greatest respect for any adult is honesty. Insults, cheapshots, or rhetoric are not communication. Honest facts with reasons makes communication useful. That means perspective - the numbers. Where were any numbers that justify respect for a 2006 Chrysler V-8? None were provided. And so ignored numbers were reposted – ie 44 Hp/liter. When you did not reply with facts, I simply reposted ignored facts that you did not even challenge.
Return to why many adults did not want to learn reality. For example, no reason existed to believe Saddam had WMDs. Most adults unfortunately wanted to hear what made them feel good - rather than learn they had been deceived. You know the so many here in 2003 who disliked only because I posted reality. Even provided numbers that exposed George Jr's lies. One could have learned in 2003 why reality is "disagreeable". Today we know George Jr was lying. How many learned why his lies were obvious? How many still want to 'kill the messenger'? I am always amazed how many get angry rather than reply with facts framed in the reasons why and numbers. And how many do not apologize for entertaining their emotions rather than see George Jr lies that exposed a WMD myth.
Posts encourage Lola Bunny to buy a car that is actually best for her as well as for American workers. The Camry says to the 'powers that be', "Innovate". Unfortunately many only want obsolete and crappy products such a low performance 2006 Dodge Charger. Or four wheel drive because advertising spins myths about safety.
How many kids change mufflers to increase noise? Why would anyone want to reduce horsepower, reduce mileage, increase valve wear, and increase pollution? Hearsay, propaganda, advertising, and myths must be true?
Numbers say why 2006 Jeeps were so crappy as to destroy American jobs. Jeep Grand Cherokee with a V-8 was only 50 or 58 Hp/liter. Or Jeep Wrangler engines that were only 61 or 47 Hp/liter. Crap.
Communicate with honesty; ignore emotions. Better communication means you could have posted this to move a conversation forward. Facts you could have posted. In Chrysler, some innovation happened after government targeted the reason for crap - top management. A 2012 Grand Cherokee now has 80, 63, or 73 Hp/liter engines. Useful communication notes a best Cherokee engine is its V-6. Facts with numbers and without emotion say why. How anyone feels is irrelevant. Adults get greatest pleasure from learning truth and reality. And by exposing myths, lies, and spin. This paragraph demonstrates what you could have posted.
Lola Bunny is considering a Camry. For example, a 4 cylinder Camry is a 71 Hp/liter engine. With as much or more horsepower than American 1970s big block V-8s that moved much heavier cars. More than enough horsepower and sufficient performance meaning it will also be more reliable. Numbers define it as a best product.
Why would anyone make a 2006 'muscle car' with a pathetic 44 Hp/liter engine? It makes much noise. That low performance V-8 Dodge Charger even appeared in Consumer Report's "Used Cars to Avoid". Doing numbers in 2006 predicted same. That is not "disagreeable, anti-authoritarian, and quick to "put down" others." It is reality - what adults need. This paragraph simply demonstrates how adults expose lies and inferior products. But some will feel it is a “put down”.
Communicate by facts. If facts make you angry, then you know you (not facts) have a problem. You could have said why that low performance Hemi was really not low performance. You could have said why tightly interlocked wheels (ie all-wheel drive) do not reduce safety. But you did not. Instead you posted disparaging remarks because facts contradicted your beliefs. You even ignored numbers and did not dispute numbers that define reality.
Why do manufacturers not tightly interlock wheels to work (in that video) on ice? Tighter interlocking reduces safety - as explained previously. If you know otherwise, then state why so many vehicles (in your video) do not tightly interlock the wheels. Not once did you do that. So reasons why tighter interlocking decreases safety were repeated. Because you did not read it the first time and only posted denials without facts.
I do not post popular beliefs. When reality contradicts popular feelings and beliefs, well, those are my best posts. You know it because others responded with emotional outbursts rather than logically with facts and numbers. Others can learn from their outbursts. Emotion and insult is a first indication that 'he' is easily brainwashed by propaganda and hearsay. ‘He’ is only citing rhetoric he was ordered to believe.
How many back in 2003 (when you first joined) hated me for accurately defining George Jr as a liar? Not a rhetorical question. Many forget how facts that exposed WMD myths made them angry. Many forget they were advocating a useless massacre of thousands of American servicemen. None apologized to being so wrong and naive. Should I be upset? Of course not. Their anger then and now tell me how easily people such as Rush Limbaugh can brainwash them. That is not a “put down”. The fewer who never post insults and disparaging remarks deserve attention. Because they are using what adults need BEFORE knowing anything - facts with reasons why and numbers.
Another example: in a previous discussion, another got nasty because I defined stock brokers as some of the worst stock investors. That reality is appreciated by fewer who know by first learning facts. And still, that reality makes some angry. I don't care. They are entertaining their emotions rather than posting hard facts and numbers to dispute that reality. Their emotions only confirm that stock brokers are poor investors; typically underperform the market. Another example of how to communicate with honestly. If stock brokers make helpful investment recommendations, then post numbers that say so. Instead, another got angry rather than prove what contradicted reality.
Defined, with numerous examples and reasons why, is how to communicate. The question has no sound byte answer. Ignoring facts and numbers to post a feeling and no 'reasons why' means facts and numbers are reposted. To say, stop ignoring these damning facts. That 2006 Chrysler V-8 is a pathetic 44 Hp/liter - reposted because the fact cannot be ignored. Also posted are numbers that say what happened once Obama all but fired scumbag Chrysler management. Who then eliminated that low performance 44 Hp/liter engine. Damning numbers.
What do you all think of FORDs?
Do numbers for your PT Cruiser. Hemi is a V-8. Yours has how many cylinders? Salesmen use words to promote myths and lies. PT Cruiser used a higher performance engine originally developed for the Neon.
Appreciate what happened in Ford AND a critical number: 70 Hp/liter. William Clay Ford (an executive who actually had a driver's license) took control in 2000. He discovered bean counters (Petersen and Nasser) played money games and even had no products in development - to cut costs. William Clay in 2000 ordered Ford to design an engine that was developed in GM in the early 1970s - which GM still does not offer in all their cars.
In 2007, Ford losses were at record levels. How can that be if William Clay started designing in 2000? Because informed consumers know it takes four to ten years to design new products. Economics 101. Products started in 2000 would not appear until after 2008.
Chrysler and GM needed government money in part due to no new products and due to obsolete technology six and eight cylinder engines. Management was lying about the only reason for massive losses - even blaming unions. Ford knew work done in 2000 would soon appear as profits after 2008. It takes how long for an innovator to create profits? Ford (while suffering record losses) took no government money. Because William Clay had a driver's license. He understood basic Economics (how long it takes to design anything). And knew record profits were coming due to products designed by engineers (not by finance people).
In a meeting, Mulally said that next year, all Ford products would have a four cylinder option. Because engineers in 2000 were finally permitted to design an engine that GM could have been producing 30 years previously. Because best cars use four cylinders; obsolete technology needs more cylinders. Ford's are superior because four cylinder engines doing more than 70 Hp/liter are available in all Ford cars. Because engineers (not bean-counters) designed those products.
Today's standard technology four cylinder engines do as much or more than a 1970s big block V-8. Today's engines will also be anti-American obsolete in 20 years. Well understood to people who appreciate the product. And problematic to anti-innovation finance people.
But again, don't take my word for it. Get Consumer Reports and do the numbers yourself. Those numbers are in every April issue. Any layman can do this arithmetic. And learn what happens when engineers replace business school graduates as designers.
My PT Cruiser was bought so that I could remove the seats to fit dog crates and because it had heated seats. :) But the primary reasons were one owner who 'order bought' this Dream Cruiser and she was selling it for $2500 under book price. I usually pay cash for cars/trucks. I never buy New.
I have a 1986 Ford truck with a 351 Windsor engine. [4 speed] I can probably move a house with it but the mechanical parts are outliving the body. {I love that it is 4wD} I love that I can see the ground when peering down from the top of the engine. That means I can fit my hands in there while working on it. I love that parts are cheap.
I miss my PT Cruiser, Nirvana, comfortable, easy in & out, good visibility, good power and mileage. You could use tw at your place, make the crops grow fast. ;)
My PT Cruiser ...
I have a 1986 Ford truck with a 351 Windsor engine.
These two vehicles demonstrate innovation. A mid-1980 351 Windsor (carbureted V-8)) engine found in Ford Trucks and Mustang was typically 160 horsepower. A four cylinder engine in a typical PT Cruiser was 150 horsepower.
My '86 Ford Crown Vic LX with 302 cu. in. ("5.0 L" - 4,942 cc) Windsor was the first year they put a sequential fire electronic fuel injector on each cylinder in the Crown Vic and I had it for 21 years. The 351 cu. in. (5.8 L) Windsor went into the police car version.
I'm not angry at all tw. I didn't buy the jeep for its HP/ltr ratio. Or for how much noise it makes. I bought it for partially emotional reasons. It's cool as shit. Looks awesome, great four wheel drive, comfortable, loaded with convenience features, gobs of low end torque. I think you've missed my point about 4wd, too. I posted the video about jeep because you said they use expensive computer systems to control them. They don't. The Subaru video was to highlight the difference between actual 4wd vs all wheel drive.
I didn't recommend the Jeep to Lola, either.
In a 4x4, low end torque is more important than horses, in my opinion. The 4ltr straight 6 jeep used to make was excellent in this category. In 2000, I had a 99 Cherokee back then. Loved it. Too small for 2 kids though.
What car would you recommend for Lola, tw?
What do you drive?
In a 4x4, low end torque is more important than horses, in my opinion.
Absolutely. Low end torque is the whole point of 4x4.
My $.02 recommendation for Lola would be a Toyota. Their reliability, ease of maintenance, longevity, and ability to hold Blue Book value make them my favorite cars. Budget and personal philosophy would determine the choice, whether a Prius, a Tercel or Camry, one of their SUVs ... buyer's choice.
We own a Hyundai Sonata that is also a fantastic car and very reasonable to maintain. I don't know anything about the rest of the Hyundai line. But my favorite car so far has been my 2005 4Runner.
I think a Hyundai product might be an excellent choice when you consider their warranty. I understand Kia has extended warranties also.
I made the statement that the V8 is the way to go. I have owned V8s most of my life for the power/pulling capabilities. However to be truthful, I haven't owned a V8 in almost 2 years. I have a 4 cylinder Geo Tracker to use as a "mini-jeep" and my M35A2 with an inline 6 cylinder multifuel engine as a work horse.
I prefer an all wheel drive option. To me, they greatly improve handling in rain or mud. We don't get much snow here.
One final point, there were WMDs recovered in Iraq. No yellow cake, but we did find mustard gas in my AO. This is open source. I know of 2 soldiers in the Iskan area received minor burns from a mustard gas exposure.
My '86 Ford Crown Vic LX with 302 cu. in. ("5.0 L" - 4,942 cc) Windsor was the first year they put a sequential fire electronic fuel injector on each cylinder in the Crown Vic and I had it for 21 years.
Correct. The fuel injected version (which was finally implemented due to government regulations) increased that 351 Windsor to 200 Hp. But mid 1980 trucks (and SUVs) and the Mustang still got the obsolete technology engine.
BTW, the first 1986 Ford fuel injection was throttle body. I never heard of Fords with sequential that early.
Ford 351 was popular with police. Because an equivalent engine, transmission, and other parts in Chevy Caprices failed so often. One police department had a pool on which Caprice transmission would fail next. It was not that the 351 was so good. It was that the other domestic automakers were so bad.
My 351 sure has longevity ;)
Anyhooey TW if you can help me troubleshoot my 3414 hydrostatic loader tractor's transmission pressure problem, {Low (All Gears)} I would be extremely grateful. ;)
I think you've missed my point about 4wd, too. I posted the video about jeep because you said they use expensive computer systems to control them. They don't. The Subaru video was to highlight the difference between actual 4wd vs all wheel drive.
I understood that. And then noted were many versions of four wheel drive. Different names are created to describe variations of what is still only four wheel drive. With and without expensive computers. How it works is defined by how tightly wheels are interlocked. An expensive computer system is necessary to reduce four wheel drive crashes (ie stability control, etc) when wheels are tightly interlocked. But the tradeoff remains even with that computer system.
If a four wheel drive can get you moving, then it also seriously decreases safety at speed. To increase safety on four wheel drive vehicles (so that the vehicle crashes into guard rails less often), then four wheel drive is less robust at getting unstuck. To increase safety, interlocking is reduced to the point that it sometimes does not work well on shear ice - as the video demonstrates.
As you admit and what I said repeatedly, the Jeep is not purchased for logical reasons. The Jeep is designed to make you feel (emotionally) superior. Why is it so high with poor ground clearance? Why does it hype four wheel drive? Almost no Jeep owners need it or use it. FWD makes Jeep a more dangerous vehicle in inclement weather and at speed. It makes many feel superior and cool. Jeep is a lesser vehicle with a massive profit margin. It sold on emotion; not on vehicle quality, safety, or innovation.
Every Jeep model has appeared in Consumer Report's "Used cars to avoid" list. Their safety abilities (including accident avoidance) is often marginal or among the worst. History defined reliability as poor. So yes, Jeeps clearly violate Lola Bunny's requirements. Jeeps do not sell on quality, safety, reliability, or innovation. They sell on image.
Torque is a sales gimmick. Anyone can see through that myth using high school physics. Torque (that matters) is defined by gear ratios. Even a mechanical clock can create as much torque as a car by changing gear ratios. What is the difference between a clock and a Jeep with same torque? The clock moves slower due to less horsepower. Horsepower (not torque) is the relevant parameter.
That physics formula is simple. Torque times speed equals horsepower. Any drivetrain can create the same torque. Only horsepower is relevant. Since domestic engines were so crappy (so low performance), then spin doctors (advertising) invented the torque myth. Hoping naïve consumers would believe it and buy obsolete technology V-8 engines. If torque is so important, then why are V-8s no longer found on Indy and Formula One race tracks? Torque myth only exists when high school physics is ignored or forgotten. A torque myth exists to divert attention from what is relevant: performance (Hp/liter).
Hyundai has competitive products due to major changes that occurred in Korea somewhere around the early 1990s. A major overthrow of top government and corporate leaders (chaebols) occurred across the entire nation. As a result, stoic and staid management was replaced by innovators. Some of the world's best steel now comes from Korea. The world's most technically advanced ships are built in Korea which also has the world's largest and most profitable shipyards. LG and Samsung make world class appliances. So good that companies such as Panasonic and Sony are abandoning markets including TVs or semiconductors. Hyundai best accomplishments are in both cars and ships.
Over the past six years, Hyundai still does not have quality numbers found in Honda and Toyota. But Hyundai has a best improved product line in the past 20 years. It takes decades (as the above Ford story demonstrates). One need only view Consumer Report's "Used cars to avoid" list to see the difference. Every Jeep and every Chevy model (except the Volt) at some point appears on that list of the 15% worst products. Almost no Hyundais are listed. Hyundai products are that significant.
Anyhooey TW if you can help me troubleshoot my 3414 hydrostatic loader tractor's transmission pressure problem, {Low (All Gears)} I would be extremely grateful. ;)
First suggestion for a transmission is to drain its fluid and replace the filter. Any parts or debris in the filter defines how serious the problem is.
Transmissions are an art. Engines are typically simpler. However you can do what so many entertained consumers have done. Call Click and Clack - the Tappet brothers. Tom and Ray have a call in show on NPR every weekend called "Car Talk" - sometimes at 10 AM in some regions. They love solving problems such as yours. And if not, we will be entertained while they try to wiggle around your problem.
If the problem is particularly interesting, then become their contestant months later on "Stump the Chumps".
Important is to practice duplicating each noise coming from that transmission. Since we will want to hear it on our radios to appreciate your problem.
Tom and Ray are retired and no new "Car Talk"s have been made since October 2012.
No yellow cake, but we did find mustard gas in my AO.
Effects from mustard gas can take many hours. How did one discover that chemical since exposure does not create immediate symptoms? What is the first aid for Mustard gas?
...LG and Samsung make world class appliances....
Samsung, OK. LG, not so much.
Let me Google that for you
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918
The WMD found was not considered serious enough to warrant invasion at the time. This mustard gas "doesn't count".
TW I am already past those elementary suggestions. :rolleyes:
:facepalm: Good lord, so much wrong, backwards, and completely without basis, I'm not going to even bother, because it doesn't affect Lola. :headshake
... BTW, the first 1986 Ford fuel injection was throttle body. I never heard of Fords with sequential that early ....
You have now:
...Under the hood, the 122 hp 4.2L V8 from 1981-1982 was discontinued. Electronic "Central Fuel Injection" (CFI), a type of Throttle Body Injection, was now standard on the 5.0L V8 engine. ... In 1986, on all civilian models, this was replaced by "Sequential Fire" electronic fuel injection, based on Ford's OBD-1 compliant EEC-IV computer. The new engine featured better driveability in traffic than the CFI unit, ...
... As the 1980s progressed, the LTD Crown Victoria underwent many gradual changes. 1983 saw the introduction of central fuel injection (CFI) on the 302 cu in (5.0L) models (identifiable by a fender badge reading "Electronic Fuel Injection"), which was replaced with sequential electronic fuel injection (SEFI) in 1986 (accompanied by the deletion of said fender badge). ...
... Twisting the model lineup for 1986, the LTD Crown Victoria was now available as an "LX" model at the top of the range to create the indecently long and awkward name "LTD Crown Victoria LX." A new sequential fuel-injection system improved the performance of the 302 V8, which was now rated at 150 horsepower. ...
... sequential multiport injection for 150 horsepower (versus 140), premium LX series added (1986); ...
[post=886095]My '86 Ford Crown Vic LX with 302 cu. in. ("5.0 L" - 4,942 cc) Windsor was the first year they put a sequential fire electronic fuel injector on each cylinder in the Crown Vic ...[/post]
That last reference was written by some guy who actually owned one, go figure. The potential list of references goes on and on ... I guess we learn something new everyday ... just sayin'.
BOLD MINE:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-09/nissan-chevrolet-drivers-have-highest-car-crash-death-rates.html
Drivers of sport-utility vehicles, who used to be the most likely to die in crashes because of rollovers, are now among those with the highest probability of survival, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a report released today.
"The rollover risk in SUVs used to outweigh their size/weight advantage, but that’s no longer the case," Anne McCartt, the Arlington, Virginia-based group’s senior vice president for research, said in the report on driver death rates for passenger vehicles from model years 2005 to 2008.
None of the 26 lowest-rated vehicles had standard electronic stability control, while almost all of the top-rated ones did, the study found. Models equipped with the technology, which can automatically apply brakes or reduce throttle speed when drivers over- or under-steer, had lower death rates than those without it.
Another tw canon falls... or should I say, rolls over.
tw,
People do make decisions in their lives based upon what you might call emotional reaction. I had a customer the other day that chose to take the 0% loan over the $2500 rebate, even though I very clearly explained to him that it would cost him $240 more over the course of the loan. He understood. He saw that at the preferred rate of 3.24%, the total finance charge was $2260.
He just felt better knowing that he had ZERO interest. I think that was the wrong choice. I asked him if he felt it was worth $240 just to have the 0%. He said yes. So I wrote the loan his way.
He defines his satisfaction. Not me.
I love love love my Jeep. You can read all the reports you want, and you can call me childish and immature all you want. I get in my jeep every day and enjoy driving. I very rarely use it to it's potential. I have never done the Rubicon trail. ... probably never will. But I can't even count the number of times people have come up to me and told me how cool my Jeep looks. That's part of it. People DO identify with their vehicles. Lola will want to love her car, whichever one she chooses. For you, making the best choice is about numbers and ratios. Well God bless, man. Whatever blows your skirt up. Just maybe try to respect other people. Don't be quite such a condescending asshole all the time.
If you want people to hear you, you have to get them to listen first. When they think you're crazy, or hate you because you belittle them, you have no chance of getting past their walls.
That's some free advice on life. Just for you, from me.
Sin freaking cerely,
Your pal,
Lumberjim
Little bunny. You should have asked, what car do you like. And aside. I have a 10 year old Honda. Do I like it? Most times, Low to ground for old folks, as to getting in and out. No problems since I've got the car. Dec. 2006. Gas milage, great. Would I recommend a Honda.
No. Because if you buy one and don't like it, It'll be back on me.
People do make decisions in their lives based upon what you might call emotional reaction. I had a customer the other day that chose to take the 0% loan over the $2500 rebate, even though I very clearly explained to him that it would cost him $240 more over the course of the loan. He understood. He saw that at the preferred rate of 3.24%, the total finance charge was $2260.
He just felt better knowing that he had ZERO interest. I think that was the wrong choice. I asked him if he felt it was worth $240 just to have the 0%. He said yes. So I wrote the loan his way.
He defines his satisfaction. Not me.
That goes directly what underpins Lola Bunny's question. Concepts were defined by Daniel Kahneman who (I believe) won the 2002 Nobel Prize for his work on this topic. Kahneman defined two types of thinking. System one is intuitive decisions based mostly on emotion. System two is described as a rational but lazy though process that may override system one.
From summarizes of his work, I suspect most (a clear majority) are system one type thinkers. Apparently this entire thread demonstrates that concept. For example, many just know four wheel drive increases safety because that was the impression that most have. Many believed anti-lock brakes make stopping on ice safer. Almost no one asked how or why. In part because the other decision making process is mostly done in a 'lazy' fashion. If not described (explained) in a sound byte, then many proceed no further and fall back onto what they know best - system one.
Procter and Gamble once advertised using a more rational approach. Advertising concentrated only on one aspect of the product - what the product does for the consumer. I watched when, for the first time, toothpaste (Crest) actually did something useful. They drilled the "42% fewer cavities" expression relentlessly until suddenly the public grasped it. Colgate, which had somewhere between 80% and 90% of the market, suddenly went to near zero suddenly - almost instantly.
This is example of system two thinking overriding system one. You could say system two (Toyota's reputation) has expanded to be viewed by many using system one thinking. Toyota's reputation no longer need be explained by numbers in Consumer Reports? Maybe. But this is clear - as even demonstrated by Saddam's WMDs. Most of us make decisions using system one thinking. It explains why brainwashing is so effective and more widespread that many believe.
Why did a majority know smoking cigarettes increased health? Advertising. Also known as brainwashing. In the 1950s, a majority had no idea how easily they had been manipulated. They knew, with certainty, that smoking increased health because advertising said so. My father's complaint (he was writing those commercials) was that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) kept trying to make them tell the truth. That took all the fun out of it. Both fun and profitable is to brainwash the majority with advertising. Because so many people know only using their emotions - system one decisions.
Companies that predict the effectiveness of advertising dispute this. Citing, for example, passengers who buy discount airline tickets knowing full well the risk. Clearly Cogan Airlines is inferior to United. But still, some will overirde their emotions (and fears) to buy cheaper tickets. It is this rather subjective thinking process that makes advertising, marketing, and even selling a car loan so mysterious, challenging, and an art.
If Toyota and Honda are so good, then why did so many still buy Chryslers? It goes right back to a fundamental question that also resulted in a Nobel Prize in economics. Are markets rational or driven by irrational exuberance. I believe the two winners that year represented contrarian viewpoints.
Robert Sheller of Yale has recently asked same question about this economy. He believes another bubble exists. However numbers (ie Earnings per share) contradict what some believe is a revived emotional attitude (irrational exuberance).
These questions and concepts also apply to how and why people recommend or desire a car.
Another example. Do you plug your computer into a power strip surge protector? Most do. Why would anyone plug their computer into something that can make surge damage easier and in some cases create a house fire? How many first learned facts? How many just 'assumed' protector and protection sound alike; therefore must be same. Another example that demonstrates system one thinking. If using rational thought, then many would instead spend less money for something, also called a surge protector, that actually creates surge protection.
But again, how many really ask damning questions or automatically doubt their intuitive beliefs? How many realize that brainwashing is rather routine, subtle, and easy? I believe Saddam's WMDs demonstrates a ballpark number: a clear minority. Asking and answering these questions can get one a Nobel Prize.
Many believed anti-lock brakes make stopping on ice safer. Almost no one asked how or why.
[size=7][FONT="Impact"]ABS [COLOR="Red"]reduces[/COLOR] overall [COLOR="Red"]crash[/COLOR] involvement risk by [COLOR="Red"]6 percent for cars[/COLOR] and [COLOR="Red"]8 percent for pickups and SUVs[/COLOR].[/FONT]
Source:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[/size]
That was better.
So, what kind of car would you buy if you had $25000 cash to spend? Forget tax and tags for this. What would you buy, and why? You can go new or up to 3 year old used, but be realistic about the price if you go used.
[size=7][FONT="Impact"]ABS [COLOR="Red"]reduces[/COLOR] overall [COLOR="Red"]crash[/COLOR] involvement risk by [COLOR="Red"]6 percent for cars[/COLOR] and [COLOR="Red"]8 percent for pickups and SUVs[/COLOR].[/FONT] [/size]
From the NHTSA:
This statistical analysis of the initial years of exposure of the first groups of cars equipped with ABS showed mixed results. Involvements in multivehicle crashes on wet roads were significantly reduced in the cars equipped with ABS: fatal crashes were reduced by 24 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 14 percent. Fatal collisions with pedestrian and bicyclists were down a significant 27 percent with ABS. However, these reductions were offset by a statistically significant increase in the frequency of single vehicle, run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects), as compared to cars without ABS. Fatal run-off-road crashes were up by 28 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 19 percent. It is unknown to what extent this increase is a consequence of ABS, or is due to other causes. In particular, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the increase is due to incorrect responses by drivers to their ABS systems, and, if so, whether the effect is likely to persist in the future. ...
Stopping distances decreased substantially with four-wheel ABS on wet surfaces, but decreased only slightly on dry pavement and increased considerably on gravel.
The increase of crashes are:
All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.
Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.
Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.
Unfortunately that soundbyte (that ignores all facts) is not what the NHTSA says. NHTSA results cannot exist in a sounbyte. Big letters imply a claim is incomplete, vague, or emotional.
Meanwhile, GM commericials showed ABS increasing safety on shear ice. The myth persists. Most first heard and therefore believed that myth. The NHTSA asks whether ABS myths have cause an increase in crashes and death due to reckless driving inspired by ABS or other reasons related to ABS.
ABS does virtually nothing to protect a driver on ice. Meanwhile, other automakers (with products designed by engineers) provided speed sensitive steering. A solution based in fundamental concepts of quality as even defined by William Edward Deming. No quality is to solve a problem after it exist. Quality is about averting a problem before it happens. Speed sensitive steering is a quality solution. ABS was marketed to save your ass AFTER it exists. ABS is a low quality solution that cannot do on ice what GM commercials claimed.
A question is how many died because they believe ABS myths and therefore drove recklessly? Numbers suggest this is a problem.
The report also quotes a study from the insurance industry:
In late 1993, the Highway Loss Data Institute published an analysis of the effect of ABS on collision and property-damage-liability claims. They found that ABS had little effect on the overall, insurance-reported accident rates of cars. This report's findings on the overall, net effect of ABS corroborate the earlier study. However, this report also shows that ABS is not ineffectual. The net benefit is close to zero, because significant reductions in pedestrian impacts and wet-road multivehicle crashes are nullified by significant increases in run-off-road crashes.
[size=7]You are quoting a study from [COLOR="Red"]1994[/COLOR]. The NTHSA calls that study "[COLOR="Red"]preliminary[/COLOR]".
I am quoting a study from [COLOR="SeaGreen"]2009[/COLOR]. It is called "The [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Long-Term Effect[/COLOR] of ABS in Passenger Cars and LTVs".
[COLOR="Red"][FONT="Impact"]THE LONG-TERM EFFECT OF ABS IS DETERMINED BY THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ... WHICH SHOW THAT IT REDUCES ACCIDENTS BY 6-8%[/FONT][/COLOR]
please update your brain with this new information[/size]
[size=7]You are quoting a study from [COLOR="Red"]1994[/COLOR]. The NTHSA calls that study "[COLOR="Red"]preliminary[/COLOR]".[/size]
The quote said
Many believed anti-lock brakes make stopping on ice safer. Almost no one asked how or why.
Where is your number that says ABS will save your ass on ice? Your numbers are found in NHTSA reports and other reports. And then those reports add your numbers to other numbers. Bottom line remains.
The net benefit is close to zero,
Return to what so many believe because GM promoted the myth. Where are numbers that show better stopping and increased safety on ice? Where are your numbers that address that sentence? And where are your numbers that prove ABS has not encouraged more reckless driving as the NHTSA and others suspect?
The point is about why so many know only from their feelings and soundbytes. And therefore even drive recklessly rather than learn what ABS really does.
[SIZE="5"]But what you're forgetting my old friend is that the need to be right in you is an [COLOR="Red"]EMOTIONAL REACTION[/COLOR]
Here I have provided enough information that should simply [COLOR="Red"]change your mind[/COLOR], and yet you have avoided doing so, using any available pretense.
In fact one CANNOT RECALL the last time you CHANGED YOUR MIND. Or admitted your own error. And yet it is impossible for you to be CORRECT ON EVERY TOPIC, especially in a world where facts are CHANGING... and vehicles are CHANGING every model year.
You seem OVERLY ATTACHED to facts that are 20 years old and represent a world where a small percentage of cars on the road had ABS. This is not logical
This, I submit to you, is an obviously [COLOR="Red"]emotional reaction[/COLOR]. You have a psychological need to be [COLOR="Red"]right[/COLOR] which overrides your reach for [COLOR="Red"]honest, unemotional truth[/COLOR].[/SIZE]
Who ever said people did or didn't drive recklessly because their car has ABS. Besides you, I mean. I don't think anyone said that ABS works on ice, either. It's like you're making up your own argument to win. And no one said speed sensitive steering assist was a bad thing. ... and what do they have to do with one another anyway? Can you even get a car with out speed sensitive power steering at this point? You can't get one without ABS, so why are we even discussing it?
Why are you participating in this conversation at all, tw? Have you made any constructive recommendations? Do you even have a car?
You seem to be interested only in lecturing everyone about WMDs and how poorly American car companies are managed.
I'll ask a third time, but assume you'll ignore me again. ...
What kind of car do you drive, tw?
The third Thursday of the month is coming up in a few days on the 19th. We can all meet back here then during Happy Hour to give tw a toss.
You seem OVERLY ATTACHED to facts that are 20 years old and represent a world where a small percentage of cars on the road had ABS. This is not logical
I am very careful to learn facts before concluding. As you learned in 2003 with Saddam's WMDs. In November 2010, the Safety Record reported on a recent NHTSA study for heavy trucks.
Meanwhile, the agency published a second study in July concluding that ABS for heavy trucks, ... are effective in some crash scenarios. ...
ABS were most effective in avoiding crashes off the highways, where the speed limit was 50 mph or less. ABS also appeared to be effective in reducing jack-knife-type, off-road, and at-fault collision crashes. But the study found no significant reductions in fatal crashes overall, and there was an increase in highway crashes in which a truck rear-ended another vehicle.
"On interstates and roads with speed limits 55 mph or higher, tractor-trailers rear-ending leading vehicles increased significantly. An estimate of fatal crash reduction was derived by considering type and speed of the road, urbanization, and ambient lighting condition. The estimate is a 4-percent reduction in crashes where ABS could potentially be effective, or about a 2-percent reduction in all fatal crash involvements. The result is not statistically significant," the report said.
Being professional drivers is significant. It demonstrates quality (and safety) does not increase in solutions that save your ass AFTER a problem occurs. Earlier studies said drivers with ABS are not driving faster. So reasons for some increased fatal crash rates and no overall increase in safety is unknown. Numerous studies included your numbers and then included other numbers you ignored. Why does that make you angry?
Quality (and safety) exists when problems are averted before they happen. Many believe ABS increases safety on ice when no facts prove that; since ABS does virtually nothing for stopping on ice. Why do you ignore what I said about ice when your own post was a reply (in oversized letters) to that simple sentence?
Back to the point. Many know from intuition rather than know by learning facts - ie system one and system two knowledge. Many still believe myths promoted in those GM commercials.
Does safety increase when a car (with radar) sees a problem before it happens; stops the car? Speculation says so. Nobody knows until hard facts (numbers) are provided. However some may assume they can now read smart phones since the car will save their ass. A potential problem created by one who feels rather than from facts. The point I keep making and you keep ignoring.
So you tell me. Will radar increase safety? And why?
I don't think anyone said that ABS works on ice, either. It's like you're making up your own argument to win. And no one said speed sensitive steering assist was a bad thing. ... and what do they have to do with one another anyway?
I posted that ABS does not work on ice. UT quoted that sentence to then made claims that ABS always increases safety. Why are you challenging me when UT quoted and then denied that sentence?
Meanwhile, the point was that many believe ABS works on ice only because the myth (combined with system one thinking) said so. GM said so in commercials. So many still believe it.
Can you get a car without speed sensitive steering? GM did not have it long after it was a standard technology. GM routinely avoided the feature, in part, because you would realize how unstable the vehicle really was. Did 2006 Jeeps have that early 1980 technology? No GM cars I rented had it. A Ford Explorer did not have it.
You seem to be focused on many failures of domestic automakers rather then see the larger picture and the many examples of innovation finally permitted - ie Ford, Hyundai. Cited were numbers for 2006 Jeeps that defined an inferior product. And later numbers that imply engineers were finally permitted to do some designing. Did you miss the point? Also asked was a relevant question. If Honda and Toyota are so much better, then why did so many still buy Chryslers? System one thinking? Also asked was another question that was not rhetorical. Why did you ignore that question?
So what your post did I ignore?
People buy cars for styling, more than any other single reason. It was fuel economy in the 80s, safety in the 90s, now. ... looks and image
I am very careful to learn facts before concluding. As you learned in 2003 with Saddam's WMDs.
Being right once does not entitle you to a monopoly on truth. That'a a logical fallacy. I demonstrated that ten years ago; there was a month where every time you brought up aluminum tubes, I found a post on the Cellar where you were demonstrably and clearly wrong. I can do that again if you like, but apparently it had no bearing on you, so it's a waste of my time, as are all interactions with you including this one.
In November 2010, the Safety Record reported on a recent NHTSA study for heavy trucks.
Trucks are not relevant to the subject at hand. Anyone but you can understand why numbers about ABS on trucks are not going to tell us much about ABS on cars.
Numerous studies included your numbers and then included other numbers you ignored.
Prove it. Post the studies that included "my" numbers from the 2009 IIHS study.
Why do you ignore what I said about ice when your own post was a reply (in oversized letters) to that simple sentence?
Ice was not relevant to the question at hand. It was a distraction by you.
[FONT="Palatino Linotype"][SIZE="5"]Oversized letters became the first time you paid attention to numbers that were posted. [COLOR="Red"]You ignored the actual numbers until they were posted in large print.[/COLOR] What does that tell us about your attention to facts?
Why do you think I'm angry when I post in large print? I'm not. I'm just trying to get through to you because you don't read anyone's posts. It worked! I've gotten through and given you the numbers that you pretend to care so dearly about... that you have previously ignored. Why did you ignore them before? Why, now, do you try to argue in circles away from them? ABS IS SAFER. But but but [COLOR="Red"]ice[/COLOR]! But but but [COLOR="Red"]trucks[/COLOR]! NO. ABS IS SAFER. 6 to 8% fewer crashes in cars and SUVs. THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. Why ignore them?
[COLOR="Red"]Emotional need to be right, no matter what, in the face of given facts.[/COLOR] Being right is so important to you that you have held on dearly to the last time you were right, 11 years ago. But if you are honest, and unemotional, you know that has no bearing on numbers that exist and are presented today as evidence.[/SIZE][/FONT]
...so it's a waste of my time, as are all interactions with you including this one.
Now you've got it.
By the way... interesting, NY Times two months ago:
Japanese Autos Lose Ground in Consumer Reports' Reliability Ratings
Funny how times change innit? tw's favorite appliance is no longer Recommended:
The V-6-equipped Honda Accord and the Nissan Altima, no longer have the consumer advocacy publication’s coveted “Recommended” rating
Subie wins! With its full-time AWD? Impossible. Ford's complicated engines suck, and so does their in-car electronics. We never mention in-car electronics on the Cellar, except for my Ford Flex review, but this is something that cars are rated for now, and it's important. Oh and Lola, you may now buy a Dodge, but only a little one:
The 2014 Subaru Forester was the highest-scoring vehicle over all in predicted reliability. Worst-rated was the Ford C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid. The Dodge Dart 2-liter was the top domestic model.
Even Toy gets hit:
After performing poorly in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s new, more stringent small overlap front crash test, the Audi A4, the Toyota Camry, the Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota Prius V were also absent from the list.
The federal government did lose $10B on GM but it seems not for nothing -- surprise! GMC is now 9th on the list of automakers reliability. That's stunning to me, and I suppose, good news. Meanwhile Nissan fell to 22nd which is bad news.
I don't understand that NYT article. In post #3, I posted the actual charts from the 2014 Consumer Reports buyer's guide, and the Camry, for example, still has the check mark next to it, showing that CR recommends it.
(That buyers guide was delivered about a month ago, I think. This NYT article came out about a month prior to that.)
From
Consumer Reports...
There’s a hard-earned perception that, in general, Japanese cars excel at consumer-focused virtues. If you look at our annual Brand Report Cards, you’ll find several Japanese brands top the list due to high average test scores and predicted reliability. But there have been several disappointing Japanese models lately.
These five cars score too low in our battery of more than 50 tests to qualify for a coveted Consumer Reports recommendation. In each case, they fell short of their potential and face much better competitors.
To earn a recommendation, a car must perform well in our tests, have average or better reliability, and perform adequately if included in a government or insurance industry crash test. While the spotlighted five cars missed the mark on the first criterion, the suggested alternatives all meet the standards to be Consumer Reports recommended. (Overall test scores are based on a 0-100 scale.)
The Los Angeles Times writes, "The magazine dumped some of its favorite vehicles — Toyota's Camry, RAV4 and Prius V — from its list of recommended cars because they scored poorly in an insurance industry crash test."
Toyota and its Lexus luxury brand took the two top spots in the reliability ratings. Acura, Audi, Infiniti, Volvo, GMC and Subaru were also top-ranked brands for reliability. The 2014 Subaru Forester earned the highest predicted reliability rating for a single vehicle, reports the Chicago Tribune.
I don't understand that NYT article.
There may be more to the story. A stuck accelerator problem (that was created many years before Toyoda took over Toyota) has now been analyzed by engineers.
Their rules were restricting. Engineers could not even take notes, pictures, or other written material from the room. For about one year, they entered a secure room to examine code that operated brakes, cruise control, and other relevant functions. Their report to the courts was a stunning admission of concepts that should not exist in real time software. And could explain why, in rare cases, an accelerator might lock to the floor.
This recent report may have something to do with Consumer Reports concern and reevaluation of some models.
People buy cars for styling, more than any other single reason.
Which was also discussed previously in:
Concepts were defined by Daniel Kahneman who (I believe) won the 2002 Nobel Prize for his work on this topic. Kahneman defined two types of thinking. System one is intuitive decisions based mostly on emotion.
The concept applies even to gasoline. If the price of gasoline was so high, then why were big SUVs best sellers as gasoline prices sharply increased to above $3? If gas prices were high, then why were sales strongest with lowest mileage models?
If people really were concerned with gasoline prices, then why would people now buy engines that generate horsepower numbers also found in 60,000 pound and 80,000 pound 18 wheelers? If gasoline really was so expensive, then those grossly overpowered machines should not sell well.
A third example is discount gas stations. Some of the most expensive gasoline is sold in Wawa, Sheets, Hess, US Gas, BJs, and other discount stations. Price (posted at $3.40 per gallon) is actually $0.24 higher. But many do not seek facts. Some notice their car needs gas more often. But most only act on their feelings - system one thinking. Actual price for Hess gasoline is about $3.64 per gallon. Compare that price to superior gasolines sold in Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Amoco, or Texaco. If gasoline was so expensive, then why do so many pay highest prices?
Learning facts require an effort. Most instead use intuitive decisions based mostly on emotion. Many who buy BJ's gasoline never notice what should be obvious - it is one of the most expensive gasolines.
People's actions based only in feelings (what they drive, the selected engines, and what gasoline is purchases) demonstrate that gasoline prices are really quite low. A majority decide only using their feelings.
Wawa has the cheapest gas in my area. And they don't do that bullshit where they have one price for cash and another for credit. Today I filled up at 3.19 per gallon I used my credit card. There were two other stations with 3.19 posted, but you have to pay cash to get that price.
Wawa has the cheapest gas in my area. And they don't do that bullshit where they have one price for cash and another for credit.
To compare that to prices at other stations, well, you actually paid $3.42 per gallon. (Apparently you are buy gas in Jersey.) How much was Exxon or Shell?
Another way to learn its real cost is to calculate 'dollar per mile'. Either way, you paid for the most expensive gasoline at Wawa. Notice the crowds. A majority do not learn they are paying the highest price. If gasoline was actually expensive, then a majority would do simple calculations; then not use Wawa gas.
Why did GM require cars to be EPA mileage tested with Chevron? Mileage numbers are that significantly higher.
What are you saying? That they lie about their prices, or that the gas at other stations burns slower?
If gas is listed at 87 octane, isn't that regulated? Are the pumps not inspected by the state and certified? I see those little stickers on there that have annual updates. How do you conclude that the gas purchased at 3.19 actually cost me 3.42?
That's a screen shot from Waze. It's my favorite nav app. Tells you if there are cops ahead, predicts your route based on history, all that smart shit. Like gas listings in your area.
I sometimes go to citgo. Occasionally lukoil. I see on Waze that exxon was actually cheaper 3 days ago, but that station never seems to be open. There's a sunoco, but it's inconvenient pulling out after. Oh, I also use Coastal in Pennsauken a good bit. They usually are about the same as Wawa. And no credit card premium.
Probably because Chevron was the first to qualify as "Top Tier Gasoline" in 2004, now there are about 30 in the US. They don't get better mileage, they have more detergent(s) to keep crap from building in the motor, which eventually will affect emissions, mileage and performance.
Tom Magliozzi, co-host of NPR's weekly radio show, Car Talk, said that using top tier detergent gasoline is only critical on high-end vehicles. For other vehicles, he and another source said that periodic use of a concentrated engine cleaner every 100,000 miles will "often" clean out carbon buildup.
Magliozzi's co-host, Ray Magliozzi, said that in order to be sure of preventing buildup of fuel injectors and valves, motorists should use Top Tier gasoline "at least most of the time".
What are you saying? That they lie about their prices, or that the gas at other stations burns slower?
Wawa gasoline gets no additives necessary for serious mileage increases. (Ethanol and octane is irrelevant here.) They are selling on dollar per gallon; not dollar per mile. Nobody was lying. An informed consumer cares less about dollar per gallon. But most feel all gasoline in same rather than learn facts. An example of what Kahneman says.
All cars are equipped with devices (ie trip odometer) to learn this. Most everyone cannot be bothered because gasoline is so cheap.
Studies even decades ago noted these difference. One from BMW only listed five approved gasolines: Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Texaco, and Amoco. It only reviewed national brands. Sunoco (a regional brand) may also have these additives. As previously noted, I am careful about accuracy before posting. I don't use Sunoco; so cannot confirm what is only a suspicion.
This summer's MPG numbers were 36 to 39 using only Shell and Exxon. On a Honda only rated 28 MPG highway.
When someone borrowed my car and filled with WaWa, mileage dropped to high 20s. It took four tanks of the 'good stuff' to restore my MPG.
Wawa did not lie. They count on consumers using 'system one' thinking. Even using an odometer is too much work. Presented is, to you, a hypothesis. For you to *know* means experimental evidence (numbers) is required. As I also needed before I could agree with those Exxon executives and BMW study.
Best gas price in that area (Route 70?) were Exxon near Ponzio's and a Shell on Admiral Wilson Blvd. My experience suggests many consecutive tanks are necessary to restore mileage to what is should be.
I would like to try and see if that made a diff for me, but my driving is so erratic, that I don't think I could accurately compare. Most days I make 2 2.4 mile trips to work and back, but then when I go see the kids, ill do 55 to 65 miles each way on the highways. The number of those trips varies widely.
Have you ever analyzed whether it's cost effective to use 89 or high test? Like, do you get better mpg with higher octane? And if so, is it worth the extra dough?
They don't get better mileage, they have more detergent(s) to keep crap from building in the motor,
Mobil (decades before it became Exxon) had a highest detergent gas. It was not on the approved BMW list. Another study noted excessive detergents in Mobil resulted in carbon build up on valve stems.
Nothing previously discussed detergents. Additives mean more gas burns productively in the engine.
One night twenty some years ago, a Mobil station was the only open station. Next day, I knew something was wrong. Numbers confirmed it. Next tanks were a pathetic 27 and 25 MPG. I knew exactly when it happened - right after filling up at that Mobil station. The dealer identified damaged fuel injectors. I paid nothing to replace $400 of injectors. Mileage restored to above 30 MPG.
Have you ever analyzed whether it's cost effective to use 89 or high test?
The BMW study was rather disappointed to discover increased engine wear with higher octane.
However one near 40 MPG tanks a previous summer ago was after an accidental fill up with Exxon high test. But it was also ideal conditions - mostly highway on a hot and humid days. That created a curiosity. But insufficient numbers exist to say more.
Effects from mustard gas can take many hours. How did one discover that chemical since exposure does not create immediate symptoms? What is the first aid for Mustard gas?
TW,
Let's take the WMD issue to a new thread. I want you to make sure you document your time spent in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also tell me about your time as a 74D
Over 10 years fighting the Bush/Cheney- and other Gulf-of-Tonkin-like decisions...
and over 65 years opposing nuclear/chemical/biological warfare.
Lola, I think they're saying you should buy a tank armed with nucular weapons ;)
boys, can you not hear yourselves? STFU or go to your rooms and argue it out via instant messaging on your iPods. None of us wants to hear another syllable about it. You can come out for dinner if/when you've learned how to behave in a civilized and social fashion. And picked up your goddam laundry while you're in there.
Yes, Mommy. But he started it. ;)
I don't give a flying fuck who started it, I'm finishing it and I'm kind of surprised you didn't learn that lesson already. Must be you're not as smart as I thought. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on that
monster - it's a serious issue to some of us. Out of respect for this thread, I suggested we take it to a different thread.
then start one, post a link for your buddies to follow you and leave lola to pick a car. Walk the walk.
Hey, don't disrespect the honorable tradition of Cellar thread drift.
It hasn't been about Lola's choices for a new car since post #42.
Well, I've stopped reading a long time ago. Thank you everyone who gave me opinions. I read all those.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Hey, don't disrespect the honorable tradition of Cellar thread drift.
It hasn't been about Lola's choices for a new car since post #42.
Post
126 was provided especially for the benefit of Lola.
Tom,
I reply to you with insults because you are nearly impossible to communicate with. You don't listen to what people say, you just keep repeating yourself. I've said multiple times in this very thread that I have a 2006 Jeep Commander that has a 5.7 ltr V8. Yet, a couple posts ago, you say I probably drive a V8.
I've been on this forum since 2003... In the car business the whole time, and 8 years before that. How could you seriously say that I don't know the basics of cars? I've helped several people buy cars... Hell, I even spearheaded buying a car for someone. I know you know that because you contributed to it!
I would like to get to know you better so that we could communicate effectively. How can we do that? You wanna meet up for beers some time or something?
I just love this post.
I can't quite bring myself to post it in the HoF, .... I might. Anyhow, tw, you don't have any credibility when it comes to stuff like this. Even if you have some legitimate, factual, on topic information, we'd never know, you just can't get it onto the page. What you do manage to get onto the page is ... nonsense. It's entertaining enough, at best, but really not helpful in the main. Additionally, you have the most absurd double standards when it comes to competing claims of accuracy. In the area of cars, your consistency is... stultifying. But it's aaaaall just your own personal dogma. No "figures", no citations, like you're fond of requiring of others, especially in other areas (power supplies, etc, etc.). Come on, where are YOUR citations to support your claims?
Crickets.
Anyhow, jimhelm has it right (as he often does), you're impossible to communicate with. Frankly, I'm a little surprised you even paused long enough to recognize his insult. Now I'm piling on by calling you inept. Insulting though it may feel, I can support my claim with any number of citations, should you require.
Yours,
BigV
Post 126 was provided especially for the benefit of Lola.
I sure it was but considering the bullshit you've been spreading in this thread I doubt it was useful to her.
I'm seriously thinking of getting the Altima. I wasn't going to get a car until the end of the next year, but the car started to shake badly last week. It's fixed now. So, I decided to sell this car while it still worth something.
Glatt: I am going to check out the radio when I get to the showroom. Thanks for the pointer. I was in a car that has a touch screen once. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how to adjust the A/C temperature. And I was on the passenger seating, staring at the screen. I finally had to ask the driver to do it...lol.
Post 126 was provided especially for the benefit of Lola.
TW: thank you for all your comments. I'm sure you meant well.
I think Glatt made a great point on that. Good luck!
Glatt: I am going to check out the radio when I get to the showroom.
If you have to look at the radio to change basic functions, well, close your eyes. Using only a hand, volume and station selections should be possible. A driver must do that when driving; especially when in the dark. In one rental car, I had to pull over to finally change the station.
If you have to look at the radio to change basic functions, well, close your eyes. Using only a hand, volume and station selections should be possible. A driver must do that when driving; especially when in the dark. In one rental car, I had to pull over to finally change the station.
Whoa pardner. You mean we are supposed to close our eyes when we drive at night?
Lola Bunny - What made you want to start such a vile and vicious thread? :p:
Whoa pardner. You mean we are supposed to close our eyes when we drive at night?
Obviously that was never said. Your reply ignores the topic; to only attack the messenger.
Try to read what is written rather than reply to what you want to see. I believe you are incapable.
Just got the latest issue of Consumer Reports today. They had a short article about how much radios (or infotainment systems) suck today.
And there was another article about the best and worst cars for the money.
The price of a Hyundai sonata GLS hasn't changed in ten years. Well, the 2.7 was the same price as the 2.4 is now, I wonder if the features at that trim level are the same?
I have a Hyundai Sonata Limited V6 with everything. It has a nice Infinity sound system with "Infinity" on the dash over it. I point it out to passengers and tell them the car is having an identity crisis.
Of course, I need the 2 extra cylinders to deliver the horsepower necessary to carry my big dic around. People like Lola Bunny and tw wouldn't have that requirement.
The price of a Hyundai sonata GLS hasn't changed in ten years. Well, the 2.7 was the same price as the 2.4 is now, I wonder if the features at that trim level are the same?
I thought I read that they came out with a 1.8 that's supposed to be extremely economical on gas.
I thought I read that they came out with a 1.8 that's supposed to be extremely economical on gas.
must be their north korean branch or for the dicless...
The 2.5 Altima is only 24k. Just sayin. If you'd by a 3.5SL, you might as well get a Maxima. Especially when you factor in rebates
Yeah, the cars they chose to include seem a little random.
The advantage of CU is access to feedback from a shitload of readers, and a reputation for being unbiased. But anyone who has read CU for a long time is aware that while they strive to be fair, the testers/writers do often let their personal bias show. That's human and almost impossible to avoid where subjective ratings are part of the process. It's OK as long as you realize your wants, needs and likes may not be the same as the tester, so you have to separate hard test results from opinions.
I want to thank everyone who have given me advice, suggestions, or opinions. I am not very good at acknowledging posts although I like people to acknowledge me. :p: And I would especially like to thank Jim for spending all those hours helping me with the finance, giving suggestions and advice on how to actually go into a dealer and talk to those guys. I really appreciate all your help. You're a good man.
And now, I'd like to present my new car. A 2014 Avalon. :D
Nice!
You went with a larger car than you were initially talking about!
How's the radio?
Ahhh...yes, the radio. We actually went into a dealer to test drive it first since it's bigger than our current Altima, and being petite people, my sister and I need to make sure we could handle a bigger car. As my sister was driving the car, I made sure I look at the radio. It was a touch screen. I then asked my sister to change the station just to see how difficult it would be. She glanced down and touched a different station. It was quite straight forward. After we got the car, I asked the the salesperson if there's a manual because I've got no idea how all these electronic works since my last car was 20 yrs ago. :lol: He did a run through and paired the phone onto the car. (Is that the right expression?) Anyways, you can answer your phone and change the radio station right on the steering wheel. No need to look onto the screen below. You can also listen to your music from the phone rather than listening to the radio, which my sister usually does. It's cool. We can also set speed dial and don't have to worry about going through the contact list. These features may be standard these days (I'm guessing), but they were awesome to me. :lol:
Nice!
You went with a larger car than you were initially talking about!
How's the radio?
Yes! We decided on the Altima and just when we were about to go to the dealer, a friend suggested either a Lexus or an Avalon to my sister. Better is always good, right? :right: Hihi.....anyways, we couldn't afford the Lexus. Well, we could if we don't eat for 5 years. :lol: So, we decided to take a look at the Avalon. We still need to tighten the budget a bit, but at least we can still eat. :D Oh yeah, the seat raises! I can see over the dashboard. :lol: No more seat cushions, hihi.
That's really cool about the radio and syncing with the phone.
The Avalon gets good reviews in Consumer Reports, and I think you'll be really happy with it. Great job!
gorgeous. the car I mean.
That's their flagship. more like a Maxima. very nice car. My exstepfatherinlaw had 2 while I knew him, and they are rock solid. I'm sure it will serve you well. It was my pleasure coaching you. Glad I made some small difference.
CONGRATS!
Thanks, Glatt. We're enjoying it so far. I hope it'll last for 20 or more years. :D
Thanks, Jim. I just wished Toyota wouldn't make all their trimmings black. Oh well..... By the way, I don't mind if you call me gorgeous. :lol: (just joking :-P )
I scored all-weather mats from the salesperson. :-D
probably cost you a wink and a smile. go you.
wtg Lola!
and nice job Jim, is that your first Toyota sale? :)
Apparently the car is hot. No snow or icicles.
Nah, that's just called "Texas."