Luxury Performance Sedans

Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 12:42 pm)

Replies to this message:
• james27 (Jul 24, 2006 3:00 pm)

Replying to: warthog (Jul 24, 2006 2:39 pm)

Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 6:45 am)

Replying to: shipo (Jul 24, 2006 2:24 pm)

Replies to this message:
• lexusguy (Jul 24, 2006 8:18 pm)
  • markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 4:37 am)
    • lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 11:21 am) and 3 more...

Replying to: jmess (Jul 24, 2006 7:19 pm)

Replies to this message:
• markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 4:37 am)
  • lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 11:21 am)
    • markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 11:28 am) and 2 more...

Replying to: lexusguy (Jul 24, 2006 8:18 pm)

. . .must have sold the rights to the Premium fuel story to the local affiliates. Last night, 11PM news on the local NBC TV station here in Cincinnati, they had a story about when to and when NOT to use Premium. It was only slightly different than the one from the Today show -- but they interviewed a "mechanic" who said the long term effect of using Regular in a car that requires Premium is "a melted engine." Then the plucky news anchor said that she'd bet a new engine costs a lot more than could ever be saved by using Regular vs Premium ($.20/gallon here.)
 
The "mechanic" also said that the use of Regular means lower mileage so there is a negative benefit to using Regular -- "it costs more."
 
Of course this still leaves some consumers (and that is not meant to be a slam) in the dark since their car's manufacturer's seem to not want to use words like REQUIRED or MANDATORY (and were I the author of the owner's manual, I would give a "warning" that using more than one tankful in a row of regular will cause damage to the engine and possibly risk your warranty (assuming of course that any failure would be related to the fuel chosen.)
 
After reading here and elsewhere, it seems that engines with higher compression ratios are more efficient overall; it seems that fuel injected engines are better than carb'd engines overall; and, it seems if cars deploying Fuel Stratified Injection can have yet additional increases in efficiency.
 
These increases seem, over time and miles, to translate to lower costs, higher performance and even lower emissions -- therefore it begs the question, "why not build modern IC engines to have the highest "reasonable" compression ratios, multiple valve layouts (3,4 or 5 valves per cylinder), dual exhaust systems, dual pathway intake systems and both small turbo chargers with "booster" electric helper motors (or superchargers that disengage above a certain RPM to avoid robbing power)?" All of these things, one would imagine would allow physically smaller engines, lighter engines, and fewer cylinders doing the work -- a 4 could perform like an 8 and probably have the economy of a 5, kind of thing.
 
Or, take this up to having these technologies all applied to diesels and really knock our MPG's outta the park all the while giving us Americans (at least) the torque we so covet.
 
Now, of course I am girding my loins for the response: "the reason is cost! you idiot." Well, OK, if it is cost, then it must be acquisition cost, not total cost of ownership -- yes? Why not edumacate the customers about the benefits that would accrue if we were to begin using super-turbo-charged, multi-valve, fuel-stratified, ultra high compression engines?
 
Big ones, small ones, fat ones, short ones -- seems we would kill several birds with few stones.
 
 

Replies to this message:
• lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 11:21 am)
  • markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 11:28 am)
    • lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 12:32 pm) and 1 more...

Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 4:37 am)

Replies to this message:
• markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 11:28 am)
  • lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 12:32 pm)
    • markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 12:56 pm)

Replying to: lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 11:21 am)

You'd get no quarrel from me on that -- there must be a "gotcha" there somewhere (or a pony) for if what you say is accurate (and I assume it is), why not use economical engines across the board.
 
And, for clarification, I mean economical engines that do not make performance seem to be an afterthought.
 
 

Replies to this message:
• lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 12:32 pm)
  • markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 12:56 pm)

Almost any time folks begin discussing, debating -- arguing even -- the merits of their favorite [LPS] cars, there emerges two and sometimes three broad groups of consumer opinions; these seem to be based on geography (where made or "perceived" where made, specifically): American, European (but mostly German) and Asian (but mostly Japanese).
 
I have come to the conclusion that it is difficult to have these discussions about the characteristics, content and performance of these cars across the broad groups. I was with some folks recently who claim they would never have any car from a non-American car company. I didn't go down the path of asking if they would still buy a Chrysler product, but for certain they were of the GM or Ford -- or die -- mindset.
 
Likewise, when I talk with my client's (Honda and Toyota) employees and folks who have Lexus, Acuras or even Infinitis they speak in a language I can comprehend but not understand. They speak of durability, reliability and seemingly brag, "I only had one oil change during the first 50,000 miles -- I just changed the filter every few thousand miles and add a quart!" Somehow "abuse" and seeing "who can go the longest between service visits" is touted -- almost shouted.
 
Neither the American car folks or the Japanese car folks seem interested in talking about "driving" their cars. Exception: the American car folks do seem to want to talk about the degree of isolation their Lucerne or STS offers and/or the acceleration their Hemi SRT-8 or CTS-V is capable of. Handling discussions, need not apply. Ergonomics beyond the expected, ditto. Tires, brakes, engine sounds, body roll and/or tightness, throttle tip-in, transmission lash (or lack) and -- well you get the picture, just are not topics of interest, or so it seems, to those who are strictly 'merican or Japanese owners.
 
Discussions of oversteer or understeer? They apparently could care less. HP, UHP or Max performance tires on what size wheels? Are just too many TLA's and numbers, and who but a geek cares about that anyway. RWD or FWD or AWD -- ". . .oh yea, I've got that CD by the Average White Band, is that who you meant, AWB?"
 
Xenon headlights, articulating beams, drive, sport or manu-matic mode? What's that?
 
Barely is the HP known, never is the torque -- and if it is, it is not known at what RPM that torque number is on tap. "On tap? Yea, me and Marv put Bud Light taps in our basement home theaters -- hey, we're havin' a Super Bowl Party, you wanna come?"
 
F/R weight distribution and the engineering might used to keep the cars as neutral as possible for as long as possible. Naaaa. "I never shift my car into neutral."
 
On the other hand, the guy with the terribly old Audi 4000S or BMW Bavaria or even the last of the Fiat's brought to the US decades ago, is "up" on the engines, transmissions, braking and anti-yaw systems du jour. He (generally a "he") seems to know that both 5th and 6th gear of your new BMW are overdriven and that just as soon as the "other guys" catch up with their versions of 7 speed automatics, that Mercedes is going to blow them all away with an 8 speed CVT that can take all the torque a TDI engine can dish out -- and work on 4Matics to boot. He'll know about Aud's switch from 50 50 F/R torque distribution to 40/60 and understands MagnaRide and the diagonal passive "shock absorbers" that are part of the RS4's "system."
 
He understands and will wax poetic on the improvements that going from an H rated to a W rated tire can facilitate. Also he will site, chapter and verse the problems associated with the SMG transmission versus the newly named S-Tronic "trannies'" lack of problems. The speed at which "that sweeping double S curve over on route 28 right outside of Oxford or Milford or Stepford" can be taken on dry or wet pavement "without breaking the tail loose" or "plowing into the cornfield" will be topics discussed with great enthusiasm. Rarely, if ever, will there be stories attempting to demonstrate the longest mean time between service intervals. Indeed, the subject of synthetic oils and getting the extra ounce of performance by switching to 0W-40 Mobil1 and using 94 octane that they have over at the Chevron in Pleasantville will be discussed instead.
 
It is just a different mind set, a different expectation set. My wife, an MBA and attorney still calls me and says "this X3 is a blast to take through the twisties." Not once does she talk about the exceptionally low maintenance BMW requires (and I assume she notices since she is forever making excuses to visit the BMW dealer -- most recently to "have the air in my tires checked." And, then when we get there she says, "which one do you want to test drive this time?!?") I usually tell her we should test the one with the biggest wheels and tires as that ALWAYS gets her to nod and smile, showing all her teeth.
 
My Acura driving friend (and I work with him) speaks of the stereo if he ever speaks at all about the car other than to comment on its reliability.
 
My bizarro world observations seem to be that folks who drive European cars love to talk about driving. The folks who buy and drive 'merican and Japanese, just don't seem all that interested in that aspect of the automobile.
 
I wonder if I told my wife I thought she was great, 'cause she was reliable and steady -- I wonder what kind of reaction I would get?
 
Thank goodness the sofa reclines, I guess.
 
Hope we get some good debate goin' on here. . . .

Replies to this message:
• lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 1:29 pm)
• warthog (Jul 25, 2006 1:38 pm)
  • ghstudio (Jul 25, 2006 2:21 pm)
  • markcincinnati (Jul 25, 2006 2:34 pm)
    • lexusguy (Jul 25, 2006 9:00 pm) and 7 more...
    • sfcharlie (Jul 26, 2006 8:00 am)