Karl's Daily Log Book - READ ONLY

2391 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2005 at 6:50 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Coupe, Sedan, SUV

Karl Brauer is the Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com, which means he finds himself in a different vehicle almost every day of the week. If you want a daily road test review regarding the latest cars and trucks to hit the market, along with commentary on everything from auto industry happenings to L.A. drivers to his latest close encounter with Johnny Law, this is the place to be.

Outline

Messages Page 7 of 239: 1; ...; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; ...; 239; Prev; Next; Last

#61 of 2391 the neighbors? by steve_ HOST Mar 22, 2005 (9:07 pm)
Karl, just what do your neighbors say when they see you driving a different car every day? Steve, Host
#62 of 2391 Re: March 10 [editor_karl] by andys120 Mar 23, 2005 (7:29 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 22, 2005 2:06 pm) I don't even count $3 a gallon as drastic. If you spend $50 a month on gas and it goes up to $80 a month, how much does that $30 really affect you? That's less than most people pay for their ISP $50 a Month! What Planet do you live on? My weekly fillup is close to $50. I believe we've already reached a tipping point where fuel prices are affecting buying decisions, witness the decline in sales of big trucks, and SUVs. Most people who can afford MegaHP cars aren't affected but $3 gas will work it's way down the food chain and hurt the sales of powerful cars intended for the ordinary consumer (Mustangs, 300Cs, etc.)
#63 of 2391 karl by nitromax Mar 23, 2005 (7:33 am)
2. The horsepower race is being driven by the same factor that drives everything in corporate America: money. Right now there's an appetite for high horsepower engines (despite rising fuel costs). This means that most companies would rather be able to brag about having the highest horsepower number for a given segment than worry about its practical uses on increasingly crowded roads lined with increasiingly expensive gas stations. I agree with you, but I think it's sad. A lot of this extra HP goes to waste with most drivers and most of the time. There's also an appetite for liposuction and makeovers but we don't see cars being equipped mith liposuction machines and collagen implanters. "I had my thighs done on my way to work this morning" "check out my lips....did them at lunch while waiting for my Big Mac meal" LOL Don't get me wrong, I love capitalism and letting the market drive design. I'm just saying that as long as consumers buy 300-plus horsepower SUVs and 500-plus horsepower sports cars, the carmakers will keep making them (as well they should). It would take something drastic to change this situation, and I don't even count $3 a gallon as drastic. If you spend $50 a month on gas and it goes up to $80 a month, how much does that $30 really affect you? That's less than most people pay for their ISP. I would say many consumers don't know what they are doing and they act like moths drawn to the light (or the bug zapper) So you are suggesting people could get rid of their ISP to buy more gas? Just so they can maintain their normal driving routine...but drive in style? once again....sad (not saying you are sad, it's just that some people will do this) and so much for checking out cars and their features on Edmunds.com because they no longer have an ISP... ....or cable But that Durango with the Hemi is out in the driveway and everyone in the neighborhood is in envy....or so the owner thinks. There's too much excess in todays world....everyone seems to be trying to out-do each other with superficial things. Replies to this message: editor_karl (Mar 23, 2005 11:10 pm)
#64 of 2391 Re: March 10 [editor_karl] by kurtamaxxguy Mar 23, 2005 (8:17 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 22, 2005 2:06 pm) Thanks for feedback, Karl! You are absolutely right about the airlines - my last year-ago airtrip was very unpleasant (nasty security check, bus like accomidations). A great disincentive to fly. One thing not mentioned much, though... We now have huge traffic jams thanks to all the extra "avoid-airline" traffic. Ex: The LA,CA through Sacramento CA freeway system is a giant parking lot during any major holiday. Including more huge trucks, the traffic is pulverizing our interstate system and many local roads, and offering potholes and other ruts that eat dubs and their skinny rubber for lunch. So how is the USA (and us) going to keep the roads working? New Taxes? Tolls? Use fees levelled at the vehicles that damage or clog the roads the most?
#65 of 2391 lev - post #60 by davem2001 Mar 23, 2005 (12:27 pm)
I definitely agree. I find it interesting how perceptions of what is "underpowered" have really changed over the last 20 years... I remember when the first Rabbit GTI came out in 1983 - people were thrilled because it had 90hp! Now, the Jetta is thought to be waaay underpowered with 115hp! Or... the first Mustang 5.0 in 1982 had 157 hp. Less than a 4-cyl Camry has today... Now the "wimpy" base V6 Mustang has over 200hp and does 0-60 in around 7 secs. Etc.. etc.... I'd say 10,20 years ago a car with a 0-60 time of around 10-11 seconds was considered average or almost quick...now that's considered dog slow...
#66 of 2391 kurtamaxx by davem2001 Mar 23, 2005 (12:34 pm)
Definitely, air travel is a pain in the wazoo these days... anything less than about 300 miles or so, it's quicker door to door just to drive, when you factor in driving to the airport, parking, the security check, the delayed flight, the cattle car accomodations on the flight, the search for your luggage when you land, etc... Much more pleasant just to drive, IMO.
#67 of 2391 Re: karl [nitromax] by editor_karl Mar 23, 2005 (11:10 pm)
Replying to: nitromax (Mar 23, 2005 7:33 am) I shouldn't have said ISP. I usually say cable when making this point, and not because either of these items should be given up to pay for gas. I simply mean to call out that people spend $50-$100 a month on pure luxury items, every month, and they don't even flinch. If you are spending over $50 a month on cable (I am, by the way) that means you're spending $600 a year to watch extra TV channels. As such, it's my opinion that (most) people will spend an extra $600 a year on gas without even thinking about it. I'm not putting a "good" or "bad" judgment call on this, I'm just stating what I believe to be a fact. But you bring up a good point with regard to cosmetic surgery. The essence of life in America is having both the means and the freedom to buy what you DON'T really need. I'd challenge anyone to look at their last credit card statement and identify the things they HAD to buy... (said in a Yakov Smirnov voice) America! What a country!
#68 of 2391 Re: March 10 [lev_berkovich] by editor_karl Mar 23, 2005 (11:31 pm)
Replying to: lev_berkovich (Mar 22, 2005 2:59 pm) A couple things to point out here: You say, "We have opted for the lower power - 2.9 and 2.5T in both cases and believe that both vehicles have more than enough "muscles" for the everyday' drive." Well that's great...for you. But it's possible your definition of "enough muscles" may be different from mine, or anyone elses. Are you suggesting there is some universal definition of "enough muscles" and anything more than that is unnecessary and wasteful for any and all buyers? What about people with large families that live in Denver. Have you ever driven from Denver to Vail in a 2.5T XC90, loaded with passengers and luggage? People in that circumstance might have a different definition of "enough" power. This also goes to what I just addressed in my last post. How many people out there are looking for "enough" horsepower? What's that old banking/investment tagling, "Because Americans want to succeed, not just survive." I will not try to decide what is "enough" for people. I will tell them what is available at any given price point, and let them decide. And if one vehicle at that price point feels noticeably more lethargic than another vehicle at that price point, I'll be sure to report it in my road test (I'd consider it negligent not to report such a fact). Finally, even if everyone at Edmunds decided to take an anti-horsepower stance it wouldn't make a difference in the free market. All that would happen is someone would buy a vehicle thinking it had "enough" power because our road test said so (or failed to say it didn't), and then they'd find themselves crawling up a hill and/or unable to grab open slots in traffic. Then their opinion would be "Well, I guess Edmunds.com doesn't report the important stuff, I'll have to go somewhere else for the facts." Horsepower exists because horsepower sells, and it doesn't sell just because road test editors like it. It sells because almost everyone likes it. I can't change that fact by ignoring it in my car reviews. Replies to this message: doug889 (Mar 24, 2005 3:11 am) kurtamaxxguy (Mar 24, 2005 9:58 am)
#69 of 2391 Re: March 10 [editor_karl] by doug889 Mar 24, 2005 (3:11 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 23, 2005 11:31 pm) Great points, Karl. Let the market work, let capitalism work (it works!). I grew up in a communist country and I will take capitalism and American way of life any minute. Replies to this message: kurtamaxxguy (Mar 24, 2005 9:58 am)
#70 of 2391 Karl by davem2001 Mar 24, 2005 (7:05 am)
I'm not saying the HP race is driven by the automotive media, what I'm saying is, it's pretty interesting to me to see how the perception of "enough" power has changed over the years... I just read a review in Car and Driver of the 2005 SSR with 390hp and it was talking about how the 2004 model with "only" 300hp was underpowered and had a 0-60 of "only" 7.0 secs. I remember back in the 80's when an average car probably had 110hp and was lucky to get under 12 sec 0-60. I wonder if, 20 years from now, we'll be reading reviews and the writer will say, "it only has 400 hp and can't get under 6.0 sec 0-60, so it's a little slow..." I'm not complaining or saying that the goverment needs to intervene, I just find it interesting how perceptions have changed... I guess we're living in a Golden Age of performance right now... Replies to this message: andys120 (Mar 24, 2005 7:55 am)