Prev: math for mike hunter, sales manager extraordinaire
Next: Tacoma Trottle Case
From: Clive on 14 Feb 2010 14:38
In message <4b78472f$0$10190$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, Mike Hunter
<Mikehunt2(a)lycos.?.invalid> writes
>Why would one compare a 4cy (full of fat) with a V6 (no fat?) The
>comparison is to engine size and HP available. Why pay more for a smaller
>engine simply because of ones perception that it is better? We could
>never figure that out, we just took "ones" money ;)
Your understanding of engines and their dynamic is astoundingly
ignorant. For the same BHP and torque, as you increase the number of
cylinders the fuel consumption rockets, that is why all the modern small
cars in Europe and Asia are turning their backs on four cylinder engines
for 1.0 and 1.2 litre cars and going to three cylinder engines. Very
slightly rougher at idle speeds but once on the move, unnoticeable and
more fuel efficient, which means you don't only fill the tank less, but
you pollute less too.
--
Clive

From: Mike Hunter on 14 Feb 2010 16:20
That may be your opinion but if one drives a 4cy Camry in the mountainous
areas of the US it will average FEWER MPG than if one drove a V6 Camry in
the same area. The reason being the greater torque of the V6 will allow
the tranny to remain in higher gears more of the time.

That is true of other cars as well. My one son has a 2010 Mustang V6 and
a 2010 Mustang V8. The V8 constantly averages 2 MPG more than the V6, even
though the V6 is rated 4 MPG higher by the EPA.


"Clive" <Clive(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EyWKrzXeEFeLFw1E(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <4b78472f$0$10190$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, Mike Hunter
> <Mikehunt2(a)lycos.?.invalid> writes
>>Why would one compare a 4cy (full of fat) with a V6 (no fat?) The
>>comparison is to engine size and HP available. Why pay more for a
>>smaller
>>engine simply because of ones perception that it is better? We could
>>never figure that out, we just took "ones" money ;)
> Your understanding of engines and their dynamic is astoundingly ignorant.
> For the same BHP and torque, as you increase the number of cylinders the
> fuel consumption rockets, that is why all the modern small cars in Europe
> and Asia are turning their backs on four cylinder engines for 1.0 and 1.2
> litre cars and going to three cylinder engines. Very slightly rougher at
> idle speeds but once on the move, unnoticeable and more fuel efficient,
> which means you don't only fill the tank less, but you pollute less too.
> --
> Clive
>


From: Mike Hunter on 15 Feb 2010 13:17
Don't you mean THINKING something is BETTER is what gets Toyota buyer to 20%
to 30% more? LOL


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-26CFBD.16193414022010(a)nothing.attdns.com...
> incorrect top posting fixed
>
> In article <4b78472f$0$10190$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>,
> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote:
>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>> news:elmop-488AB9.13460614022010(a)nothing.attdns.com...
>> > In article <4b782f79$0$10195$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>,
>> > "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> (Cross posting fixed)
>> >>
>> >> 4cy, get real? In many case one can buy a domestic with a V6 for less
>> >> than
>> >> a Toyota with an underpowered 4cy that can not get out of its own way.
>> >
>> > Yes, and I can buy five pounds of McDonald's hamburger for less than
>> > going to Morton's and getting a 12 ounce steak.
>> >
>> > What's your point?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why would one compare a 4cy (full of fat) with a V6 (no fat?) The
>> comparison is to engine size and HP available. Why pay more for a
>> smaller
>> engine simply because of ones perception that it is better? We could
>> never figure that out, we just took "ones" money ;)
>
> My Cunter thinks that "MORE IS BETTER!" Imagine that.


From: Clive on 15 Feb 2010 15:55
In message <4b798e16$0$10187$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, Mike Hunter
<Mikehunt2(a)lycos.?.invalid> writes
>Don't you mean THINKING something is BETTER is what gets Toyota buyer to 20%
>to 30% more? LOL
I'm quite puzzled by this, because my Toyota didn't cost me any more
than any other car I could have bought for a comparable
power/size/weight, I'm talking forecourt prices here, not the 10% that I
got off of it. Further, VW, Merc. And Audi, amongst others cost more.
Whilst I've got your attention (have I?) "Which?" Says of the Dodge
Avenger that one of it failings is brake fade. I've had brake fade
once, now I won't touch anything that doesn't have four disc brakes.
Drum brakes on such a large vehicle shows an inability to catch up with
technology, or a careless attitude towards it's buyers safety.
--
Clive

From: jim beam on 15 Feb 2010 16:07
On 02/15/2010 12:55 PM, Clive wrote:
> In message <4b798e16$0$10187$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, Mike Hunter
> <Mikehunt2(a)lycos.?.invalid> writes
>> Don't you mean THINKING something is BETTER is what gets Toyota buyer
>> to 20%
>> to 30% more? LOL
> I'm quite puzzled by this, because my Toyota didn't cost me any more
> than any other car I could have bought for a comparable
> power/size/weight, I'm talking forecourt prices here, not the 10% that I
> got off of it. Further, VW, Merc. And Audi, amongst others cost more.
> Whilst I've got your attention (have I?) "Which?" Says of the Dodge
> Avenger that one of it failings is brake fade. I've had brake fade once,
> now I won't touch anything that doesn't have four disc brakes. Drum
> brakes on such a large vehicle shows an inability to catch up with
> technology, or a careless attitude towards it's buyers safety.

it's not "careless", it's a financial decision. it's cheaper to buy off
the families of the bereaved than it is to build the car with better
brakes. and what are the consequences when you know you can buy off
any political heat should it arise?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: math for mike hunter, sales manager extraordinaire
Next: Tacoma Trottle Case