 | |
SMART CAR is the Solution
Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: SMART CAR is the Solution -
05-18-2004
, 11:06 AM
|
From a US-centric perspective, it seems that the vast majority of effort goes toward SUVs and very few new car lines are introduced each year, if any. Hell, there aren't really *any* good US-made cars anymore, unless you count some of Chrysler's specialty offerings, or the Z06 'vette. |
the last few years, and the only SUV that's gotten a big redesign is the
Durango (unless I've missed one). The Ford Focus, despite a rough start,
has now got an extremely good reputation. So does the current Neon.
Yeah, Chevy still cranks out craptacular Cavaliers, but that's the
exception more than the rule.
In contrast, the Japanese are cranking out new-design SUVs at an
appalling rate (and many of them are appalling SUVs, too- like the
hideous Nissan Armada).
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
I probably overstated with the term "never" but I am reasonably sure that any CO emissions would be negligible. Remember how much air a diesel can gulp, almost unrestricted. |
The fact that a diesel has no throttle makes no difference. Gasoline
engines ingest ENOUGH air to burn their fuel as completely as a diesel
can. CO production is more due to quenching of combustion against the
(relatively) cold combustion chamber walls rather than to a lack of
available oxygen in the intake charge.
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
CO from diesel is -- ok, after the catalytic converter, if you like -- no worse than from petrol. Indeed, I am sure I have read it is less. The only issue remaining is particulates |
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Matt Whiting" <whiting (AT) chilitech (DOT) net> wrote in message news:c88q63030i1 (AT) enews2 (DOT) newsguy.com... John Rogers wrote: I am a driver of a Chrysler PT Cruiser in the UK. My Cruiser is a 2.2 Litre diesel with manual box. The reason we drive diesels on the UK is that they get 25% more mpg than petrol models and the government keeps the cost of fuel high. My diesel is modern and does not smell, clatter or produce smoke. It has better pulling power than the petrol version making for a more relaxing drive. The engine will last at least 50% longer than the petrol version and it is cheaper to service. With biofuels starting to take off over here, in the future it will be able to run on biodiesel thus not contributing to global warming. Is it really cheaper to service? That certainly isn't typical with diesels. Most require more frequent oil and filter changes, require a more expensive oil filter, more expensive fuel filter (with water trapping capability), etc. Matt I have a 12,000 mile service interval and the petrol users have a 9,000 mile service interval. I checked that before I bought the car. Yes I use more oil in a change but I don't need new spark plugs or HT leads, no HT electrics at all in fact. |
fill the oil with crud a lot faster than gas engines. Yes, but diesels
have injectors and injection pumps and they don't last forever either.
And they cost MUCH more than plugs and HT leads.
Matt
#45
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Nate Nagel wrote: From a US-centric perspective, it seems that the vast majority of effort goes toward SUVs and very few new car lines are introduced each year, if any. Hell, there aren't really *any* good US-made cars anymore, unless you count some of Chrysler's specialty offerings, or the Z06 'vette. I disagree, there have been many new or re-engineered cars introduced in the last few years, and the only SUV that's gotten a big redesign is the Durango (unless I've missed one). The Ford Focus, despite a rough start, has now got an extremely good reputation. |
Quote:
|
So does the current Neon. |
Quote:
|
Yeah, Chevy still cranks out craptacular Cavaliers, but that's the exception more than the rule. |
IMHO most of them are just bigger versions of the same crap (any Chevy)
or warmed over versions of ancient platforms that might have been good
in their day but need serious attention to stay competitive (Mustang,
Lincoln LS, Crown Vic) or have such bizarre styling that many people
don't even give them serious consideration (any Cadillac.)
Quote:
|
In contrast, the Japanese are cranking out new-design SUVs at an appalling rate (and many of them are appalling SUVs, too- like the hideous Nissan Armada). |
revamped car lineup, with the Sentra, Altima and Maxima not to mention
the 350Z, not to mention the Infiniti offerings. None of which have any
serious domestic competition with the exception of the Z.
Can you seriously tell me that someone considering the purchase of a
non-entry level (and that's not even a necessary qualifier) *CAR*
doesn't consider many more offerings, and of a generally higher quality,
from import mfgrs. than those currently offered by the Big Three?
nate
--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Dori A Schmetterling wrote: CO from diesel is -- ok, after the catalytic converter, if you like -- no worse than from petrol. Indeed, I am sure I have read it is less. The only issue remaining is particulates That's wrong. There is also NOx, which diesels still have trouble with. |
better, and would be able to convert NOx.
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nate Nagel wrote: From a US-centric perspective, it seems that the vast majority of effort goes toward SUVs and very few new car lines are introduced each year, if any. Hell, there aren't really *any* good US-made cars anymore, unless you count some of Chrysler's specialty offerings, or the Z06 'vette. I disagree, there have been many new or re-engineered cars introduced in the last few years, and the only SUV that's gotten a big redesign is the Durango (unless I've missed one). The Ford Focus, despite a rough start, has now got an extremely good reputation. So does the current Neon. Yeah, Chevy still cranks out craptacular Cavaliers, but that's the exception more than the rule. |
better.
I walked around a used car lot one afternoon and was amazed at the number of
Cavaliers missing HVAC control knobs.
Quote:
|
In contrast, the Japanese are cranking out new-design SUVs at an appalling rate (and many of them are appalling SUVs, too- like the hideous Nissan Armada). |
Right now isn't the best time for SUVs though, and the market may shift.
#48
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
Steve wrote: Nate Nagel wrote: From a US-centric perspective, it seems that the vast majority of effort goes toward SUVs and very few new car lines are introduced each year, if any. Hell, there aren't really *any* good US-made cars anymore, unless you count some of Chrysler's specialty offerings, or the Z06 'vette. I disagree, there have been many new or re-engineered cars introduced in the last few years, and the only SUV that's gotten a big redesign is the Durango (unless I've missed one). The Ford Focus, despite a rough start, has now got an extremely good reputation. It's still a cheap s**tbox. |
Quote:
|
So does the current Neon. Ditto. (even if the sportier versions are somewhat appealing) |
offerings. I didn't find anything amazingly different, other than the price.
Quote:
|
Yeah, Chevy still cranks out craptacular Cavaliers, but that's the exception more than the rule. How so? What are the higher end car offerings? (sound of crickets) IMHO most of them are just bigger versions of the same crap (any Chevy) or warmed over versions of ancient platforms that might have been good in their day but need serious attention to stay competitive (Mustang, Lincoln LS, Crown Vic) or have such bizarre styling that many people don't even give them serious consideration (any Cadillac.) |
to other GMs.
Quote:
|
In contrast, the Japanese are cranking out new-design SUVs at an appalling rate (and many of them are appalling SUVs, too- like the hideous Nissan Armada). True, but at least Nissan (to take one example) has a solid, regularly revamped car lineup, with the Sentra, Altima and Maxima not to mention the 350Z, not to mention the Infiniti offerings. None of which have any serious domestic competition with the exception of the Z. |
the only company that has any significantly higher reliability rating, and
for imports Honda comes second but mainly Honda has all sorts of funky
leading edge engineering (but does have some reliability / build quality
issues). With most other import brands you seem to pay more, but don't get
anything in return.
Quote:
|
Can you seriously tell me that someone considering the purchase of a non-entry level (and that's not even a necessary qualifier) *CAR* doesn't consider many more offerings, and of a generally higher quality, from import mfgrs. than those currently offered by the Big Three? |
#49
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0405181144390.22125 (AT) alumni (DOT) engin.umich.edu... On Tue, 18 May 2004, Dori A Schmetterling wrote: CO from diesel is -- ok, after the catalytic converter, if you like -- no worse than from petrol. Indeed, I am sure I have read it is less. The only issue remaining is particulates That's wrong. There is also NOx, which diesels still have trouble with. If we didn't have as shitty sulfur filled gas, the cat converters would work better, and would be able to convert NOx. |
#50
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have asked DC to quote me emission figures on a couple of Mercedes diesels and equivalent petrol engines. It might take a couple of days. In the meantime, the CO2 figures, which are the most required in the UK because of taxation (yes, I know it's silly, but there it is), are: C 220 CDI - 178 g/km C 200 Komp petrol - 202 g/km S 320 CDI - 204 g/km S 350 and, apparently, S 280 petrol - 266 g/km. Diesel emits less CO2. I asked for CO, NOx and particulates and, if applicable, SOx. DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Bill 2" <asdf (AT) asdf (DOT) com> wrote in message news:wQUqc.44701$Np3.1848962 (AT) ursa-nb00s0 (DOT) nbnet.nb.ca... "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0405181144390.22125 (AT) alumni (DOT) engin.umich.edu... On Tue, 18 May 2004, Dori A Schmetterling wrote: CO from diesel is -- ok, after the catalytic converter, if you like -- no worse than from petrol. Indeed, I am sure I have read it is less. The only issue remaining is particulates That's wrong. There is also NOx, which diesels still have trouble with. If we didn't have as shitty sulfur filled gas, the cat converters would work better, and would be able to convert NOx. |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.