| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2006 11:04:01 AM · #1 |
I only buy Japenese. I don't have the patience or cash flow to buy a north american clunker.
My dream car is a mid 80's Porsche 911 (yeah I know, German). |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 10:34:00 AM · #2 |
Tell me, what date will exit the Dodge Challenger 2008 ?
Thank you !!
Michel |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:10:13 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
I'd like to get one of those programmers and a chip for it and change some stuff but it's still under warranty and I don't wanna take the chance on them voiding it because I messed with it. |
You havta realize the engineers that designed the system have tried to maximize efficentcy,reliablity, and performance to a point, changing that changes one of those. Under warrenty I wouldn't risk it. Had a customer today the blew up his 6.0 Ford Diesel pushing it to far, was under warrenty but his mods ruined that now hes pocketbook is paying for a new engine. Not only is he out the price of the Bully Dog piggyback chip but now hes out a working truck he uses to plow snow and landscape, Till he replaces the engine.
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 02:11:37. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:01:06 AM · #4 |
I'd like to get one of those programmers and a chip for it and change some stuff but it's still under warranty and I don't wanna take the chance on them voiding it because I messed with it.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:57:10 AM · #5 |
| To be Honest with ya customers that have the the 4.7L in a Dakota/Durango claim about the same Mileage as your getting. I see your in Iowa so the climate is pretty close, winter kills MPG. But I do love all the new Technoligy going into the new cars. Its my bread and butter I own an auto repair shop, and have a BS in computer science, the more computer based the better! |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:45:21 AM · #6 |
It's cool. I'll be the first to admit I was a little surprised at the crappy mileage it got. But like I said, I didn't buy it because I was mileage conscience. If you ever read mileage statements on window stickers, they are based at 55mph. For every mph past 60 you lose .5 mpg on most vehicles. I read that in a fuel mileage study article not long back somewhere on the internet. And from watching, it's pretty much true.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:34:14 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Here's the gas guzzling beast Matt
 |
Dude I wasn't doubting ya, Its just not the same engine as the Vin H version (The Magnum, Charger, 300C) A truck is totally a different animal for fuel MPG. Personally I Drive a truck that barely gets 12MPG a 93 Landcruiser. This tread was started of the Challenger version the 6.1L version and I have only real world tested the 5.7 version (Vin H) and it did get 23 mpg on 2 different cars. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:28:17 AM · #8 |
| With my Trans Am 5.7L V-8 I get about 18 mpg around town stop and go and on the freeway cruising cross-county at 90 mph I can maintain 20 mpg. AND I do hot rod it alot. Big efficiant powerful engine can give great gas mileage because they don't have to work as hard pushing it through the wind. 14-20 on the new Challenger sound about right. My guess on the freeway if ya drove it like grandma at 65 mph it would do better. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:26:23 AM · #9 |
Here's the gas guzzling beast Matt
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 01:28:14.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:24:21 AM · #10 |
looks nice but it sure is heavier than heck
has 425 hp, 420 lb-ft of torque, and a six-speed manual transmission. So geared, with its 4,100 pound weight, it can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds (with 20 inch wheels on front and 21 inch wheels on back), and runs the quarter mile in 13 seconds flat; top speed is 174 mph (limited by wind resistance), while gas mileage is estimated at 14 city, 20 highway, very good compared with the original Challenger. Brakes are more effective than the original - stopping from 60 mph can be done in 133 feet.
//www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger.html
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 01:25:12. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:20:33 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by photodude:
In the real world, unless you only drive it on a wide open freeway at a steady 60MPH, that car is never going to get 22 MPG |
That car isn't made to get 22mpg. Anybody worried about gas mileage or the price of gas shouldn't be buying one in the first place. My 5.7 HEMI struggles to get 15mpg. My lead foot averages about 10mpg. I bought it for the power, not the gas mileage. |
Um Dude, unless your totally flooring that thing at every stop light and driving it like you stole it, something is wrong, what model of car is it in? 10mpg is way low for that 5.7L.. Thats like V-10 8.0L truck mileage with a bobcat trailer... |
Um Dude, it's a 1500 Ram short box with a 3.92 gear. On the window sticker it was only rated for 12mpg in the city and 16mpg Highway. I drive it everyday. I think I oughtta know what my mileage is. |
A truck I see:) Not a car, a little difference in Mileage Besides, thats not the Hemi with MDS... 2 different animals... VIN #8 = D on yours the Hemi in the Car 5.7 is VIN H...
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 01:21:55. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:16:10 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by photodude:
In the real world, unless you only drive it on a wide open freeway at a steady 60MPH, that car is never going to get 22 MPG |
That car isn't made to get 22mpg. Anybody worried about gas mileage or the price of gas shouldn't be buying one in the first place. My 5.7 HEMI struggles to get 15mpg. My lead foot averages about 10mpg. I bought it for the power, not the gas mileage. |
Um Dude, unless your totally flooring that thing at every stop light and driving it like you stole it, something is wrong, what model of car is it in? 10mpg is way low for that 5.7L.. Thats like V-10 8.0L truck mileage with a bobcat trailer... |
Um Dude, it's a 1500 Ram short box with a 3.92 gear. On the window sticker it was only rated for 12mpg in the city and 16mpg Highway. I drive it everyday. I think I oughtta know what my mileage is.
It's a gas hog. I pulled my camper to Colorado with it and got 7.5mpg. I think I have a pic of it somewhere in here.
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 01:21:45.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:04:34 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Originally posted by photodude:
In the real world, unless you only drive it on a wide open freeway at a steady 60MPH, that car is never going to get 22 MPG |
That car isn't made to get 22mpg. Anybody worried about gas mileage or the price of gas shouldn't be buying one in the first place. My 5.7 HEMI struggles to get 15mpg. My lead foot averages about 10mpg. I bought it for the power, not the gas mileage. |
Um Dude, unless your totally flooring that thing at every stop light and driving it like you stole it, something is wrong, what model of car is it in? 10mpg is way low for that 5.7L.. Thats like V-10 8.0L truck mileage with a bobcat trailer... |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 12:53:48 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by photodude:
In the real world, unless you only drive it on a wide open freeway at a steady 60MPH, that car is never going to get 22 MPG |
That car isn't made to get 22mpg. Anybody worried about gas mileage or the price of gas shouldn't be buying one in the first place. My 5.7 HEMI struggles to get 15mpg. My lead foot averages about 10mpg. I bought it for the power, not the gas mileage.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 12:53:13 AM · #15 |
| Muscle Car ... I'm still holding on to my 1998 Trans Am. I can't belive anyone would want anything much fater unless they were at a drag stip. 160 mph is no problem with it, once even faster on a straight road in the desert of New Mexico. Kinda fun passing a hitchhiker about 8 feet away at over 150 mph, I bet I really gave him a spin. ;) |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 11:44:36 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Actually they are totally different than the 70's all the engine control is handled by a computer that optimizes air to fuel ratio and also keeps track of the emissions it produces and those emission devices. The Hemi this thread is refering to uses MDS so it basically is as efficent as a 4 cylinder at speed. Besides Fuel cells are alot harder to implement compared to Hybrid, and Bio-Diesel.
|
Fuel cells, bio, hybrid.....all of the above. That's where the R&D should be going.
As for the fuel efficiency of the hemi motors, I read a review of the Jeep hemi done here in Oz a few months ago. Combined city/country cycle fuel economy was around 15L/100km (and the country tesing done here is usually long, flat roads at a constant speed which make for flattering fuel economy results). My Subaru gets around 9.5L/100km city only cycle. There is no comparison! "Basically as efficient as a 4 cylinder" is a nice marketing line tho.
Q. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 11:21:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Qiki:
It's rare that I agree with anything George W has to say, but in this case I reckon you guys have simply gotta listen to what he and many many others are telling you about the use of fossil fuels.
There is simply NO justification in this day and age for manufacturers to be pumping out 6.1L V8s. R&D money needs to be spent on technologies like hydrogen fuel cells etc, not reinventing new/old body styles to wrap around engines/drivetrains not far removed those of the 70's. |
Actually they are totally different than the 70's all the engine control is handled by a computer that optimizes air to fuel ratio and also keeps track of the emissions it produces and those emission devices. The Hemi this thread is refering to uses MDS so it basically is as efficent as a 4 cylinder at speed. Besides Fuel cells are alot harder to implement compared to Hybrid, and Bio-Diesel.
Originally posted by Qiki:
In the meantime, the economy/safety/performance/value for money of the better quality 4 cylinder vehicles from many manufacturers is nothing short of remarkable. For the record, I've been driving 4 cylinder Subarus for a number of years now and I would put the build quality etc up against anything else of a similar price.
All of this is just my opinion of course... :)
Q. |
I hope its not a 2.2Liter or 2.5L because they had a rash of bad head gaskets and that requires pulling the motor. Subaru has updated the headgasket now. But on some of the 2.2L the block would also crack around cylinder #4 allowing coolant into the cylinder. But they are dependable otherwise for the most part.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 23:23:01. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 11:08:48 PM · #18 |
It's rare that I agree with anything George W has to say, but in this case I reckon you guys have simply gotta listen to what he and many many others are telling you about the use of fossil fuels.
There is simply NO justification in this day and age for manufacturers to be pumping out 6.1L V8s. R&D money needs to be spent on technologies like hydrogen fuel cells etc, not reinventing new/old body styles to wrap around engines/drivetrains not far removed those of the 70's. In the meantime, the economy/safety/performance/value for money of the better quality 4 cylinder vehicles from many manufacturers is nothing short of remarkable. For the record, I've been driving 4 cylinder Subarus for a number of years now and I would put the build quality etc up against anything else of a similar price.
All of this is just my opinion of course... :)
Q. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:59:05 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Most of the cars you've listed, including the American ones, are economy cars. Some are upscaled versions that perform better but as a group they are not really a very good comparison to muscle cars. And no one has mentioned the Corvette, which some people would say was the ultimate muscle car. |
Corvettes have a following no doubt about it, I like um because most the owners don't mind putting a ton money into them keeping them up to par. But they are the test bed for GM technoligy, I remeber having a customer come in White Knuckled and scared after his 97 Corvette had the problem where it decided to lock the Steering wheel in the present position driving down the highway, no way to turn off on that just slow down and hope. Of course it has a magnesium steering wheel that almost always breaks taking it off (big Bucks), not to mention that was the first year of drive by wire (have a few Accel pedals laying around). Last but not least they decided to put the Engine control computer right behind the Passenger front wheel, tucked behind the wheel by a thin peice of plastic, Tire blowouts, any rock that decided to penatrate that cost big bucks:)
Oh the NUMMI Plant makes lots more than Corollas //www.nummi.com/facts.html |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:53:51 PM · #20 |
| What about the Corvette. Although there was no car in 1983 |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:52:08 PM · #21 |
Did you know the Toyota corolla is the oldest car still in production today?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:43:38 PM · #22 |
Leasing is huge in Calif. I'll have to find the article but people who finance autos keep them on the average of 42mos. How many people do you know can buy a new Porsche or Mercedes or other luxury vehicles every couple of years. You'll see more and more leasing as the fixed rates continue to go up. The average price for an auto is 32k. In fact Orange county/LA accounts for more leasing than the entire west coast.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 22:47:53. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:43:22 PM · #23 |
| The NUMMI plant which made corollas and chevy version, is a UAW plant. Hmm... any surprise there that it would be lowest in quality for Toyota? |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:40:22 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Build quality does matter. A warranty doesn't get you to work. Constantly dropping off your car at the dealer has got to be a royal pain in the ass, not to mention waiting on the side of the road for the tow truck.
The big three's cars have one thing in common regardless of whether they are assembled in Mexico, the USA, or Canada - they are put together by the UAW. Results speak for themselves.
Most buyers do not lease. I believe the average new car is kept something like 6-7 years. |
The Last article I read said 50% lease, and of those that do lease they are 78% likely to lease the next one. Another thing about quality, Toyota and GM have a joint venture plant in California, called the NUMMI plant (New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc) it was rated Toyotas worse plant in quality control, Yet it was rated the best GM plant. A big thing I have problem with is how Mopar/GM/Ford hide quality control problems from the public instead of addressing them, and some are big time safety defects that really need to be fixed (I could give multiple examples) and alot of the Japanise automakers address it right away.
For me why spend 20-40K for a car that after 6-7 years is worth 5K at best. Besides why is it a 35k new 2001 MB ML300 worth only 10K, yet finding a 2001 Toyota Rav4 (New 20K) at 10K is hard find. Personally I hate wasteing money, and nice an used is fine by me. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:34:50 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Four words: Escort, Chevette, Pinto, Caviler.
My Japanese classic or soon to be classic list:
Toyota Supra
Toyota Celica
Datsun 240 or 280Z
All Toyota FJ landcruisers
Not a fan but have a big following - Suzuki Samari
Honda NSX
Mitsibishi Eclipse
Mazda RX-7
80's Toyota trucks
Toyota MR2
I've even seen people collect the original Honda Civic's and Accords.
...and I'm probably missing 42 others.
Plenty of heart, sole and originality. |
Most of the cars you've listed, including the American ones, are economy cars. Some are upscaled versions that perform better but as a group they are not really a very good comparison to muscle cars. And no one has mentioned the Corvette, which some people would say was the ultimate muscle car.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:23:03 PM EDT.
