The Car Thread ... !

[iTurbo]

Turbocharged cars can go either way as far as power or economy. One of my friends told me that his Ford F150 Ecoboost had either 'Eco' or 'Boost', but not both. A lot of it has to do with driving style. If you go all out 'hypermiling', then yeah, it will be good or great. But most people get aftermarket tunes for more power/driveability and the fun factor.

I've had an old '80s Chrysler mid size sedan get 41 MPG on the interstate before, with a 2.2L 4-cylinder turbo. I had a vac/boost gauge I installed and tried as hard as I could to coast whenever possible, kept the speed below 70 MPH, and tried to keep the vac/boost gauge needle in the vacuum range as much as possible by micro managing the throttle. It wasn't hard to do. And this was on a car with 3" exhaust, no emissions (stripped) and manual boost control. And this was an '87 model year car.

 

[D.T.]

But it's not going to cost less than buying new and trading in.

Sure it can Lots of scenarios where the reduced lease monthly winds up being less than the total financed payments minus equity, let’s say at 3 years - and that doesn’t even factor in things like big hits on trade value because of market flux, accidents, etc.

If you keep the car like you said, or go with a lower up front price with a CPO, then that’s a different equation
[doublepost=1515729244][/doublepost]

I've had an old '80s Chrysler mid size sedan get 41 MPG on the interstate before, with a 2.2L 4-cylinder turbo.

BTW, I had a Dodge Daytona / G-body with the ubiquitous 2.2L turbo motor.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I understand the convenience factor, but I'm pushing back at the notion that leasing is cheaper than buying. Many dealers have said that to me, that leasing is the smarter, less expensive way to go. "Why put your money into a depreciating asset", blah blah. Now, if you're going to get a new car every 3 years, that's fine. But it's not going to cost less than buying new and trading in. And it will cost a lot more than buying new and holding on for 4 or 5 years. Modern cars do not require expensive maintenance until nearly 100,000 miles.

The only honest answer to the question "is it cheaper to buy or lease? is "it depends".

Having said that, I would speculate that the definitive answer, if you want to get technical, is that buying is cheaper - and cite as evidence the various examples of ultra-high mileage cars out there. Most discussions of the lease vs buy question are based on the average length of ownership, which is a little over 6 years. Leases are attractive for the short-term, which is what they were designed for. But if you are willing to keep a car longer, you will ultimately save money. One 60 month financing deal vs two 3 year leases makes leasing look like a reasonable alternative - but if you take that same 60 month finance deal and keep the car for 9 years, you save money compared with doing 3 consecutive 3 year leases. You can save even more if you buy a newer used car that has been well cared-for.

If you service your car regularly, do some of the simpler maintenance yourself, plan ahead for the bigger maintenance items, and avoid accidents, you can keep a car a very, very long time for substantially less money than a number of leases covering the same period.

Cars are becoming ever more reliable, so owning a car longer is becoming increasingly economical. It's easy to keep a car for 10 years, and even 20 years of inexpensive ownership is perfectly reasonable so long as you keep up with maintenance.

 

[44267547]

Yep, turbo designs tend to have more radical extremes

That's more of a generalization. Just to clear this up, "Radical" would also depend on the the drivers aggressiveness in accelerating on and off the pedal. In the sense Of driving a turbo charged vehicle today in sport Mode, it holds gears longer and the engine revs in a more spirited pace, thus contributing to fuel efficiency. I can only speak to my SHO, But every vehicle will differ in results obviously producing fuel mileage based on driving behavior. Its all relative, but variable.
[doublepost=1515755785][/doublepost]If anyone is interested as a detail enthusiast with your vehicle as I am, I would recommend "Car Guys" Wax and detailer. I first learned of it At a Cars and Coffee event. Its excellent in producing a show room appeal and the reviews are stellar.

As someone as myself about detailing my cars, I don't even allow dealerships to even wax my car, as I'm that meticulous/particular about the process and products they use. (Which, I don't think dealerships do a good job as it is.)

It's not cheap, it's approximately $30 for the wax and $25 for the detailer, but produces results to my expectations.

 

[D.T.]

That's more of a generalization. Just to clear this up, "Radical" would also depend on the the drivers aggressiveness in accelerating on and off the pedal. In the sense Of driving a turbo charged vehicle today in sport Mode, it holds gears longer and the engine revs in a more spirited pace, thus contributing to fuel efficiency. I can only speak to my SHO, But every vehicle will differ in results obviously producing fuel mileage based on driving behavior. Its all relative, but variable.

I meant in the context of performance FI vehicles vs. N/A. Having owned a few of each - and talked to a lot of owners of both - it seems like small[er] displacement, turbo setups get better MPG when driving very "economical", and worse MPG when driving "all out" vs. a high performance larger CI, NA vehicle that tends not to have as much difference. That being said, very modern FI setups have just gotten better and better (though so have NA configs like DI or DI+FI) - there's also a lot to be said for modern transmissions (and how they affect performance and MPG), I can't believe the performance of the Ford/GM 10-speed auto combined with the mileage ratings.**









** Still not ready to give up a manual though.
[doublepost=1515759072][/doublepost]

I would recommend "Car Guys" Wax and detailer.

I have a friend who swears by this stuff - he and I were both former Zaino disciples (which was always a PITA, available direct sales only), but at some point I just started using the higher end products of more mainstream commercial suppliers and continues to tell me Car Guys products are the second coming ...

OK, since I am getting low on supplies, maybe this time I'll give this a shot - I checked on Amazon, and the 18oz CarGuys Hybrid Wax Sealant (with towel) is $18.99, http://a.co/hpu6bSY and the 8oz Liquid Wax is $24.95 (with an applicator and polishing towel), http://a.co/7tbDbyR

 

[lowendlinux]

I like where turbocharged vehicles are today in the sense of how much power they produce in these four/six-cylinder engines, which is fairly impressive compared to where vehicles were 10 years ago.

In Comparison, the 2017 Mustang eco-boost turbo charged 2.4-cylinder produces 310 hp compared to a 2007 4.0 V6 Mustang that produces 210 hp.

The last turbo 4 cyl Mustang made 210HP out of it's 2.3L engine and that was in '86 21 years later they've only added 100HP with all the tech advances I'd say that's not all that great.

 

[44267547]

The last turbo 4 cyl Mustang made 210HP out of it's 2.3L engine and that was in '86 21 years later they've only added 100HP with all the tech advances I'd say that's not all that great.

I have to disagree . I think with all the advances and combined fuel efficiency, it's not necessarily about how much horsepower, but The technologies combined with a 4 cylinder vehicle that's faster than a stock 2009 Impala SS 5.3 L with only 301 hp for example. To me, turbocharged four cylinder engines produce just as much power, if not more than some older naturally aspirated V-8's. The Mustang eco-boost and Ford Focus RS are good examples a powerful turbocharged four-cylinder's that deliver more than enough experience for the everyday driver. Again, numbers are one thing when we are talking about horsepower, but the actual Driving experience for the driver, is a totally different entity in today's power train.

 

[Apple fanboy]

That's more of a generalization. Just to clear this up, "Radical" would also depend on the the drivers aggressiveness in accelerating on and off the pedal. In the sense Of driving a turbo charged vehicle today in sport Mode, it holds gears longer and the engine revs in a more spirited pace, thus contributing to fuel efficiency. I can only speak to my SHO, But every vehicle will differ in results obviously producing fuel mileage based on driving behavior. Its all relative, but variable.
[doublepost=1515755785][/doublepost]If anyone is interested as a detail enthusiast with your vehicle as I am, I would recommend "Car Guys" Wax and detailer. I first learned of it At a Cars and Coffee event. Its excellent in producing a show room appeal and the reviews are stellar.

As someone as myself about detailing my cars, I don't even allow dealerships to even wax my car, as I'm that meticulous/particular about the process and products they use. (Which, I don't think dealerships do a good job as it is.)

It's not cheap, it's approximately $30 for the wax and $25 for the detailer, but produces results to my expectations.

View attachment 746495

I'll be giving mine a good wash at the weekend. I mostly detail it in warmer months!

 

[lowendlinux]

I have to disagree . I think with all the advances and combined fuel efficiency, it's not necessarily about how much horsepower, but The technologies combined with a 4 cylinder vehicle that's faster than a stock 2009 Impala SS 5.3 L with only 301 hp. To me, turbocharged four cylinder engines produce just as much power, if not more than some older naturally aspirated V-8's. The Mustang eco-boost and Ford Focus RS are good examples a powerful turbocharged four-cylinder's that deliver more than enough experience for the everyday driver. Again, numbers are one thing when we are talking about horsepower, but the actual
Driving experience for the driver, is a totally different entity in today's power train.

That's fine we can disagree

 

[quagmire]

The thing that confuses me in this whole forced induction craze is the people wanting the Twin Turbocharged 3.6 V6 that is in the ATS-V over the LT1 V8 in the Camaro SS. And it's not for modification reasons, but perception of forced induction being the best thing ever all of a sudden. The LF2 makes the same power as the LT1, same grunt down low, etc.

Or how people are calling a NA V6 old dinosaurs compared to turbocharged 4 bangers making the same power. I would take a NA V6 over a turbo 4 making the same power any day of the week......

 

[0388631]

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[quagmire]

Different strokes for different folks.

It's not that though. It's the herd mentality. When BMW/Mercedes kept their M/AMG vehicles RWD, people dismissed AWD as just adding weight, etc. Now the E63 and M5 can be had with AWD, people now think AWD is the holy grail for performance vehicles. It's just the image seekers. Forced Inducted engines and AWD are the "cool" things right now in the automotive world.

 

[AustinIllini]

Or how people are calling a NA V6 old dinosaurs compared to turbocharged 4 bangers making the same power. I would take a NA V6 over a turbo 4 making the same power any day of the week......

The only thing a V6 does better than a Turbo 4 is make noise. Sorry, but a 2.0T is faster and more efficient. They don't always sound awesome, but they are real world better.

The turbo 4 is just a superior engine in almost every way to the equivalent V6

 

[quagmire]

The only thing a V6 does better than a Turbo 4 is make noise. Sorry, but a 2.0T is faster and more efficient. They don't always sound awesome, but they are real world better.

The turbo 4 is just a superior engine in almost every way to the equivalent V6

And I will take the simpler construction of a V6.

I won't dispute the more efficient design, but too many factors to claim faster than a NA V6( vehicle weight, gearing, elevation, etc).

 

[AustinIllini]

In today's environment, don't go V6, go Turbo V6. Don't go I4, go turbo I4.

V6 is super lame. Worst engine out there right now.

 

[0388631]

It's not that though. It's the herd mentality. When BMW/Mercedes kept their M/AMG vehicles RWD, people dismissed AWD as just adding weight, etc. Now the E63 and M5 can be had with AWD, people now think AWD is the holy grail for performance vehicles. It's just the image seekers. Forced Inducted engines and AWD are the "cool" things right now in the automotive world.

The only reason the E63 and M5 are now sold with AWD as the only option is because it's the only way those cars can put their power down efficiently. Go test drive someone's F10 M5. The car has problems putting the power down until you're in the low 100s. Way too much power is being delivered to the rear wheels and a lot is being lost through inefficiency. Personally, AWD does add excess weight and does take away from the fun. This is why both systems can be disabled on the E and the M, and provide 100% power to the rear wheels. BMW have been doing FI for the better part of 11 years. MBZ has been doing it close to 40 years. It's not a big issue. Prior to turbos, MBZ relied on supercharging some of their models, which is what the Kompressor tagline meant. Merc dabbled in turbocharging their diesels back in the 70s and 80s. 4Matic has been around the since the late 1980s. Pretty sure X Drive is fairly "new" too. If you ever get a chance to drive an old MBZ diesel from the 1980s, try the regular diesel and then the turbo. The turbo was almost "required" otherwise the car was slow.

FI is only more popular now due to car manufacturers having to build more compliant engines. They turn to FI and better internals (to withstand the force) to make up for the lack of a larger engine.
[doublepost=1515829256][/doublepost]

In today's environment, don't go V6, go Turbo V6. Don't go I4, go turbo I4.

V6 is super lame. Worst engine out there right now.

Who offers a turbo V6 outside of the Germans?
[doublepost=1515829445][/doublepost]

I have to disagree . I think with all the advances and combined fuel efficiency, it's not necessarily about how much horsepower, but The technologies combined with a 4 cylinder vehicle that's faster than a stock 2009 Impala SS 5.3 L with only 301 hp for example. To me, turbocharged four cylinder engines produce just as much power, if not more than some older naturally aspirated V-8's. The Mustang eco-boost and Ford Focus RS are good examples a powerful turbocharged four-cylinder's that deliver more than enough experience for the everyday driver. Again, numbers are one thing when we are talking about horsepower, but the actual Driving experience for the driver, is a totally different entity in today's power train.

On point. The technological advancements have to be considered apart from raw output. 100 HP in 30 years is crap, but that 100 HP and better materials and understanding of engine dynamics means that the new car which weighs as much if not more than the older one, smokes the older one by several seconds.

If power was the only concern in the last 30 years, then your typical commuter 4 cyl. would be at over 380 HP by now. And not the 180-260 it is now.
[doublepost=1515830727][/doublepost]

higher end products of more mainstream commercial suppliers and continues to tell me Car Guys products are the second coming ...

Some of them are shockingly good. I'd have laughed you off 10 years ago, but these days, the price is there (a bit cheaper than the high end stuff) but oh man is the quality 10x better than just 10 years ago.

The only CG product I have is a large container of their wheel cleaner I got on special. IIRC they're using a custom product made for them by larger vendors, which is normal for a lot of smaller brands. That may have changed since I first learned of them, but I'm not completely sure. Whatever formulation they have, it's very gentle (especially on skin since I don't like gloves), it smells decent, works well and washes away fast. There's a few premium products out there, that I use, that leave a film of product behind unless you go over it with another brush. Yuck.

I think the most absurd priced products I've got are ceramic coat systems. By fluid ounce, it's the priciest personal detailing product(s) I've got. You can easily rack up a small sub $1K collection of coating systems.

My go to hoarding of supplies are probably clay bars and microfiber towels.

 

[D.T.]

The last turbo 4 cyl Mustang made 210HP out of it's 2.3L engine and that was in '86 21 years later they've only added 100HP with all the tech advances I'd say that's not all that great.

Well, the official numbers for the last year of the SVO, '86 are:

200 hp @ 5000 rpm 240 lb⋅ft @ 3200 rpm

... vs. the currently available figured for the S550 2.3L turbo:

310 hp @ 5500 rpm, 320 lb⋅ft @ 3000 rpm

(I say "currently available" as MY18 is supposed to be provide "better" power without higher peaks)

So +110HP, +80lb/ft TQ, with WAY more power under-the-curve (much better overall performance), better MPG (see any real reported data vs. factory published numbers) - and all this under much more stringent emissions requirements - and provided in a package that's more cost effective (the original SVO was ~$5K-6K more than the GT).

You also have to keep in mind, SVO projects were "max effort" for performance, reliability, warranty concerns be damned, they weren't marketed as a mass produced option (and all the manufacturer concerns that implies).

If you want the same engine pushed to a higher performance level - built to sustain that level, i.e., more cost - then just look at the same 2.3L engine in the Focus RS:

• Power: 350 hp @ 6000 rpm.
• Torque: 350 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm.

+150HP, +110TQ, rated at 19/26 MPG under the same highly restrictive emissions.

I'd call that progress

 

[quagmire]

The only reason the E63 and M5 are now sold with AWD as the only option is because it's the only way those cars can put their power down efficiently. Go test drive someone's F10 M5. The car has problems putting the power down until you're in the low 100s. Way too much power is being delivered to the rear wheels and a lot is being lost through inefficiency. Personally, AWD does add excess weight and does take away from the fun. This is why both systems can be disabled on the E and the M, and provide 100% power to the rear wheels. BMW have been doing FI for the better part of 11 years. MBZ has been doing it close to 40 years. It's not a big issue. Prior to turbos, MBZ relied on supercharging some of their models, which is what the Kompressor tagline meant. Merc dabbled in turbocharging their diesels back in the 70s and 80s. 4Matic has been around the since the late 1980s. Pretty sure X Drive is fairly "new" too. If you ever get a chance to drive an old MBZ diesel from the 1980s, try the regular diesel and then the turbo. The turbo was almost "required" otherwise the car was slow.

FI is only more popular now due to car manufacturers having to build more compliant engines. They turn to FI and better internals (to withstand the force) to make up for the lack of a larger engine.

I understand the technical reasons why. Don't confuse that with me not liking the image seekers and denouncing another product as dinosaurs or junk because it lacks AWD, FI, or DCT's just because the those things are now the cool things to have in a vehicle.....

Like I said.... If those people who wanted the 3.6TT in the Camaro SS wanted it for the greater mod potential of it over the LT1 or prefer the way a FI V6 engine drives over a NA V8, hey that's fine. As you said different strokes. But those people just seem to want the 3.6TT V6 just because its forced inducted and that's the cool thing today in the automotive world.

Who offers a turbo V6 outside of the Germans?

Ford with the 3.5 EcoBoost V6, GM with the 3.0TT and 3.6TT found in Cadillac products, and FCA with the Guila Quadrifoglio with its Ferrari based turbo V6.

 

[D.T.]

Ford with the 3.5 EcoBoost V6, GM with the 3.0TT and 3.6TT found in Cadillac products, and FCA with the Guila Quadrifoglio with its Ferrari based turbo V6.

Don't forget Nissan, with the 3.8L V6 TT in the GTR: 565HP / 467lb-ft TQ

 

[0388631]

You can clay bar windows, countertops, family members, etc.

I understand the technical reasons why. Don't confuse that with me not liking the image seekers and denouncing another product as dinosaurs or junk because it lacks AWD, FI, or DCT's just because the those things are now the cool things to have in a vehicle.....

Like I said.... If those people who wanted the 3.6TT in the Camaro SS wanted it for the greater mod potential of it over the LT1 or prefer the way a FI V6 engine drives over a NA V8, hey that's fine. As you said different strokes. But those people just seem to want the 3.6TT V6 just because its forced inducted and that's the cool thing today in the automotive world.

The only people wanting it for the cool factor are children and adults with the mental maturity of children. Perhaps you should surround yourself with mature adults. I for one have yet to encounter anyone who wants FI, DCT or whatever over the traditional option just because.

 

[quagmire]

You can clay bar windows, countertops, family members, etc.


The only people wanting it for the cool factor are children and adults with the mental maturity of children. Perhaps you should surround yourself with mature adults. I for one have yet to encounter anyone who wants FI, DCT or whatever over the traditional option just because.

It's the car forums I go on, not personal people I know.

 

[D.T.]

Don't forget Nissan, with the 3.8L V6 TT in the GTR: 565HP / 467lb-ft TQ

New Lexus LS500 engine: 3.5L V6 TT 416HP / 442TQ

 

[0388631]

It's the car forums I go on, not personal people I know.

Care to drop a name or two? I'm always curious to see what other forums people peruse when it comes to cars. It's a "small" community compared to other topic genres.

New Lexus LS500 engine: 3.5L V6 TT 416HP / 442TQ

Yep. I wonder what that particular engine is capable of. Except Toyota/Lexus do a good job of locking people out from their engines. I'm very curious to see how their upcoming TT V8 will perform for the LC F. Knowing Toyota/Lexus, they're going to build a bulletproof engine, over engineered, and pushing it to the rumored 600+ HP won't hurt it. I've seen a grand total of 2 so far on the road.

Just about every Lexus dealer has 7-10 LC500s in stock. Most of them are in gray, black or white. With a few in other colors. Pretty much all are spoken for unless you're willing to pay more than the person who wants it. Insane. No special discounts if you pay with trade in and the rest or a bulk in cash like dealers do with just about any vehicle.

The LC uses a new version of Enform so hopefully it's addressed the lag that's commonplace in Lexus' infotainment systems. Wouldn't hurt if Apple and Android Auto were available, seeing as nearly every other manufacturer is using them.

 

[quagmire]

Care to drop a name or two? I'm always curious to see what other forums people peruse when it comes to cars. It's a "small" community compared to other topic genres.

bimmerpost and camaro6. Those have the immature type as mentioned above.

I also go to autoverdict.

 

[0388631]

bimmerpost and camaro6. Those have the immature type as mentioned above.

I also go to autoverdict.

I like Bimmerforums a lot. I do read Bimmerpost and I know what you're referring to now. Bimmerfest is... awful. You're better off just reading informative posts and not the opinion threads. My usual go to are the Merc forums for obvious reasons. Don't see a lot of the BS on other sites, then again, most of us are boring older people.

With BMW, you're going to deal with people mainly complaining about the NA and the FI M vehicles. That and treating the E46 platform like it's the Holy Grail simply because it's cheap to repair and find parts for because of how many were made.

I've never cared for either NA over FI or FI over NA. Both have their pros and cons. I care about overall power, performance, handling, looks and longevity than I do fussing over whether a particular engine is FI or not.


At the end of the day, for me at least, it's whether I can appreciate the car or not. Whether it's a 300 HP NA V6 compact luxury vehicle or a 600 HP family wagon. It's all gravy.