So my dad's thinking about getting a new car. . .

[Kevin M]

If you put a nav system in an RS, you're well beyond rational decisions about vehicle purchases. But frankly, if you're buying a GC6 or GM6, you aren't very rational in the first place.

[Kevin M]

Oh, and you are SO lucky I stole the bandwidth for that McLaughlin pic instead of hosting it myself.

[Kevin M]

Stupid new page almost made me miss this post.

Originally Posted by Dean

No, I just bothered to read more than the title of the first post...

As did I- did you not catch the part where Jeremiah established that a 40mpg AWD car does not exist, and that he would be happy with "30-40mpg?" This just in- I've gotten over 30mpg in an AWD, 2.5 liter, subaru which is inferior to current model year equivalents as far as engine technology and development.

Originally Posted by Dean

And for heaven's sake, the Justy post is independent of my comment that he should buy the smallest displacement NA AWD car he can find. Get over it dude...

A Justy IS the smallest displacement NA AWD car he can find. Are you saying he should buy one or not? Or, were you dodging the probability that he would not be interested in a car older than his current one, and possibly not a used car at all?

[Dean]

Yes.

[Kevin M]

You're supposed to use img tag when you surrender.

[sperry]

MPG data from http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the rest of the numbers are from google.

1989 Ford Taurus: 2.5L 4 cyl, 3050 lbs, 90 hp, 21/27 mpg

2005 Ford Fusion: 2.3L 4 cyl, 3280 lbs, 160 hp, 24/32 mpg

I'd say in the last 20 years engines have become more fuel efficient. Nevermind the extra 70 hp to pull that additional 230 lbs around.

And JC's right... it's the consumer's lust for power that means today's motors make more power instead of more mpg. A modern turbo-diesel car makes nearly 50 mpg in Europe, where people care about mileage. That's quite a bit better than just 10 years ago, and it's due to the massive advancements in computerized combustion control. If mileage really sold cars, we'd see gasoline motors making 100hp and getting 45 mpg. But until the last 2 years or so, people didn't care (and I would contend still don't really...) about milage, so we have 200 hp motors that get 30 mpg.

Edit: this post was started like 2 hours ago... that's what I get for putting out fires at work instead of posting!

[MPREZIV]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

An RS with ess than 75k is $11-12k, since it wouldn't be a '98 or '99 most likely. Add $5k for mods and you're past what a 2.5i goes for, and you have no warranty, higher insurance, and a lower insured value. Oh, and no significant increase in fuel economy.

But you DO have a much, MUCH better looking car... !

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

You're supposed to use img tag when you surrender.

Your questions are nonsensical and illogical as you are asking either A or B questions where both could indead be true or false mutually independent of each other.

Like: Did you drive to work or bring a bag lunch?
Or: Are you missing the point, or are you you being an ass.

In both cases, either inerogitive could result in an affirmative response, and thus, the cumulative result would be affirmative, or as I said: "Yes"

This concludes today's lesson on boolean logic.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

Your questions are nonsensical and illogical as you are asking either A or B questions where both could indead be true or false mutually independent of each other.

Like: Did you drive to work or bring a bag lunch?
Or: Are you missing the point, or are you you being an ass.

In both cases, either inerogitive could result in an affirmative response, and thus, the cumulative result would be affirmative, or as I said: "Yes"

This concludes today's lesson on boolean logic.

Still no funny GIS result. Are you even trying anymore, or is senility setting in?

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by MPREZIV

But you DO have a much, MUCH better looking car... !

You mean everyone else with an RS does. Mine looks like doodoo. But, it will be fast doodoo.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

MPG data from http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the rest of the numbers are from google.

1989 Ford Taurus: 2.5L 4 cyl, 3050 lbs, 90 hp, 21/27 mpg

2005 Ford Fusion: 2.3L 4 cyl, 3280 lbs, 160 hp, 24/32 mpg

I'd say in the last 20 years engines have become more fuel efficient. Nevermind the extra 70 hp to pull that additional 230 lbs around.

And JC's right... it's the consumer's lust for power that means today's motors make more power instead of more mpg. A modern turbo-diesel car makes nearly 50 mpg in Europe, where people care about mileage. That's quite a bit better than just 10 years ago, and it's due to the massive advancements in computerized combustion control. If mileage really sold cars, we'd see gasoline motors making 100hp and getting 45 mpg. But until the last 2 years or so, people didn't care (and I would contend still don't really...) about milage, so we have 200 hp motors that get 30 mpg.

Edit: this post was started like 2 hours ago... that's what I get for putting out fires at work instead of posting!

Yes, there have been incremental improvements over that time, mostly advancements in the technologies I described, I am not saying there wern't.

Variable valve timing has significantly improved the power and that is one technology that has been productionized in that time, but I can't think of another that made a significant impact on fuel economy. Can you?

I also agree on the industry's focus.

Oh, and diesel's are another example of slower reciprocating and revolving parts being more efficient...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Yes, there have been incremental improvements over that time, mostly advancements in the technologies I described, I am not saying there wern't.

Variable valve timing has significantly improved the power and that is one technology that has been productionized in that time, but I can't think of another that made a significant impact on fuel economy. Can you?

I also agree on the industry's focus.

Oh, and diesel's are another example of slower reciprocating and revolving parts being more efficient...

VVT, turbos and superchargers are all excellent methods of increasing fuel mileage. They're just tuned for power instead. But again, those aren't new technologies... hell the turbo is as old as the internal combustion engine. What's made them so much better is the computer control of boost, fuel and timing. Look at the old Mustang SVO (4 cylinder turbo), and the other turbo cars from that era: GNX, Omni GLHS, Star/Quest, Turbo-II RX-7, etc. They all used brute force turbo induction... set the wastegate and have at it w/ a strong/heavy block. They made great power for the era (1980's), but also had reliability issues, and didn't even pretend to be fuel efficient.

Today's turbo motors are far more fragile in construction, but are far more reliable due to computer control of fuel and timing, dynamic boost control, VVT control, knock sensors, EGT sensors, A/F sensors, etc. So they can make more power, get better mileage, pass stricter emissions requirements, and weigh less (though the cars they're put in are heavier due to modern crash regulations).

On the immediate horizon we've got direct injection, individual cylinder throttle control, and better fuels that will take the same "basic" technology to even higher performance levels, both power and mileage-wise.

The piston combustion motor still has some life left in it yet.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dean

And if there is a current more fuel efficient AWD car than whatever the NA with the least displacement is, show me the data!

2006 Ford Escape Hybrid AWD 2.3l - 33/29 combined: 31
2006 Suzuki Aerio AWD 1.6l - 24/29 combined: 26

As for everything else, well Scott said basically exactly what I was thinking.

[M3n2c3]

Boy, you guys went nuts while I was at work today.

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Lastly, nobody has asked this yet- Jeremiah, is your dad's Forester an automatic? If so, buying something new with a stick actually might save him a significant amount on his fuel costs. Maybe as much as 20-25%. Not to mention saving $900-1300 on the cost of the car if it's new.

The Forester is automatic, and any new car he gets will have to be automatic as well. My mom can't drive manual and doesn't care to learn, for some reason.

Originally Posted by MPREZIV

This is my favorite part! Dean vs. Kevin!


(where's the smily guy eating popcorn?)

Just tell your dad he can have YOUR car, if he buys you an STI...

Trust me, I've considered that.

Here are his requirements as he's presented them to me, broken down into bite size morsels for everyone:
-AWD and good handling. He likes the way my Impreza handles, for example.
-Wagon or hatchback (he likes having extra cargo space but doesn't want an SUV)
-Preferably a Subaru, but would try something else if it receives good performance/reliability/safety ratings and consumer feedback.
-Automatic tranny.
-New (he likes to be a "first owner" so he knows exactly what's been done to the car).
-As economical with fuel as possible (he realizes that 40mpg is not a possibility right now).
-He's not concerned about power, but he would like the car to move when he needs it to. He's content with the 165hp that the Forester puts down.

His obvious choice is to just buy another existing Subaru or lease one until the hybrids arrive. I have a feeling I'll be able to convince him to just pick up a wagon for now.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by M3n2c3

Boy, you guys went nuts while I was at work today.


The Forester is automatic, and any new car he gets will have to be automatic as well. My mom can't drive manual and doesn't care to learn, for some reason.


Trust me, I've considered that.

Here are his requirements as he's presented them to me, broken down into bite size morsels for everyone:
-AWD and good handling. He likes the way my Impreza handles, for example.
-Wagon or hatchback (he likes having extra cargo space but doesn't want an SUV)
-Preferably a Subaru, but would try something else if it receives good performance/reliability/safety ratings and consumer feedback.
-Automatic tranny.
-New (he likes to be a "first owner" so he knows exactly what's been done to the car).
-As economical with fuel as possible (he realizes that 40mpg is not a possibility right now).
-He's not concerned about power, but he would like the car to move when he needs it to. He's content with the 165hp that the Forester puts down.

His obvious choice is to just buy another existing Subaru or lease one until the hybrids arrive. I have a feeling I'll be able to convince him to just pick up a wagon for now.

Sounds like the perfect car for him is a new.... <drum roll please>

...Subaru Forester, Impreza Wagon, or Outback Sport. They're really all the same car, BTW, so pick the one that looks the best to your dad. You won't get a better handling, AWD, wagon/hatch, safe, automatic, new, economical, and powerful car for the money anywhere.

[M3n2c3]

That's been my first and only suggestion to him. I was just curious to see if anyone had something else in mind.

[JC]

I'd buy a Legacy is a much nicer car IMO.

[M3n2c3]

Yeah, the Legacy 2.5i wagon looks like it has some nice perks.

[tysonK]

I guess he should just get a cayman.

[tysonK]

AWD? pftt...



http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman/

[Bob Danger]

Or a bug eye WRX like Tysons!

[M3n2c3]

Originally Posted by Bob Danger

Or a bug eye WRX lick Tysons!

Wait, what?

[MikeK]

I blame this whole thread on Jeremiah's dad.

[tysonK]

Originally Posted by MikeK

I blame this whole thread on Jeremiah's dad.

I can agree on that.


cayman.

[Bob Danger]

Originally Posted by M3n2c3

Wait, what?

Fixed