Even if that were true, it merely supports the fact that Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to their competitors vehicles, of the same size and price range, which was the point of the post. ;)
mike hunt
Once again you have reinforced the fact Toyotas are underpowered, hence the need to run in lower gears and higher RPMs to maintain conventional highway speeds. ;)
mike hunt
Or more likely, the only person 'racing' was you. LOL
Just you to make ignorant and sweeping generalizations.
Actually my 2001 Avalon has tons of power. Combination of good engine and good AT. The new model is even faster.
Reminds me of the 83 Tercel Wagons. We used to call the gas pedal the volume control. You pressed it hard, the engine got louder. Nothing else happened.
They both sat there at the light, looking at me and reving their engines. I'd say that was a challenge.
Oh, that's right. You like F***d Over Rebuilt Dodges. You have no taste in cars. . . . I don't even like to admit I drove a 68 Mustang once. It handled like sh*t. I also drove an LTD in Driver's Ed. I swore I'd never drive a piece of cr*p like that ever again.
Charles
You've made this accusation a number of times, blowhard, and never supported it.
Go join your buddies in the .ford group. Enjoy their company. Maybe you can while your time away giving bad advice on how to fix their cars (that's what most of the posts are about).
Talk about collusion ... I cite the unholy alliance between the Environmentalists and State government. Eventually, the oil companies figured out how to profit and be protected from competition .... all in the Holy name of the god "Cleaner Air."
Even an underpowered vehicle can go 'fast.' I E a 4cy Camry. Getting up to speed to get out of the way when you may need to, keeping up to the speed of other traffic on a grade without shifting into less economical gears is the problem when a vehicle is underpowered, as are many Toyota vehicles compared to those of their competitors of the same size and price.. ;)
mike hunt
Don't blame the environmentalist. Most people are environmentalist in that they do not want to see the environment damaged unnecessarily. Blame the environuts that want everything to be pristine no matter the cost of the result. Oil is all 'natural' just like water and if you spill some or use it improperly it can cause some damage.. the only environmental laws needed should be if you cause damage, clean it up and get on with life. Environuts are like the PETA nuts that think nothing of killing their unborn but want a life sentence for someone that hurts or kills a cat or a rat. LOL
mike hunt
we hang cat killers from the lamp posts in these here parts.
Showing your ignornace as usual, "Mike". My Supra has 320HP stock*, the 'Stang GT only has 300. Plus I have the advantage of a 6-speed vs. a 5-speed.
*And mine's not stock. 8)
It's not as high-caliber a car, either. Can you say "solid rear axle"? LOL
Ya know it's funny you should say this. About a week ago, I rode along in a new Mercury Gran Marquis. Typical 4.6 liter V8. Funny how MUCH DOWNSHIFTING that car exhibited with only moderate throttle application.
The need to downshift is a reflection on the gear ratios chosen by the gearbox manufacturer. When economy takes priority, taller ratio will be fitted which also means the engine gets less torque mutiplication (actually, torque loss in OD gear(s).
IN the olden days, medium sized V8's rolled down the freeway turning 2500 rpm at 60 mph. Now it's 1800 @ 60 mph AND the torque converter is locked. Downshifts are required more often now.
BLAME the Enviornmentalists! They've been the ones with their damned spotted owls and horned toads that have blocked so much industrial, residential, and energy progress in this state (CA).
If I had my parking brake on.
I should have acknowledged your point here. I do have to admit, that my 7-year-old Supra is worth more than a brand-new Mustang GT. LOL!
My '95 Chrysler Concord with 3.3L V6 does less than 2,000 rpm at 60 MPH. Great fuel mileage, very quiet and lots of power on call when it drops down to 3rd.
A '05 Impalla I just drove got better fuel mileage but was a pain to drive due to it's very unresponsive transmission which required a very heavy foot to get a down shift.
Strange but I have a 89 4x4 burb that I have had since new and after
176K miles it still gets great gas mileage (about 19 on hiway honestly) though it requires 91 or better octane. Also it pulls OD really well with good responce and rarely ever downshifts on a hill. Part of that reason though is because it does not have a realy tall rear axle ratio and OD. I would not own a vehicle that need to downshift frequently on hills or when passing. I guess I remember when you did not have to either many years ago.So Mike you think a 285 cubic inch Grand Marquis turning
2000 rpm at 60 mph makes more sense than my 148 cubic inch Camry turning 2100 rpm at 60 mph. I guess with reasoning like that, you are a great customer for that FORD shit.Why is it that FORD only gets 49 hp/litre displacement and my Camry gets 67 hp/litre.
By the way " IN MY Opinion " my Camry in 3rd gear at 3500 rpm is still more economical than your shitty FORD as I'm passing you.
Slim
Ya right, in your dreams maybe. You will never pass my car, at 3500 RPMs I'll be doing 120 MPH with 2,500K left to go. LOL
mikt hunt
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.