What does GM have to go toe to toe with this??

Thats what I have been trying to say...just make a beautiful car and people will beat a path to your door...GM and Ford cant understand that. Ford is pushing the new Fusion, it looks like a cross between a civic and a 72 Pinto. Lord help them.

Reply to
Johnny Cakes
Loading thread data ...

You are partly right the styling is OK I think but not beautiful, but the sad part is that GM has nothing that comes close in this category except maybe the G6 convertible as long as you keep the top up. Sadly it resembles a bathtub with the top down.

Reply to
Johnny Cakes

You do know what Hyabusa means in Japanese right? It translates to "I wish to be an organ donating SQUIDLY poser"....

I myself take a different approach. I ride an 86 Venture Royal with a VMax power plant in it. You should see the looks you get when a full dress bike is draggin' the pegs at 130 mph.... While listening to tunes from the stereo!

Reply to
Steve W.

I never noticed the engine being loud. Even the 3.4 in my sisters Grand Am isn't very loud.

I can see your point. Out of all the cars I have had, only one was a manual, and boy would I love to have that car back. As for the transmission programming, that is one of the features I love about my Bonnie. You can switch between "Touring" and "Performance" modes, depending on what you are looking to do.

Reply to
80 Knight

I disagree. I was just looking at a G6 Convertible the other day, and it looked like a damned nice car to me.

Reply to
80 Knight

Yes the convertible is not bad as long as you have the top up. They should have used that body for the coupe as compared to that boy racer wannebee look.

Reply to
Johnny Cakes

unreasonable.

The only venture I ever heard of was made by pontiac...dont know about any Max V bikes or whatever they are called.

Reply to
Johnny Cakes

So your idea of performance is enough torque to pull your ass out of a bad situation once you wake up. I know what you mean but fuel efficiency and handling are performance too

Things I found on the net: "Toyota has engineered the 2.4 to produce a flat, even torque curve that is well suited to an automatic transmission". "The 2.4-liter engine develops

158 SAE horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 161 lb.-ft. peak torque at 4,000 rpm and can be mated to a five-speed manual transmission or an electronically controlled five-speed automatic. EPA numbers of 24 MPG city/33 MPG " "6,500 RPM redline"

Don't see anything about rpm@speed but doubt it's anywhere near 3500. You have to look at the whole vehicle. Transmissions multiply torque. Never looked at a Japanese car to buy let alone a Camry. Just think your ideas are outdated. The best way to engineer increased performance is to reduce weight so you make the most of the available torque/HP. Letting the engine rev allows it to be lighter allowing the components used with it to be lighter, allowing the chassis, suspension, etc. to be lighter. It snow balls. Payload and other things limit how far this can go of course. You can't just look at torque.

unreasonable.

performance.

Reply to
Captain Midnight

unreasonable.

So you think pulling away from most cars is exciting? Why bother. If I needed to look like a Hollywood second to get women I'd feel like a loser.

Reply to
Captain Midnight

What you know about bikes is apparent.

Reply to
Captain Midnight

Likewise, I've never considered my 3.4L to sound loud at all. I have to wonder just what nate is referring to when he says that.

I've often thought that I'd love to have a manual tranny in my '03 Grand Am. The car is fun to drive and just begs for a good manual tranny to turn loose the hp.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

My sister's Grand Am is the same year. It's a quick little car, but, unfortunatley, I haven't seen too many with manual transmissions. I think they used them more in the Alero's (which is, as you know, the Grand Am's twin). I remember the first time I saw one of the newly styled Grand Am's was in "Lethal Weapon 4". Mel Gibson and Danny Glover actually got in a huge chase scene with one, and even jumped it through a building. They destroyed the car, but I liked them ever since.

Reply to
80 Knight

I think the convertible looks good with the top down as well, but I will agree that the base coupe looks terrible. Theres just something I don't like about it.

Reply to
80 Knight

You point is? It is easy to see why you do not understand that post. You obviously do not have a grasp of the subject on which you are trying to comment. I. E. A car with 300 HP at 5,700 RPM and 340 FPT at 4,500 RPMs, will get 26 MPG going 60 MPH at only 1,500 RPMs. A car with a smaller engine with 220 HP at 5,700 RPM and 240 FPT at 3,500 RPMs, will get 26 MPG going 60 MPH at 3,200 RPMs. Which one do you thank will climb a steep grade in top gear? What would happen to the fuel mileage in your car if you drove down a gear or two half of the time? If you don't understand the difference, I'm wasting my time trying to enlighten you it would seem. . ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Another advantage to a owning a Harley, over any other bike, is you do not loose you shirt when you want to sell it LOL

mike

Torque has real world advantages but HP is still HP. Might just

Reply to
Mike Hunter

That may be your opinion but the Fusion and the Milan has outsoared the Camry and Accord in several recent consumer survey, including CR, and comparison tests by the buff mags.

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I rode bikes for 59 of my 81 years and never had to lay one down but, I've seen many who have. If you are indeed riding at 130 MPH may I suggest you sign an organ donation card? ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

It's not I that doesn't understand, you haven't a clue what you're talking about (as usual, should be no surprise to regular readers of this newsgroup.) An engine will be most efficient at the speed at which it was designed to be most efficient, period. Stating anything beyond that is a gross generalization and likely to be false at least half the time.

In any case, the generalizations you make in your post below have no basis in fact.

nate

Mike Hunter wrote:

Reply to
N8N

Perhaps that is true in your world. What is the color of the sky in your world LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

It's blue.

Now please explain to the audience which orifice you pulled your fuel economy numbers out of below.

I can tell you from personal experience that a Volkswagen engine will get best economy at around 3500 RPM or higher; a Studebaker V-8 of all things is perfectly happy and delivers reasonable economy as high as

3000 RPM.

Of course, your rectal data trumps real world experience every time, because you're the amazing anonymous engineer, service manager, fleet coordinator, or whatever the hell you feel like calling yourself this week. You're not fooling anyone, "Mike," so why don't you just cut the shit and stop trying to impress us with your "knowledge" and just hang out, have a virtual beer, and maybe learn something?

nate

Mike Hunter wrote:

Reply to
Nate Nagel

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.