The hell it is! You're soooooooooooo right!
They do this on purpose. Yet, they risk stiff fines. Some time ago, the EU Commission adopted a directive regarding auto industry.
One part was related to pricing - the same car cost 40% more in Denmark than in Spain. Some union, huh? Danes simply went to Germany to buy their Mercedes, BMW, Audi, etc.
The other part was related to servicing. FIAT has a model (I don't know which one) which is so constructed that you cannot exchange a burnt our headlamp, you have buy the whole new set. And taking off the old one takes about 2 hours. Guess who pays for this little engineering and commercial extravaganza.
The directve simply states that parts which wear out faster than the average part on a vehicle, such a headlights, back lights, etc, must be made so that the driver can replace them himself within 30 minutes of work. Driver, not the serviceman.
Boy, that must have really made servicemen mad!
Remember the old, early 70ies joke about Ferraris? Two owners meet as pedestrians on the street, and one ask the other: "Are you just exercising, or is your Ferrari in the service shop to have its carburrators adjusted?"
Buffs will remember that at the time, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati and the rest of the Italian mod squad used twin Weber 40 or 45 DCOE carbs in their engines, 6 for a V12 and 4 for a V8.
It's a bit odd to note that the Italians have always made cars which gobbled up fuel like it was tap water, and that Italy has always been the country with most expensive fuel in the EU.
But then they also made specials with sub 2L engines which were only ever available in Italy.
Guess the fuel costs so much in Italy because tax evasion is THE national pastime there.
Years ago my late sister bought a house in Italy which had two prices: The official one for tax purposes (£8000) and the real one (£36 000) that you had to pay in cash.
Guess the fuel costs so much in Italy because tax evasion is THE national pastime there.
Years ago my late sister bought a house in Italy which had two prices: The official one for tax purposes (£8000) and the real one (£36 000) that you had to pay in cash.
Hi,
I only remember the German Jaguar Joke. (Beware, a German Joke follows)
Two Drivers in their Jag's Pass each other, they both stick an arm out of the window and hold up a number of fingers. Afterwards the passenger of one of the drivers asks what it was about. Oh, that's the numbers of engines we have each lunched...
Ciao T
I only remember the German Jaguar Joke. (Beware, a German Joke follows)
Two Drivers in their Jag's Pass each other, they both stick an arm out of the window and hold up a number of fingers. Afterwards the passenger of one of the drivers asks what it was about. Oh, that's the numbers of engines we have each lunched...
Ciao T
Hi,
Remember in Germany we still even now have many stretches of Autobahn without speed limits, there where many less speed limits in the 70's. So, if you own a sports car in Germany it is likely prolonged periods of running flat out the Engines limit.
The Jags where notorious for disliking this intensely and for being extremely expensive to fix afterwards, in exactly the way a 911 Porsche was not...
Ciao T
Remember in Germany we still even now have many stretches of Autobahn without speed limits, there where many less speed limits in the 70's. So, if you own a sports car in Germany it is likely prolonged periods of running flat out the Engines limit.
The Jags where notorious for disliking this intensely and for being extremely expensive to fix afterwards, in exactly the way a 911 Porsche was not...
Ciao T
I remember that but not as a joke and not involving Jaguars.
It was the harsh reality of NSU Ro80 owners as the tips of the rotary engine wore out very prematurely. NSU had to change engines under warranty (5 or 6 engines in a year per car were not unusual!) and this eventually drove NSU into bankruptcy and allowed Volkswagen/Audi to buy them cheap as they were interested in NSUs semi-automatic gearbox.
Except that the Ro80 was hugely ahead of its time. With different bumpers and rear light clusters it would still have looked modern in '98, 30 years after its introduction. It also sported ground effect 10 years before it made its way into Formula 1.
Modern technology has made rotary engines much more reliable but not that much more fuel efficient.
Yea, if it was how many alternators or starters, you could not do it with only two hands. Everyone should own a Jag... once. Make mine a Mk II.
This depends on what you take as more efficent. I recently read a text about Mazda and their development of the Wankel engine, they claim to have reduced fuel consumption by 40% - which is what I would call very significant.
This despite the fact that even so, a Wankel engine is still considerably less fuel efficient than an equivalent normally aspirated in-line engine (of twice Wankel's actual capacity), and is still downright wasteful compared with the current crop of the new wave of mostly European made bonsai engines, i.e. small capacity but turbo assisted engines.
No, thank you.
Jaguar's E type and XJ are objects to be revered, but not owned.
They are much like fabulous looking chicks - they look great, but are lousy lays. Why even try, when their beauty should do the trick? Strictly high maintenance.
Ah yes... but on a back road, once you get them moving, they really were wonderful. You had to drive them. They talked to you. They did what you asked if you asked very nicely. Of course, they do have to be put in context. A Dodge Caravan is faster around the track. We are talking 45 years of technology. I do contend, if an inanimate object can be sexy, the E-type was it. I never owned one. Drove several. I guess I learned enough from my TVR, Morgan, MG, & Triumph. Well maybe not, but I did get outbid once. 2+2 automatic in gold.
Their other problem is their high surface area to displacement causes high Nox output. They have been accused of low torque, but the last RX8 I drove seemed to be fine in that respect. I loved the 2009 I looked at, but the intermittent rotor lock up problem scared me away. The first time out, 1979, I bought a Scirocco instead as the Mazda dealer in Boulder was being a jerk. The GTI is all around better suited for my needs.
Simon says:
The U.S. has more roads, including secondary roads, than any European country. Cities are also farther apart.
I have driven three cars now from new to 250,000 miles (+/- 5000). Using decent oil, I have had no significant engine wear. Now transmissions have improved (or I am getting slower) from 100,000 mile life to my last one died at 242,000. (It got rebuilt because I didn't want to buy a new car in winter.)
* * * * *
That cities are further apart is quite true, no brainer, just look at any map. Ultimately, the US can rightfully claim that it's wide from say New Yor city to say LA or SanFran.
Of course, Russia is wider still, by a factor of 2 if I remember correctly, and since a part of it is in Europe, it could be counted as an Eurpean nation, just as Turkey is counted as an European country by the US, since a part of it is in fact on the contuinent of Europe.
Earielr, you stated that the key factor of wear and tear of an engine is the piston stroke; this is not necessarily so, but it is a convenient way of comparing otherwise different engines. Where we differ is in, I believe you mentioned it, somwe "average" number of revs.
Actually, this quite wrong - all engines strokes are measured at the maximum numver of revs as their manufacturer declares them. Establishing any kind of "average" is fool's work because nobody knows how somebody may drive it - some people prefer low revs, others like to rev 'em up, etc, their intrinistic regimes or modes of operation vary wildly, etc.
Just to illustrate the problem, it could be argued that a turbocharged 2 litre 4 pot engine will last longer than a massive US made, pushrod V6 or V8 simpley because that turbo engine develops its maximum torque as early as 1,750 rpm, wheras the two V engines will not do that below 3,000 rpm, and higher.
Now, I don't know what you are currently driving, but for the same of argument, let's look at two GM engines, just for comparison. Take a classic US made engine, their V8 with 6,162 cm3, 103.3 x 92 mm bore x stroke, in its least powerful form - it's declared at 5,900 rpm delivering 437 hp, with a torque of 573 Nm at 4,600 rpm. Compression ratio is said to be 10.7:1.
Let's compare this with GM's own 2.0 litre, European built engine, used in their Opel range, which I also have under the bonnet. In its currently only form, it develops 220 hp at 5,300 rpm, and 350 Nm at 2,000 rpm. It has a square ratio, i.e. bore x stroke is 86 x 86 mm, its compession ratio is 9.3:1, but it also has a turbo charger.
Now, let's look ate two regimes of driving, one all our, and another taken at the nominal maximum torque point.
At full blast, the 2 litre engine's piston travels (5,300 x 0.086 m x 60) 27,346 meters per minute. At its max torque point, it travels (2,000 x 0.086 x 60) 10,320 meters per minute. Specific power is 110 hp/litre.
The big V8 goes (5,900 x 0.092 x 60) 32,568 m/s at full blast, and (4,600 x 0.092 x 60) 25,392 m/s. Specific power is 70.9 hp/litre.
So you tell me, what do you think, which engine will last longer, if it is driven on average somwhere between these two point?
Not to even mention which one will consume more petrol, but then, this is under strong influence of what that engine has to haul; this I could not compare at all, since typical US manufacturer's specs are far more scanty than those of European manufacturers, so I'll leave that alone.
Let me just say this - I have that 2 litre engine under my hood, and in its naturally aspirated version, i.e. no turbo. Of course, it has far less power, but then it hauls a significantly lighter chassis, and I can tell you from experience that I seldom rev it up above 3,000-3,500 rpm, simply because I have no need to. My highway constant speeds do not require more than 3,200 rpm on my car to reach the maximu legal speed of 120 km/h, app. 75 mph.
So, once again, I have to ask you - what is your point?
Especially since a car is a very complex thing, it's way more than a simple sum of parts.
The U.S. has more roads, including secondary roads, than any European country. Cities are also farther apart.
I have driven three cars now from new to 250,000 miles (+/- 5000). Using decent oil, I have had no significant engine wear. Now transmissions have improved (or I am getting slower) from 100,000 mile life to my last one died at 242,000. (It got rebuilt because I didn't want to buy a new car in winter.)
* * * * *
That cities are further apart is quite true, no brainer, just look at any map. Ultimately, the US can rightfully claim that it's wide from say New Yor city to say LA or SanFran.
Of course, Russia is wider still, by a factor of 2 if I remember correctly, and since a part of it is in Europe, it could be counted as an Eurpean nation, just as Turkey is counted as an European country by the US, since a part of it is in fact on the contuinent of Europe.
Earielr, you stated that the key factor of wear and tear of an engine is the piston stroke; this is not necessarily so, but it is a convenient way of comparing otherwise different engines. Where we differ is in, I believe you mentioned it, somwe "average" number of revs.
Actually, this quite wrong - all engines strokes are measured at the maximum numver of revs as their manufacturer declares them. Establishing any kind of "average" is fool's work because nobody knows how somebody may drive it - some people prefer low revs, others like to rev 'em up, etc, their intrinistic regimes or modes of operation vary wildly, etc.
Just to illustrate the problem, it could be argued that a turbocharged 2 litre 4 pot engine will last longer than a massive US made, pushrod V6 or V8 simpley because that turbo engine develops its maximum torque as early as 1,750 rpm, wheras the two V engines will not do that below 3,000 rpm, and higher.
Now, I don't know what you are currently driving, but for the same of argument, let's look at two GM engines, just for comparison. Take a classic US made engine, their V8 with 6,162 cm3, 103.3 x 92 mm bore x stroke, in its least powerful form - it's declared at 5,900 rpm delivering 437 hp, with a torque of 573 Nm at 4,600 rpm. Compression ratio is said to be 10.7:1.
Let's compare this with GM's own 2.0 litre, European built engine, used in their Opel range, which I also have under the bonnet. In its currently only form, it develops 220 hp at 5,300 rpm, and 350 Nm at 2,000 rpm. It has a square ratio, i.e. bore x stroke is 86 x 86 mm, its compession ratio is 9.3:1, but it also has a turbo charger.
Now, let's look ate two regimes of driving, one all our, and another taken at the nominal maximum torque point.
At full blast, the 2 litre engine's piston travels (5,300 x 0.086 m x 60) 27,346 meters per minute. At its max torque point, it travels (2,000 x 0.086 x 60) 10,320 meters per minute. Specific power is 110 hp/litre.
The big V8 goes (5,900 x 0.092 x 60) 32,568 m/s at full blast, and (4,600 x 0.092 x 60) 25,392 m/s. Specific power is 70.9 hp/litre.
So you tell me, what do you think, which engine will last longer, if it is driven on average somwhere between these two point?
Not to even mention which one will consume more petrol, but then, this is under strong influence of what that engine has to haul; this I could not compare at all, since typical US manufacturer's specs are far more scanty than those of European manufacturers, so I'll leave that alone.
Let me just say this - I have that 2 litre engine under my hood, and in its naturally aspirated version, i.e. no turbo. Of course, it has far less power, but then it hauls a significantly lighter chassis, and I can tell you from experience that I seldom rev it up above 3,000-3,500 rpm, simply because I have no need to. My highway constant speeds do not require more than 3,200 rpm on my car to reach the maximu legal speed of 120 km/h, app. 75 mph.
So, once again, I have to ask you - what is your point?
Especially since a car is a very complex thing, it's way more than a simple sum of parts.
At cruising speed I use less than 15 HP. US cars are designed for a different set of driving conditions than in Europe. So the cars are different.
Now if you want a truly long lasting low maintenance car. the best are Toyota and Ford. Imported cars have a slight advantage in the durability records since their owners are more likely to do simple stuff like change the oil.
There is no best car. I drive a lot. I want a car that doesn't leave me hurting after 12 hours behind the wheel. I also don't want one that will lull me to sleep.
My important criteria is not just good handling but also safety features such as anti-lock brakes, airbags, real mirrors and most of the stuff that is now required. I do not want electronic everything. I have trouble paying $2000.00 for a replacement PC card that cannot be repaired. The mechanicals last far longer than the electronics.
I am often amused by folks who buy high performance cars and can't get up a hill in winter. Before traction control it took a lot of skill to get a light weight car up an ice covered road. After it is just idiot drivers.
Now if you want a truly long lasting low maintenance car. the best are Toyota and Ford. Imported cars have a slight advantage in the durability records since their owners are more likely to do simple stuff like change the oil.
There is no best car. I drive a lot. I want a car that doesn't leave me hurting after 12 hours behind the wheel. I also don't want one that will lull me to sleep.
My important criteria is not just good handling but also safety features such as anti-lock brakes, airbags, real mirrors and most of the stuff that is now required. I do not want electronic everything. I have trouble paying $2000.00 for a replacement PC card that cannot be repaired. The mechanicals last far longer than the electronics.
I am often amused by folks who buy high performance cars and can't get up a hill in winter. Before traction control it took a lot of skill to get a light weight car up an ice covered road. After it is just idiot drivers.
a simple car tweek.
you know when one is on a boat.
malfunctions take on another character, than when in a car.
so reliability is even more important.
i've been putting TC-W3 outboard 2-cycle oil
in my gas engine cars and trucks since 1994.
a half ounce to a gallon.
250-to-1
basic oil lubricating the top of the cylinder.
just like in a 2-cycle engine so that can't be bad.
at the same time, this stuff has detergent to keep the fuel lines clog free.
to keep the mix mixed, there is also naphtha.
there are several different 'naphtha compounds',
in this application what happens is akin to raising the octane level.
of the vehicles i've owned the least increase was 4 more miles per gallon.
most recently, i paid $2us for a pint.
http://www.nmma.org/certification/certification/oil/tc-w3.aspx
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.