LexFather

BMWs best selling 5 model was the lowly 189hp 525. Of course they got rid of that for the 230hp 530.

Power sells to clueless people. 270hp, yeah, we forgot to tell you its to an inferior FWD platform. MARKETING makes that happen and its easier and cheaper for a company to churn out more HP than investing in lower weight cars or cars with better efficiency.

The roads are not getting any emptier or any longer. So again, why do we need near 300hp vans, and family cars.

Vlad_Stein

While I am sure you mean well, I am skeptical that this idea can turn out well in practice.

• Outlawing truck ownerships for households of less than 3? So, in case of a divorce, people have to sell their truck/SUV and buy a small car? Or would it be OK to marry for the purpose of buying a truck and then have an amiable divorce? What if you are single and want to tow a jet ski? You do understand that people's freedom of choice would be curbed.
• Paying more for insurance based on fuel efficiency or engine displacement? You've got to be kidding me. I would love to see you explain that one away.
• You mentioned taxing vehicles based on engine size - 30% for 4.0L+ and 60% for 6.0L+ (or something to that effect). Why not 100% and 200% respectively, why not a gazillion percent - where did these numbers come from? Why are you so certain that they are fair?
• I haven't even mentioned that this policy is flawed as means of regulating fuel consumption - if you want to go after fuel consumption, go after gas mileage, not the displacement. I can think of a dozen ways to get around this policy and end up with a vehicle that does not get taxed, but uses more fuel than a similar car with a bigger engine.
• This policy can be divided into 2 parts: providing a dis-incentive to the behavior of buying large displacement cars and applying the funds from the tax to benefit the environment.
• You mention that this would be a payback for the environment (whatever that means). How exactly will this money be used? You can't just write the "environment" a check and I will bet you 100:1 that these funds would be diverted to things that have nothing to do with the environment. This is a classical case of "rob Peter to pay Paul" policy (you sound like a law-maker, BTW ).

GS69

Geneva Preview: VW to Unveil Diesel Hybrid; 69mpg
Volkswagen has confirmed that it will unveil a diesel-hybrid version of the Golf at the Geneva Motor Show next week. Volkswagen says that the car, which will first be shown concept, will return an outstanding 69mpg and will emit only 89g/km of CO2.

No other technical details were given but power is expected to come from a common-rail 2.0 liter diesel engine recently launched in the Tiguan mated to an electric motor that will drive power to the front wheels and allow the car to run on battery alone at low speeds.

The Volkswagen Golf TDI hybrid is also expected to get a 7-speed DSG double-clutch transmission. Engineers have fitted the car with other fuel-saving features such as a start-stop system, aerodynamic tweaks and other modifications made on Bluemotion models.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

post of the week!

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Oh man, you're on a roll!

This is why I like my 166HP 2400lb Mazda MX-5.

Yes I have my SUV but that's only used for when I need to move a bunch of stuff and/or people around.

SLegacy99

There it is.

Why not have 6 cylinder Tahoes and Suburbans? Even the GM DI 3.6L would be potent enough to do some towing.

geko29

Probably because they'd get worse mileage than the V8s. The Dodge Durango 3.9L V6 was dropped a year after introduction because it got 2-3mpg less than the 5.2L V8. Dragging all that weight around works a V6 REALLY hard. By contrast, a V8 can just lazily idle them around. The Tahoe and Suburban both weigh significantly more (Suburban is 1100lbs more than the Durango, Tahoe is 900lbs more), so this effect would be magnified.

Koma

iTrader: (3)

+1 V8's tend to have more torque which is what is needed during towing. But I think a solution would be turbocharging a V6 motor. You'll get more torque from a more fuel efficient engine and if you're not hardcore boosting you won't be eating up V8 torque-like gas.

geko29

And that's exactly what Ford's doing with the Explorer and Moutaineer. Turbo 6's will eventually make it to the big uties like the Expedition and Tahoe, but I think it'll be a couple of years yet.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Brake specific fuel consumption on any boosted gasoline engine is between .60 and .65. BSFC on a naturally aspirated engine is between .45 and .50. Higher numbers mean more fuel burned per hp produced. No way are boosted gasoline engines more efficient than NA engines. Never have been, never will be.

This is NOT true for diesels, but this has more to do with diesels not needing to restrict air entering the engine - only fuel gets restricted - and you don't have to lower compression in a boosted diesel to prevent detonation and kill thermal efficiency.

You don't need an engine with "torque" to pull things. You need torque at the wheels to pull things. How you get it there is open to about a gazillion methods. If you really want torque, drive the wheels with an electric motor. They make full rated torque at zero rpm. Nothing beat electrics for torque delivery.