Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

Today I discovered that I have enough headroom to wear a fedora while driving. And yes, this is with the top up. Take that Miata owners!
 
prizrak said:
Diesel is more expensive here and harder to find. Also I saw a VW TDI on the road thought it was broken because of the engine sound till I saw the sticker :p
Click to expand...

Yeah they do sound horrible, but mostly just to outside. At cruising speeds you really don't hear the engine inside. What's the price difference between diesel and gas? MPG difference might make diesel cheaper to run even if it was almost double the price.
 
narf said:
VW says this:
Click to expand...
Oops missed the arrow on the right to get to more models :p
Yeah they do sound horrible, but mostly just to outside. At cruising speeds you really don't hear the engine inside. What's the price difference between diesel and gas? MPG difference might make diesel cheaper to run even if it was almost double the price.
Click to expand...
Interesting.... The Hess station near me is listing Diesel at 8 cents less than Premium usually its about 10-20c more.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
Actually, it is. I looked several years ago and the part numbers are the same - I suspect you were looking at the wrong year Ranger for comparison. Remember, the Ranger bed has changed several times.

For example, I know for a fact that an 80s Ranger tailgate will fit right up; my friend had a flareside not unlike yours and the reason we were looking all this information up was so we could find him a junkyard tailgate. The F-truck tailgates are gone within minutes of hitting the yards, but nobody wants the Ranger ones.
Click to expand...

I measured it and it was different. I did a search online for a 93 ranger bed size.
 
Just curious, Spectre - this tailgate that you found wouldn't have been for a 1980-81 Ranger, would it?

Because that was a trim level for the F150 and completely unrelated to the compact 1983+ Ranger.
 
93Flareside said:
I measured it and it was different. I did a search online for a 93 ranger bed size.
Click to expand...

Try an 82/83-88 longbed. 93 is different.

phoenixsac said:
Just curious, Spectre - this tailgate that you found wouldn't have been for a 1980-81 Ranger, would it?

Because that was a trim level for the F150 and completely unrelated to the compact 1983+ Ranger.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know about that F100/F150 Ranger. No, that wasn't what the tailgate was off of, especially since the Flareside bed wasn't offered in that 'Ranger' and it was a Flareside we were getting a tailgate for.
 
Last edited:
Purchased some new tires for my GTO. I think I overbought my car.

Michelin Pilot Super Sport 235/40ZR18. These are the OEM tires that come on the Ferrari 588 GTO and the Koenigsegg Agera. That little tidbit will make panties drop, oh yeah.
 
Lastsoul said:
Yeah they do sound horrible, but mostly just to outside. At cruising speeds you really don't hear the engine inside. What's the price difference between diesel and gas? MPG difference might make diesel cheaper to run even if it was almost double the price.
Click to expand...

Usually around here, diesel's halfway between regular and premium fuel. It's only available in about 1 in 5 fuel stations, though, from what I've seen. It's a vicious circle of diesels not existing in the US: people don't drive diesels, so nowhere sells fuel. Since nowhere sells fuel, no one drives a diesel because it's harder to find.
 
narf said:
That. A 4WD Cuntryman will quickly go for over 30k?. For that kind of money you could easily get (yeah, you guessed it) a fully kitted Octavia RS DSG.
Click to expand...

True, although I would get many other things for 30k? (a nicely specced Superb Estate 2.0 TDI perhaps, if we're staying with Skoda)


public said:
I've been seeing Nissan Jukes around town lately. I'd drive one, mind. Not probably buy one with my own money (my choice in that class would be the absolutely standard Dacia Duster in appliance white), but I'd scoot around town in one.
Click to expand...

Sadly so am I, which can only mean one thing : people are actually going out and buying these with their own monies! Madness! You'd be surprised at how small it is though, it's sort of VW Polo sized, but better equipped for the same money.
But you have to live with that styling both inside and out EVERY day. And no free aircon, superduper stereo and satnav system can make me forget that!

Blind_Io said:
I think it's great that we finally have a compact AWD crossover with more ground clearance than a regular AWD car.

I will keep my eyes open for a parked Countryman so I can snag a comparison photo with it and my XTerra.
Click to expand...

This will be funny if/when you find one, most of us Europeans don't like it because it isn't small enough, and I guess most Americans won't like it because it's not big enough. Think Golf sized, but on stilts, and you're halfway there.


narf said:
Making it default is fine, just offer sensible options. I'll take the Jetta as an example, they offer either a 2.0 or a 2.5 in the normal car or a 2.0TSI in the GLI. Why do you have to go for the GLI to get a sensible engine?
To illustrate what I mean by sensible engine, they list the 2.0 Jetta as 9.9l/100km city and 6.9l/100km highway while they list the 2.0TSI Jetta GLI as 8.8l/100km city and 6.1l/100km highway. Almost twice the power and lots less fuel. Who in the right mind would not go for the TSI if it was available in every trim level? Even more, what if a 1.4TSI or 1.8TSI were available, both are still more powerful than the 2.slow and use even less fuel than the 2.0TSI while not carrying such a large price tag.




He forgets it's already available in the GLI. If it passes smog and heat in that it will do so in lower trim levels as well.
Click to expand...

Ah but you forget that gas mileage is irrelevant in the US of A. Building a 2.slow and detuning it for reliability so it can do a billion miles > gas mileage.

Over there anyway.... On the other hand it seems that the US VWs don't have the reliability thing down either, which makes this rather a moot point...
 
NooDle said:
Ah but you forget that gas mileage is irrelevant in the US of A. Building a 2.slow and detuning it for reliability so it can do a billion miles > gas mileage.

Over there anyway.... On the other hand it seems that the US VWs don't have the reliability thing down either, which makes this rather a moot point...
Click to expand...

Weirdly, given rising fuel prices (which are still piddling compared to Europe, but high for us), people are considering fuel economy when it comes to buying cars. My grandmother just bought a 2011 Subaru Outback, and she says the efficiency was the deciding factor over similar cars from other manufacturers.
 
^while that may be true, fuel prices have not risen to the point where you really need to consider a frugal car or you just can't afford one at all (yet)

I don't consider myself as someone who does a lot of miles (30k kms a year) and even my super frugal diesel engined hatch needs about 150? a month on fuel alone easily... that is just unthinkable for a small hatch in the US...

OMG I just vaguely worked out how much that is on a yearly basis....

Anyways, if I were to have a VW with the 2.slow that does 9,9 l/100 kms (petrol) instead of my 6 l/100 kms (diesel) now, that would just mean 250? a month on fuel alone, I'm not sure I can afford to go to work anymore...
 
So I've been given the task of helping to unload my father's Porsche 944.

My dad has owned the car for the past 7 years and it only the ran the first year he had it. So it's time to let it go.
 
narf said:
I agree, but we were talking about TSI engines running on petrol, not TDI :tease:




Yes, by 2.0 not TSI I mean the naturally aspirated piece of crap that died over here a decade ago. Hell, if you don't want the complications of a TSI you (= VW USA) might at least use the 2.0FSI that made 150hp in the Golf Mk5 and used less fuel than the 2.0 not FSI making 115hp in the Golf Mk 4.

Over here the 2.0TSI runs on 95 research octane fuel, the lowest generally available number since 91 pretty much died out. I'm too lazy to look up what that translates to in your numbers, but my gut feeling is based on octane numbers alone it should run decently on your regular fuel. Other things may ruin that though.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, my 1996 Chrysler managed 150 HP from 2L using less fuel in a bigger car. No turbos involved.
 
I wish people would stop using power per displacement as a general engine benchmark. A 6L engine with an 8:1 compression ratio will use less fuel than a 2L engine with an 8000:1 compression ratio. Then there is forced induction. There are other factors than just displacement.
 
argatoga said:
I wish people would stop using power per displacement as a general engine benchmark. A 6L engine with an 8:1 compression ratio will use less fuel than a 2L engine with an 8000:1 compression ratio. Then there is forced induction. There are other factors than just displacement.
Click to expand...

I compared two different naturally aspirated engines with the same displacement and layout. One produces significantly more power using significantly less fuel despite a weight disadvantage. Look at what car I drive, I am quite aware that displacement doesn't tell the whole story.
 
Emarline said:
Weirdly, given rising fuel prices (which are still piddling compared to Europe, but high for us), people are considering fuel economy when it comes to buying cars. My grandmother just bought a 2011 Subaru Outback, and she says the efficiency was the deciding factor over similar cars from other manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Yeah its getting to the point where I'm considering switching my tune to stock for daily driving, just uses too much fuel (under 20mpg out of a 1.8T is INSANE)
 
prizrak said:
Yeah its getting to the point where I'm considering switching my tune to stock for daily driving, just uses too much fuel (under 20mpg out of a 1.8T is INSANE)
Click to expand...

Actually I think under 20mpg out of a 200hp+ AWD sedan driven quickly isn't too bad.

Then again a few years ago I was dealing with 140hp and 12mpg...
 
God I love the sound of the BOV!!!

Edit: I may score a free R-bumper tomorrow. Problem is that it is supposed to have a little damage. And is also the wrong color. I really don't want to spend ~$300 for painting a bumper. An R bumper is cool, but it doesn't make as big of a difference as on the 850 (the R bumper on the 850 is really cool).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top