"Karl Brauer, the editor in chief of Internet buying guide Edmunds.com, said the HHR could easily flop. Its design is too derivative of the PT Cruiser. And the base 143 horsepower, 2.2-liter Ecotec engine isn't powerful enough, he said. "It blows me away General Motors can release this vehicle," Brauer said."
Woah, that's the first angle I see in which it looks like a total rip-off of the PT Cruiser.
This guy almost takes the World's Laziest Redesigner Award away from the Porsche guys!
I don't see the problem with the engine though; the HHR is an economy car, and has pretty average power for one. And if it's the base engine, there might be better ones available?
Saw an HHR in a neighbor's driveway (they work for GM). I was prepared to be underwhelmed by this car, but I have to admit it had a presence. It stands out in a crowd and it was more compact than I expected. I'm changing my tune - I think it will do well, or at least okay.
Force = Mass x Acceleration or, Torque / Weight = Acceleration.
So, if you want to compare 2 vehicles, the torque curve *is* the acceleration curve (after you adjust for weight )
So in your example, the chevy feels faster, because it is accelerating faster, atleast to 6000 rpm
As for gearing ... as you go up through the gears, you are trading away torque for speed. (ie. the multiplication effect lessens). Using your numbers I think the Honda'a gear box would start with a lower ratio 1st gear, and have wider steps between gears.
I'm still trying to figure out what HP tells me :confuse:
So, if you want to compare 2 vehicles, the torque curve *is* the acceleration curve (after you adjust for weight )
Correct. Though more accurately, the torque at the drive wheels is the acceleration curve. The engine torque curve should closely follow, though.
The peak acceleration in a given gear occurs at the torque peak. The peak acceleration at a given speed occurs at the horsepower peak. In other words, 2nd gear at the torque peak in car X you'll be accelerating as hard as the car can in 2nd gear. However, downshift to 1st and be around the horsepower peak and you'll be accelerating HARDER, even though your torque output decreased. The effect of gearing made up for the lack of torque at higher rpms. THAT is what horsepower tells you.
Someone wrote up a really good comparison of this using a 91 and 92 Corvette. The 91 has the L98, tuned port injection, and the 92 has the new LT1. The 91 had 245hp and the 92 had 300hp. Here it is, so I don't have to summarize it:
I'd encourage EVERYONE to read through this. Both torque and horsepower are necessary. However, if you could only guarantee ONE, you would prefer horsepower. Torque only implies the ability to act, as a force. It has NO time implication what-so-ever, unless you related it to engine rpm. With horsepower, you don't need to know engine rpm and yet you can calculate exactly how much that engine can do, per unit time (hint: gearing plays a huge role here).
For example,
300lb-ft @ 3000rpm and 300lb-ft @ 4500rpm
Both are the same "force" but one is able to exert that force at a faster rate. The engine with the torque at 4500rpm will be putting out 1.5x the horsepower at the torque peak, meaning it can do more work than the other engine. This is where gearing comes into play. Insert a gear reduction of 2/3rds and run your 300lb-ft @ 4500rpm engine at 4500rpm. The input shaft spins at 4500rpm but the output shaft spins at 3000rpm. What torque does that output shaft have? 300 * 1.5 = 450lb-ft. So, to make my point, there is no torque peak difference between these engines. However, one can do work faster than another. How do we tell? The rpm. We could say one engine is 300lb-ft @ 3000rpm and the other is 300lb-ft @ 4500rpm.
Or, we could do it this way: Engine 1: 171hp Engine 2: 257hp
I think I was on the right track then. Still need to run this through my head again.
For those of you who don't want to think about numbers - can't blame you if you're at work - here's what I was trying to say, without numbers. An engine with a lot of hp but little torque has to use high rpm's to get that power. That means it's gearing can be "compressed" a whole lot more. Tighter gears multiply the torque that gets to the wheels - so now the car feels as strong as another car with high torque and low revs.
Back to numbers. Diesels are very torquey but expire at high rpm, so they don't have any more power than their gasoline equivalents. And they don't any faster, despite the torque advantage.
For normal people and normal driving though, the torque curve is what matters. I suppose numbers can be useful too, since normal engines all redline at about the same place (so those cars all get similar gearing to have the usual redlines around 30mph, 60mph, etc). But the peak torque's no good, advertisers should give torque numbers just off of idle, and at 2000rpm.
An engine with a lot of hp but little torque has to use high rpm's to get that power. That means it's gearing can be "compressed" a whole lot more. Tighter gears multiply the torque that gets to the wheels - so now the car feels as strong as another car with high torque and low revs.
Yup, that works for me.
Diesels are very torquey but expire at high rpm, so they don't have any more power than their gasoline equivalents. And they don't any faster, despite the torque advantage.
Actually, extra torque, even with no more horsepower, will make a vehicle faster, since all transmissions except for CVTs have to make power through discrete gear ratios. So the engine is used in many RPM ranges, not just the horsepower peak. Average horsepower is even more important than peak horsepower. The Mercedes E320 gasser is slower than the new E320 CDI, even though the turbodiesel actually has less horsepower. The thing has like 369lb-ft and a very fat mid-range torque band. If they were both on a CVT transmission letting the engine sit at the horsepower peak, the diesel would be slower than the gasser (both would be faster than they were before, if the tranny is efficient enough), though it would still get a lot better mileage. As it is with a 5-speed automatic, the CDI gets 7mpg better city and 9mpg better highway. And it's faster!
But the peak torque's no good, advertisers should give torque numbers just off of idle, and at 2000rpm.
One thing we do have is enthusiast magazines like Car and Driver to give us acceleration specs other than 0-60 and 1/4 mile. They give us 0-20, 0-30, and the all-important 5-60 "street start" test, which is a real test of an engine's tractability (no, not the ability to be tractor-like, though some fit that bill, as well :P ). We also have 1/4 mile specs in terms of two numbers, the time it takes to travel the distance, and the vehicle speed when it finishes the distance. Comparing the two numbers tell a lot about gearing, ability to put the power down and/or torque, and power to weight ratio.
Between all of these things, we can get a pretty good feel. All that's left is to drive the damn thing!
I am an engineer by training and maybe that's why I understand what you are saying. This nonsense about the inherit superiority of OHC engines can't be justified. The bottom line is that OHVs are trashed because imports don't use them. Even C&D (which trashes pushrods almost as much as Edmunds) had an article about 6 months ago that explained the benefits of OHV engines and I was shocked. I think that article also said Toyota had been considering an OHV truck engine for the next Tundra.
Instead of killing practical vehicles like the Malibu Maxx, Chevrolet should improve it as a 2008 redesign. No one can deny that wagons/hatchbacks are selling well. With the introduction of players like the Dodge Magnum, Mazda 6 and Audi A3 this segment is really heating up. Chevrolet should improve the engine, handling and interior and the Maxx would be a real winner.
If Chevrolet is looking for models to cut due to production costs they could start with the outdated Blazer and the overpriced SSR. I hear the SSR is already sailing into the sunset, but the Blazer?? When was the last time that thing was redesigned???
Jeez if they'd just redesign that front in (well and add the option of a stick I guess) I'd be interested in the Maxx. Better looking than the sedan, just that they both have that wretched front end.
The Mazda3 hatch is selling like gangbusters. The Scion TC is selling well too. The Malibu Maxx failed for reasons beyond the fact it was a hatch - the manufacturer, styling, performance, marketing, and we can probably come up with a million other reasons.
Sorry about the lack of posts recently. The last week has been crazy, including a trip to New Jersey to have lunch with BMW and a trip to Detroit to tour the Ford GT plant (which will result in a very cool story shortly).
Anyway, I'm back now and since I'm at home on a Saturday night I can get to the latest comments without interruption. So here goes...
So I ask that they be given reviews that can be accessed by someone who doesn't know this website well, and is starting from the front page where it says "Research New Cars."
Sorry about the confusion. I'll try to give you a quick guide to finding this type of info on both sites.
On the Edmunds.com home page, click on the "Car Reviews" tab at the top of the page. From there click on the "Search All" link that's in the "Road Tests" horizontal bar (also near the top of the page).
Also, something everyone should know about is that on any Inside Line page you will see two drop-down menus at the upper right of the page. You can use the left drop-down to pick a vehicle make, and then the right drop down to pick a model. This will take you to "model central" for the car you've picked, and it will show any and all editorial we've done on that car (both Inside Line and Edmunds.com content should appear). If you do this for the Nissan Sentra you will see the 2003 (as opposed to the other 2002) Econosport Sedan test that also includes the Sentra. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=100452/pageId=56921
We are still locking down the programming to make sure all road tests appear on both sites (Inisde Line and Edmunds.com), but at this point I would suggest searching both locations to make sure you see all road test content for a given vehicle.
You put a 4 banger up against a six shooter and called it a comparison test. For your next trick, I suppose you could be pit the 3 series against my cuisenart, since that is a manual six speed as well. "Savvy readers" know that both Audi and BMW automatics have steering wheel mounted paddles, the same gearshift mechanism used in f-1 racing, which makes a traditional stick shift obsolete. If you are genuinely interested in the success of Inside Line, then may I suggest providing your readers with the legitimate article they deserve and that Car and Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend will all publish sooner or later.
Um, putting shift buttons on a steering wheel does not make a traditional automatic obsolete. Putting in a sequential manual gearbox with a hydraulically actuated clutch, that shifts faster than a traditional manual gearbox, does mean that you don't have to row the gears manually to still have rapid shifts while also avoiding a power-sapping torque converter. Putting shift buttons on a steering wheel to shift an otherwise traditional automatic transmission does almost nothing in terms of creating a true sports car (or sport sedan).
That said, the cars we chose for this test were the "sportiest versions of each model available." Because you can't get a manual transmission or the DSG transmission with the new A4 when equipped with the 3.2 engine, the "sportiest" version of the A4 (the only one with a manual transmission) is the 2.0-liter. The 3.2 engine only comes with a slushbox, at least for right now.
You want Audi to have a better chance against BMW in the category of sport sedan? Tell them to offer their big engine with a manual tranny or the DSG (something BMW never seems to have trouble doing).
I don't see the problem with the engine though; the HHR is an economy car, and has pretty average power for one. And if it's the base engine, there might be better ones available?
Here were the problems I had with the HHR before ever driving it: 1. It is blatantly chasing the PT Cruiser market, but it is only just hitting showrooms. This means GM didn't start to develop it until they saw the PT's success, meaning they had to wait for someone else to take a risk, and win, before they would even start the process of going after this market, meaning they would be five years late to the party...which they now are. 2. The HHR doesn't actually look very cool. The PT Cruiser looked nothing like any other Chrysler product, or any other new vehicle, when it came out. The HHR, to me, looks like a slightly smaller Trailblazer with an aftermarket fender kit bolted on. The greenhouse is too close to the standard GM SUV design for me to give it any props in terms of "bold" styling. 3. The engine output is weak. Even though the PT Cruiser sold well initially, everyone (consumers and auto writers) lambasted it for weak engine output...and it had 150 horsepower. Since then the PT has offered a 180 and 220 horsepower engine for people who want more power. The "new" HHR comes with a 140 horsepower base engine, meaning it is 10 horsepower down on the equivalent PT engine (you know, the one lambasted for being too weak...five years ago). And the optional engine is also 10 hp down on the mid-grade PT engine. Of course, there is no current HHR equivalent to the PT's 220 engine.
"Yeah, but Karl I'm sure GM will come out with a better engine in a few years."
Not good enough. The car itself is already five years late. Now we have to wait "a few more years" for a decent engine? Or I could just go buy a 220 horsepower PT today?
Hmm, GM's continuing market share drop is sure a mystery...
BTW, I actually drove an HHR on Friday. We'll have a full test going up soon, but here are my thoughts: 1. Headroom is tighter than in the PT, which surprises me because it's supposed to be a "tall van-like vehicle" just like the PT, and the PT never felt tight or claustrophobic inside -- in spite of it having a relatively small exterior size. 2. The quality of the interior material was sub par, even for the "economy" price it starts at. There was almost too much texture in the dash material, like GM thinks putting enough "texture" in a cheap plastic will disguise the "cheapness." It didn't work. 3. I drove the more powerful (170hp) engine with the "sport" suspension. Power and handling are acceptable to me, but nothing to write home about. It wasn't horrendous, but it's certainly a long way from "fast" on acceleration or "sporty" around corners. I'd need to drive a PT back-to-back with the HHR to be sure, but we had a long-term PT Cruiser and I'm pretty familiar with PT driving characteristics. My sense is that the PT handles better than the HHR (and obviously the available 220 hp engine will blow the HHR's current "top" engine away).
Did you see that GM recently "revised" their projected sales numbers on the HHR? Little hint: the revision wasn't for higher sales than previously expected.
One more quick comment -- We're having a meeting with some top GM brass on Monday afternoon. It's not Bob Lutz coming back again, but still some big names. I'll tell you more after the meeting.
Karl, your last post just solidifies the complete amazement that such a high-powered company as GM, with all the bright engineers and sales staff they have, can so often market such abysimally dumb cars...
The new Chevy mini-van.....Just WHEN will GM make a credible competor to the 1984 Chrysler version?
which hatch is your favorite? The Mazda 3, because it is just so damn fun to drive. However, we classify the five-door Mazda 3 as a wagon because the roof goes almost all the way back and the rear window is almost vertical (instead of the roof ending ahead of the rear end and the window sloping down and back). The OEs keep making it harder to easily define exactly what a car is...
Would the upcoming SS version change your opinion of the Chevy Maxx? I agree that the styling hurt the Malibu Maxx more than its status as a hatchback. The SS version won't fix the styling. Also, the interior was mediocre at best.
Aren't recent versions of the mazda3 very similar to ford Focus? I wish their engines had more bottom end torque. The Mazda 3 uses the new version of the Focus platform (the same one that the current European Focus has, but the U.S. market Focus is still on the old platform ).
The new Chevy mini-van.....Just WHEN will GM make a credible competor to the 1984 Chrysler version?
The mind reels....
A good question. First, they have to come up with a 21st century minivan platform. You do know the "new" vans are just re-bodied versions of the same platform that has been under the Venture for almost a decade? I believe the Odyssey has been redesigned twice in the same time period (1999 and 2005).
The new Chrysler 300 reminds me of the 1957 Chrysler 300C.
The 1957 300C was simply a beautiful machine. I'm always surprised by the amount of attention the 1957 Chevy gets while most people have never even seen a 1957 Chrysler 300.
Did any of you ever see the old T.V. series Crime Story? It was directed by Michael Mann (Miami Vice and the movie Heat) and the main police character (Dennis Farina) drove a black 1957 Chrysler 300C convertible. All I can say is -- Nash Bridges, eat your heart out!
Yes, I understand that GM just added the absurdly long hood to the ageing platform to give it some SUV macho...they must think retail buyers are pretty dumb.....They probably think the standard DVD player is all we can see...
IIRC the Lambda minivan/crossover platform was supposed to be out in 2003? and it got killed/delayed. Now, first Lambda vehicles will be out in 2007, with new minivans in 2009. I think the 2005 GM minivan quads was a low-budget, bare-bones attempt to fix some of the more egregious issues (i.e. interior, crash test results) and limp along until the new platform is here. Not excusing GM, just providing more background...
Thanks Karl. There were a couple things in there that I didn't know about, and knowing about them helps. But mostly I'm just concerned that if I have trouble navigating edmunds.com, new people must find only a quarter of what they could've found here.
The long nose helps it get better ratings in the crash tests. The old ones didn't do very well - only 2 or 3 stars from what I recall. I think that's the real reason for the long nose, not just the "crossover sport van" styling.
When it comes to minivans, yeah, GM should either "s#$# or get off the pot" so to speak... either bring out a competitive one or just abandon that market. They could do better than they are now by just making a blatant copy of the previous gen Ody or Sienna or Chrysler vans.
Yeah, I agree, it's sort of a "place-holder" in the lineup until they can bring out something better in 2009 or whatever...(same with the 9-2x and 9-7x for Saab) Still, given their track record with vans, I'm not expecting miracles from the 2009 van. As someone mentioned above - Chrysler invented that segment in 1984 - it took the Japanese about 15 years, but they eventually did come out with some top notch competition. GM and Ford still haven't come up with a good minivan.
Thanks Karl. There were a couple things in there that I didn't know about, and knowing about them helps. But mostly I'm just concerned that if I have trouble navigating edmunds.com, new people must find only a quarter of what they could've found here.
You are absolutely right. Our biggest asset is also our biggest liability -- tons 'o content. Designing an effective page to make sure everyone finds what they want, easily, is probaby our toughest challenge today. But we'll keep at it.
which hatch is your favorite? The Mazda 3, because it is just so damn fun to drive. However, we classify the five-door Mazda 3 as a wagon because the roof goes almost all the way back and the rear window is almost vertical (instead of the roof ending ahead of the rear end and the window sloping down and back). The OEs keep making it harder to easily define exactly what a car is...
Having Karl praise the new car I bought 4 months ago is almost like getting blessed by the Pope!!! My wife says my Mazda3 5 has a big butt and it is kind of ugly and she doesn't like hatches (and this from an owner of a New Beetle) My Mom, on the other hand, says my Mazda looks 'rakish' but she owns a Protege5 so maybe she is biased. You and my Mom have good taste - my wife is just 'uneducated' in quality cars. :P
The roof looks to be about 60 degrees (maybe 70). But the storage area is really small compared to other compact wagons and has more in common with the Focus hatches than, say, the Focus/Volvo/Subaru compact wagons.
I think somebody else here (or maybe it was another discussion) asked if there were any hatches that sold well that were not advertised as sporty. I'd say the first gen Focus. I see far more hatches than I do sedans. And it looks to me like the hatch is the natural shape of the car and the sedan was formed from it.
I think hatches (and wagons) need to look natural and not like mutated sedans.
I don't see many hatches out here in LA, save for older VW golfs. By comparison, I see Chrysler 300's 5 - 10 times a day (LA CA's becomming RWD heaven).
Don't know how the Audi A3 fared in Karl's hatch comparison - the AWD of a future varient of that looks very interesting, assuming Audi reliability gets into above average status.
I think that article also said Toyota had been considering an OHV truck engine for the next Tundra.
Didn't Toyota have to go backwards to engineer motors for Nascar truck competition? OHV, carburators, etc.? Does anybody know if Toyota is also developing a 60's technology engine for to use in competition in Nascar Nextel cup car racing? Do the Nascar cars still use points and condensor?
I was wondering if you guys will be testing any of the new 2006 Explorers or Mountaineers soon. I know that they have already started building them and they have are supposed to be in the showrooms in August. I've seen pics of them and I can't wait to read a review of it.
The Linden, New Jersey plant where the old Blazer was still being built, closed within the past 60 days. It's not being produced any longer. There may be a few stragglers left on lots, but not many - dealers didn't want them after the Trailblazer came out...
I was wondering if you guys will be testing any of the new 2006 Explorers or Mountaineers soon.
We will be attending the Ford press introduction on July 19-21. There will likely be an embargo on the information until around September 1st or maybe mid August.
Have you driven a Ford Fusion yet? And has Ford given you a future product preview similar to the one provided recently by GM?
I have not driven it yet, but the press event happens July 14th (I think there is an embargo until September 1 on this vehicle). I have been around the vehicle twice with plenty of time to sit in it and examine it up close. A couple thoughts at this point:
1. I really like the exterior design. More interesting than an Accord or Camry, but not quite as esoteric at the Altima -- in a good way. The rear taillights are particularly cool, in my opinion. The front-end works too (lots of Ford 427 concept car there). 2. Even though it's based on the Mazda 6 it feels roomier inside, and the Ford folks confirmed that they made some changes to the Mazda 6 layout to increase interior space, particularly in the second row. 3. I was worried when the initial horsepower ratings were coming in at 210 for the V6, but now they've been upgraded to 220. Depending on gearing the car could feel plenty fast enough, but I would have preferred a number closer to 240 -- or more. It is a relatively small/light vehicle (it's no Five-Hundred), so 220 should be adequate at least.
And don't forget, a hybrid version is coming in 2007 or 2008.
Not to beat a dead horse...but when are you guys doing a full test on the 2005 Cobalt SEDAN? A Cobalt sedan can't be hard to obtain!!
Anyway, what other road tests are coming up in the next 3 weeks or so? Any comparison tests?
The Cobalt sedan comes in mid July, though we are now trying to arrange a full-blown economy sedan comparison test for that time period.
Other cool stories coming soon: How to Build a Ford GT (a full plant tour with photos) Chevy HHR full test Benchmark Sedans versus Upstart comparison test (Accord and Camry take on the new Hyundai Sonata) Mazda MX-5 (don't call it a Miata) First Drive
I have noted that in most of your reviews of cars you don't speak about comfort - that is how comfortable is the seat, drivers and rear; have their been complaints about the car's comfort. With the aging population, not me of course, I think that you should have a forum for people with various health problems - for example best cars for people with back pain; what car holds walkers, wheel chairs for a person in terms of trunk size. I work with people who have a vareity of disabilities, they should be able to read reviews on the best car to drive as well as the best car family member should drive if they cannot drive. By not having these types of reviews you are missing a huge segment of the population.
Comments
"Karl Brauer, the editor in chief of Internet buying guide Edmunds.com, said the HHR could easily flop. Its design is too derivative of the PT Cruiser. And the base 143 horsepower, 2.2-liter Ecotec engine isn't powerful enough, he said. "It blows me away General Motors can release this vehicle," Brauer said."
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0506/21/C01-222535.htm
Couldn't resist.
This guy almost takes the World's Laziest Redesigner Award away from the Porsche guys!
I don't see the problem with the engine though; the HHR is an economy car, and has pretty average power for one. And if it's the base engine, there might be better ones available?
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Mania Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
Yes and no. Didn't all cars in the 1950s have similar shapes to the PT and HHR? I mean look at pictures of a 1949 Suburban.
http://www.bobscustomcreations.com/images/Van%20Book%20Pictures/images/034_JPG.jpg
http://www.cars-on-line.com/16000/60impala16008-B.jpg
I bet you could fit 8 Goodfella's in that trunk.
:-)
IMO, those cars had style...not these blunt PT cruiser type uggo's
Force = Mass x Acceleration or, Torque / Weight = Acceleration.
So, if you want to compare 2 vehicles, the torque curve *is* the acceleration curve (after you adjust for weight )
So in your example, the chevy feels faster, because it is accelerating faster, atleast to 6000 rpm
As for gearing ... as you go up through the gears, you are trading away torque for speed. (ie. the multiplication effect lessens). Using your numbers I think the Honda'a gear box would start with a lower ratio 1st gear, and have wider steps between gears.
I'm still trying to figure out what HP tells me :confuse:
Correct. Though more accurately, the torque at the drive wheels is the acceleration curve. The engine torque curve should closely follow, though.
The peak acceleration in a given gear occurs at the torque peak. The peak acceleration at a given speed occurs at the horsepower peak. In other words, 2nd gear at the torque peak in car X you'll be accelerating as hard as the car can in 2nd gear. However, downshift to 1st and be around the horsepower peak and you'll be accelerating HARDER, even though your torque output decreased. The effect of gearing made up for the lack of torque at higher rpms. THAT is what horsepower tells you.
Someone wrote up a really good comparison of this using a 91 and 92 Corvette. The 91 has the L98, tuned port injection, and the 92 has the new LT1. The 91 had 245hp and the 92 had 300hp. Here it is, so I don't have to summarize it:
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
I'd encourage EVERYONE to read through this. Both torque and horsepower are necessary. However, if you could only guarantee ONE, you would prefer horsepower. Torque only implies the ability to act, as a force. It has NO time implication what-so-ever, unless you related it to engine rpm. With horsepower, you don't need to know engine rpm and yet you can calculate exactly how much that engine can do, per unit time (hint: gearing plays a huge role here).
For example,
300lb-ft @ 3000rpm and 300lb-ft @ 4500rpm
Both are the same "force" but one is able to exert that force at a faster rate. The engine with the torque at 4500rpm will be putting out 1.5x the horsepower at the torque peak, meaning it can do more work than the other engine. This is where gearing comes into play. Insert a gear reduction of 2/3rds and run your 300lb-ft @ 4500rpm engine at 4500rpm. The input shaft spins at 4500rpm but the output shaft spins at 3000rpm. What torque does that output shaft have? 300 * 1.5 = 450lb-ft. So, to make my point, there is no torque peak difference between these engines. However, one can do work faster than another. How do we tell? The rpm. We could say one engine is 300lb-ft @ 3000rpm and the other is 300lb-ft @ 4500rpm.
Or, we could do it this way:
Engine 1: 171hp
Engine 2: 257hp
No rpms. Just horsepower.
Hope that made sense.
For those of you who don't want to think about numbers - can't blame you if you're at work - here's what I was trying to say, without numbers. An engine with a lot of hp but little torque has to use high rpm's to get that power. That means it's gearing can be "compressed" a whole lot more. Tighter gears multiply the torque that gets to the wheels - so now the car feels as strong as another car with high torque and low revs.
Back to numbers. Diesels are very torquey but expire at high rpm, so they don't have any more power than their gasoline equivalents. And they don't any faster, despite the torque advantage.
For normal people and normal driving though, the torque curve is what matters. I suppose numbers can be useful too, since normal engines all redline at about the same place (so those cars all get similar gearing to have the usual redlines around 30mph, 60mph, etc). But the peak torque's no good, advertisers should give torque numbers just off of idle, and at 2000rpm.
Yup, that works for me.
Diesels are very torquey but expire at high rpm, so they don't have any more power than their gasoline equivalents. And they don't any faster, despite the torque advantage.
Actually, extra torque, even with no more horsepower, will make a vehicle faster, since all transmissions except for CVTs have to make power through discrete gear ratios. So the engine is used in many RPM ranges, not just the horsepower peak. Average horsepower is even more important than peak horsepower. The Mercedes E320 gasser is slower than the new E320 CDI, even though the turbodiesel actually has less horsepower. The thing has like 369lb-ft and a very fat mid-range torque band. If they were both on a CVT transmission letting the engine sit at the horsepower peak, the diesel would be slower than the gasser (both would be faster than they were before, if the tranny is efficient enough), though it would still get a lot better mileage. As it is with a 5-speed automatic, the CDI gets 7mpg better city and 9mpg better highway. And it's faster!
But the peak torque's no good, advertisers should give torque numbers just off of idle, and at 2000rpm.
One thing we do have is enthusiast magazines like Car and Driver to give us acceleration specs other than 0-60 and 1/4 mile. They give us 0-20, 0-30, and the all-important 5-60 "street start" test, which is a real test of an engine's tractability (no, not the ability to be tractor-like, though some fit that bill, as well :P ). We also have 1/4 mile specs in terms of two numbers, the time it takes to travel the distance, and the vehicle speed when it finishes the distance. Comparing the two numbers tell a lot about gearing, ability to put the power down and/or torque, and power to weight ratio.
Between all of these things, we can get a pretty good feel. All that's left is to drive the damn thing!
And they are __very__ popular.
Karl, what other examples are there of a model's sales when a manufacturer announces they plan to kill it in the near future?
Could GM severely curtail production of the Maxx until they kill it 2008?
And why do Americans hate hatchbacks so much?? You can steal stuff out of a sedan just as easilly as a hatch (the latter "hide" stuff just as well).
Instead of killing practical vehicles like the Malibu Maxx, Chevrolet should improve it as a 2008 redesign. No one can deny that wagons/hatchbacks are selling well. With the introduction of players like the Dodge Magnum, Mazda 6 and Audi A3 this segment is really heating up. Chevrolet should improve the engine, handling and interior and the Maxx would be a real winner.
If Chevrolet is looking for models to cut due to production costs they could start with the outdated Blazer and the overpriced SSR. I hear the SSR is already sailing into the sunset, but the Blazer?? When was the last time that thing was redesigned???
Would the upcoming SS version change your opinion of the Chevy Maxx?
Aren't recent versions of the mazda3 very similar to ford Focus? I wish their engines had more bottom end torque.
Sorry about the lack of posts recently. The last week has been crazy, including a trip to New Jersey to have lunch with BMW and a trip to Detroit to tour the Ford GT plant (which will result in a very cool story shortly).
Anyway, I'm back now and since I'm at home on a Saturday night I can get to the latest comments without interruption. So here goes...
Sorry about the confusion. I'll try to give you a quick guide to finding this type of info on both sites.
On the Edmunds.com home page, click on the "Car Reviews" tab at the top of the page. From there click on the "Search All" link that's in the "Road Tests" horizontal bar (also near the top of the page).
Here you will see a list of all the manufacturers. To find information on the Sentra SE-R, click on "Nissan" and then click on "Sentra" which will bring up a page with all Sentra road tests. http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/nissan/sentra/100456704/roadtests.html?editorialYear=2005&- editorialMake=Nissan&editorialModel=Sentra&tid=edmunds.e.roadmmindex.content..0.Nissan*
On this page I see a 2002 Econosports Comparison Test link http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/61394/article.html
And also a First Drive story on the 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R. http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/nissan/sentra/100456704/roadtestarticle.html?articleId=469- 95&tid=edmunds.e.roadtest.content...Nissan*
Also, something everyone should know about is that on any Inside Line page you will see two drop-down menus at the upper right of the page. You can use the left drop-down to pick a vehicle make, and then the right drop down to pick a model. This will take you to "model central" for the car you've picked, and it will show any and all editorial we've done on that car (both Inside Line and Edmunds.com content should appear). If you do this for the Nissan Sentra you will see the 2003 (as opposed to the other 2002) Econosport Sedan test that also includes the Sentra.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=100452/pageId=56921
We are still locking down the programming to make sure all road tests appear on both sites (Inisde Line and Edmunds.com), but at this point I would suggest searching both locations to make sure you see all road test content for a given vehicle.
Hope this helps.
Um, putting shift buttons on a steering wheel does not make a traditional automatic obsolete. Putting in a sequential manual gearbox with a hydraulically actuated clutch, that shifts faster than a traditional manual gearbox, does mean that you don't have to row the gears manually to still have rapid shifts while also avoiding a power-sapping torque converter. Putting shift buttons on a steering wheel to shift an otherwise traditional automatic transmission does almost nothing in terms of creating a true sports car (or sport sedan).
That said, the cars we chose for this test were the "sportiest versions of each model available." Because you can't get a manual transmission or the DSG transmission with the new A4 when equipped with the 3.2 engine, the "sportiest" version of the A4 (the only one with a manual transmission) is the 2.0-liter. The 3.2 engine only comes with a slushbox, at least for right now.
You want Audi to have a better chance against BMW in the category of sport sedan? Tell them to offer their big engine with a manual tranny or the DSG (something BMW never seems to have trouble doing).
Here were the problems I had with the HHR before ever driving it:
1. It is blatantly chasing the PT Cruiser market, but it is only just hitting showrooms. This means GM didn't start to develop it until they saw the PT's success, meaning they had to wait for someone else to take a risk, and win, before they would even start the process of going after this market, meaning they would be five years late to the party...which they now are.
2. The HHR doesn't actually look very cool. The PT Cruiser looked nothing like any other Chrysler product, or any other new vehicle, when it came out. The HHR, to me, looks like a slightly smaller Trailblazer with an aftermarket fender kit bolted on. The greenhouse is too close to the standard GM SUV design for me to give it any props in terms of "bold" styling.
3. The engine output is weak. Even though the PT Cruiser sold well initially, everyone (consumers and auto writers) lambasted it for weak engine output...and it had 150 horsepower. Since then the PT has offered a 180 and 220 horsepower engine for people who want more power. The "new" HHR comes with a 140 horsepower base engine, meaning it is 10 horsepower down on the equivalent PT engine (you know, the one lambasted for being too weak...five years ago). And the optional engine is also 10 hp down on the mid-grade PT engine. Of course, there is no current HHR equivalent to the PT's 220 engine.
"Yeah, but Karl I'm sure GM will come out with a better engine in a few years."
Not good enough. The car itself is already five years late. Now we have to wait "a few more years" for a decent engine? Or I could just go buy a 220 horsepower PT today?
Hmm, GM's continuing market share drop is sure a mystery...
BTW, I actually drove an HHR on Friday. We'll have a full test going up soon, but here are my thoughts:
1. Headroom is tighter than in the PT, which surprises me because it's supposed to be a "tall van-like vehicle" just like the PT, and the PT never felt tight or claustrophobic inside -- in spite of it having a relatively small exterior size.
2. The quality of the interior material was sub par, even for the "economy" price it starts at. There was almost too much texture in the dash material, like GM thinks putting enough "texture" in a cheap plastic will disguise the "cheapness." It didn't work.
3. I drove the more powerful (170hp) engine with the "sport" suspension. Power and handling are acceptable to me, but nothing to write home about. It wasn't horrendous, but it's certainly a long way from "fast" on acceleration or "sporty" around corners. I'd need to drive a PT back-to-back with the HHR to be sure, but we had a long-term PT Cruiser and I'm pretty familiar with PT driving characteristics. My sense is that the PT handles better than the HHR (and obviously the available 220 hp engine will blow the HHR's current "top" engine away).
Did you see that GM recently "revised" their projected sales numbers on the HHR? Little hint: the revision wasn't for higher sales than previously expected.
One more quick comment -- We're having a meeting with some top GM brass on Monday afternoon. It's not Bob Lutz coming back again, but still some big names. I'll tell you more after the meeting.
The new Chevy mini-van.....Just WHEN will GM make a credible competor to the 1984 Chrysler version?
The mind reels....
Would the upcoming SS version change your opinion of the Chevy Maxx? I agree that the styling hurt the Malibu Maxx more than its status as a hatchback. The SS version won't fix the styling. Also, the interior was mediocre at best.
Aren't recent versions of the mazda3 very similar to ford Focus? I wish their engines had more bottom end torque. The Mazda 3 uses the new version of the Focus platform (the same one that the current European Focus has, but the U.S. market Focus is still on the old platform
The new Chrysler 300 reminds me of the 1957 Chrysler 300C.
Notice the lines in the middle of the 57 and 05 Chrysler's hoods.
Also notice the rectangular taillights of both cars.
check here
Chrysler
The Chevy Blazer is no longer made.
The mind reels....
A good question. First, they have to come up with a 21st century minivan platform. You do know the "new" vans are just re-bodied versions of the same platform that has been under the Venture for almost a decade? I believe the Odyssey has been redesigned twice in the same time period (1999 and 2005).
Yes, the mind reels...
The 1957 300C was simply a beautiful machine. I'm always surprised by the amount of attention the 1957 Chevy gets while most people have never even seen a 1957 Chrysler 300.
Did any of you ever see the old T.V. series Crime Story? It was directed by Michael Mann (Miami Vice and the movie Heat) and the main police character (Dennis Farina) drove a black 1957 Chrysler 300C convertible. All I can say is -- Nash Bridges, eat your heart out!
When it comes to minivans, yeah, GM should either "s#$# or get off the pot" so to speak... either bring out a competitive one or just abandon that market. They could do better than they are now by just making a blatant copy of the previous gen Ody or Sienna or Chrysler vans.
You are absolutely right. Our biggest asset is also our biggest liability -- tons 'o content. Designing an effective page to make sure everyone finds what they want, easily, is probaby our toughest challenge today. But we'll keep at it.
Thanks for your (and everyone's) patience.
Having Karl praise the new car I bought 4 months ago is almost like getting blessed by the Pope!!!
The roof looks to be about 60 degrees (maybe 70). But the storage area is really small compared to other compact wagons and has more in common with the Focus hatches than, say, the Focus/Volvo/Subaru compact wagons.
I think somebody else here (or maybe it was another discussion) asked if there were any hatches that sold well that were not advertised as sporty. I'd say the first gen Focus. I see far more hatches than I do sedans. And it looks to me like the hatch is the natural shape of the car and the sedan was formed from it.
I think hatches (and wagons) need to look natural and not like mutated sedans.
Don't know how the Audi A3 fared in Karl's hatch comparison - the AWD of a future varient of that looks very interesting, assuming Audi reliability gets into above average status.
I'm assuming that means it is in production, I haven't heard otherwise.
Didn't Toyota have to go backwards to engineer motors for Nascar truck competition? OHV, carburators, etc.? Does anybody know if Toyota is also developing a 60's technology engine for to use in competition in Nascar Nextel cup car racing? Do the Nascar cars still use points and condensor?
I was wondering if you guys will be testing any of the new 2006 Explorers or Mountaineers soon. I know that they have already started building them and they have are supposed to be in the showrooms in August. I've seen pics of them and I can't wait to read a review of it.
Have you driven a Ford Fusion yet? And has Ford given you a future product preview similar to the one provided recently by GM?
Anyway, what other road tests are coming up in the next 3 weeks or so? Any comparison tests?
We will be attending the Ford press introduction on July 19-21. There will likely be an embargo on the information until around September 1st or maybe mid August.
I have not driven it yet, but the press event happens July 14th (I think there is an embargo until September 1 on this vehicle). I have been around the vehicle twice with plenty of time to sit in it and examine it up close. A couple thoughts at this point:
1. I really like the exterior design. More interesting than an Accord or Camry, but not quite as esoteric at the Altima -- in a good way. The rear taillights are particularly cool, in my opinion. The front-end works too (lots of Ford 427 concept car there).
2. Even though it's based on the Mazda 6 it feels roomier inside, and the Ford folks confirmed that they made some changes to the Mazda 6 layout to increase interior space, particularly in the second row.
3. I was worried when the initial horsepower ratings were coming in at 210 for the V6, but now they've been upgraded to 220. Depending on gearing the car could feel plenty fast enough, but I would have preferred a number closer to 240 -- or more. It is a relatively small/light vehicle (it's no Five-Hundred), so 220 should be adequate at least.
And don't forget, a hybrid version is coming in 2007 or 2008.
Anyway, what other road tests are coming up in the next 3 weeks or so? Any comparison tests?
The Cobalt sedan comes in mid July, though we are now trying to arrange a full-blown economy sedan comparison test for that time period.
Other cool stories coming soon:
How to Build a Ford GT (a full plant tour with photos)
Chevy HHR full test
Benchmark Sedans versus Upstart comparison test (Accord and Camry take on the new Hyundai Sonata)
Mazda MX-5 (don't call it a Miata) First Drive
And the GP GXP - still on the schedule for early July, I hope?
- Ray
GXP driver . .