Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
Well said, aviboy! And cotmc, carlitos92, ateixeira...freealphas is frequently the most defensive, sarcastic, opinionated poster here. But if you take what he says with a grain of salt, you at least get a bit of sodium. To his credit, I have seen him make genuine attempts to lighten up on occasion. Benefit of the doubt, yada yada ought to apply.
I can't resist though...beige? What is more beige than a stylefree FS. Let the flurry of FS emails begin! (again)
I just bought a 1993 Miata with only 75K on it from a service customer of ours. It's a ton of fun. Fast? No, but fun! I'm going to supercharge it to bring the HP to around 160. That will be plenty! Whatta great car the NA Miatas are!
My '93 has just 68k miles but let's go back to talking about the CX9 before the on-topic [non-permissible content removed] come after us!
Watch, I bet next year's CX9 gets a new switch for the heated seats, with different settings.
My wife was funny. I drove by a CX9 and showed her and she didn't like it, but I went and test drove it while she was shopping at Costco, and we actually picked her up in the CX9, and she did like it from the inside.
Funny how people some times have to be coerced just a bit to even sample some vehicles, and they end up liking them.
ateixeira, My understanding is that most (if not all) of Mazda's heated seats are a one-position switch but have different levels of heating based on climate control settings, ambient temperature, moon phase, and who knows what else.
Yeah, I would rather have user-selectable two-level heating (or even a 5-position dial like in my VW, which ranges from lukewarm to so-hot-it-could-ignite-the-seat-foam), but so far Mazda's system has worked okay for me.
Then again, it's only below freezing two days a year where I live, so my butt might not be the one to trust.
You think 4 stars equals death, well that's just not an intelligent response so I'll let the others here take that for what it's worth. What do 1, 2, and 3 stars mean, then?
Like I said before, swapping to a completely different 2GR engine likely changes the physics and likely the crash test results. The results apply to 2004-2006 models, basically, and it should be re-tested.
You wrote:
add the weight and the hp sacrificing mpg
That is simply FALSE. MPG was not sacrificed. EPA numbers are the same as before.
There was no sacrifice.
how do we go from this to all of your blather about the toyota motor and its efficiency in your next post?
That's pretty self explanatory. You were talking about them adding HP and (incorrectly) mentioned they sacrificed MPG.
It would seem rather natural to talk about - surprise! - the engine that creates that HP and results in that MPG.
Mazda's heated seats are a one-position switch but have different levels of heating based on climate control settings, ambient temperature, moon phase, and who knows what else.
Sounds reasonable, but all I know is those seats tried to cook my backside, way too hot!
You think 4 stars equals death, well that's just not an intelligent response so I'll let the others here take that for what it's worth. What do 1, 2, and 3 stars mean, then?
I believe that with a 1 star rating they put shrapnel in the airbag. Or you are sitting on the gas tank. :P
Just a shot in the dark but pink koolaid referred to the fact subaru uses pink for it's sti stuff, if that's not it, as you stated before, you don't know me.
FYI - that was my attempt for a subaru "leader" to catch more than a subtle reference, sorry for throwing one right past you.
4 stars doesn't equal death, all I'm pointing out is the vaunted toyota's engineering is a bit lacking in the family hauler arena. Ironic since I would think they would be adamant about having 5 stars in their back pocket across the board like most if not all of their competition does. Again, dancing around the holes in the toyota veil...hmmmmm...
"Like I said before, swapping to a completely different 2GR engine likely changes the physics and likely the crash test results. The results apply to 2004-2006 models, basically, and it should be re-tested."
ummmmm, no, you didn't say this before... please keep up.
and up until I said "add the weight and the hp sacrificing mpg" we were speaking in generalities not toyota specific, your next post made it toyota against the world, I wasn't looking for an argument I was making an observation as to what might be nice in the market place.
FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg, any engine will get better mileage with less weight/hp than with more as it takes fuel to make power, you don't need to be a engineer to figure that one out. If the new engine made the same hp figure as the old but was more efficient it would get better mpg all else being the same, so yes, they did sacrifice mpg to make buyers obsessed with hp numbers happy.
BTW - ditch the emotorcons, they are pointless when trying to have a rational debate...(my opinion)...
Just hit me, NOW I get it, next time I post something like this,
"Not to mention as the driver of the sienna you only enjoy 4 stars of crash protection vs 5 stars for the cuv crowd, at least the passengers will survive."
I'll have to make sure I use the to get my point across when dealing with your posts... sorry for the oversight.
BTW 2 - NOT once have I compared, mentioned, alluded to the FS, you are bringing that comparison in, not me
The host has asked for posts to be respectful. Instead, I'm seeing posts filled with personal jabs that aren't necessarily humorous nor enjoyable to read. It appears one post has already been deleted. Please discontinue the personal attacks. After making your point the first time, let's please move on...
"FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg, any engine will get better mileage with less weight/hp than with more as it takes fuel to make power, you don't need to be a engineer to figure that one out."
Uh, there are plenty of examples of revised engines that end up making more HP and get better mileage in the same chassis. Yes, given the same engine, more fuel=more power, but what you do with the fuel in the combustion chamber and where the power goes before it gets to the transmission make a load of difference. In other words, you can take a 3.3l engine, bump it up to 3.5l, add direct injection, lighten the valvetrain, and change the piston design - and get 15% more horsepower, AND get 10% better mileage. it happens all the time. So, your FACT is, actually, NOT one.
But seriously, isn't the point that had the displacement been held at 3.3l, you'd get even better economy with some more power? And couldn't you drop it to, say, 3.0 l, keep the same power, say, and really see an economy bump? I wish Toyota would give me the modern version of the 3.0 l in my ES300.
Can we just start calling all these "crossovers" plain old SUV now. The old body on frame SUVs are dying a rapid death. Only the big boys(tahoe, expedition, etc) are viable vehicles anymore. Besides, most mid-sized SUVs have changed from being a cross between an SUV and a car to an SUV and a minivan. I say their all SUVs.
After reading what I just wrote, I could swear Andy Rooney wrote it. Scary.
I happen to think that that's what Toyota/Lexus should have done with the RX400h. Instead of putting so much horsepower, maybe they should have put something like 230 hp. Then I think we would see much better mpg figures than what the 400h is getting right now.
Please respond to my complete statement as opposed to to what is conveneint.
"FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg, any engine will get better mileage with less weight/hp than with more as it takes fuel to make power, you don't need to be a engineer to figure that one out. If the new engine made the same hp figure as the old but was more efficient it would get better mpg all else being the same, so yes, they did sacrifice mpg to make buyers obsessed with hp numbers happy."
The first part of your statement is incorrect, regardless of what the manufacturer could have, or should have done. All I'll say about the rest of your debate is that I don't really think "being obsessed with horsepower," if that's want you want to call a trend that started 100 years ago, is a bad thing. Content, whether it be convenience items or safety features, adds weight to cars, and they've been adding content since the dawn of the dang things - and not always in direct proportion to how efficiently they're able to engineer a chassis. Would you say we're obsessed with safety? How about audio? Video entertainment? Consumers want all these things PLUS to be able to accelerate and maneuver - and until carbon fiber is within reach of the common vehicle shopper, the best way to cover all the bases (features vs. weight vs. performance) is to: (drum roll, please...) add HP.
I don't disagree at all that manufacturers should be trying to make the most efficient vehicles possible. I just think you'd have more, er, impact, if you stirred stuff up at a Yukon/Tahoe/Denali/Expedition comparison forum rather than here.
It is TRUE that manufacturers could add new advancements to engines such as direct injection and make the necessary modifications along the way such that power remained steady and all the benefit went to fuel economy. Yes it is great that some manufacturers increase both HP and fuel economy, but as I have railed on other boards, why does a Camry need 260 HP? The 3.0L 190 HP (IIRC) version was plenty fast to be functional. That same engine was more than enough to make our Gen 1 Sienna quite responsive for a mini-van. If all of Toyota's efforts since then had been focused to achieve better gas mileage, just think what the Camry could be rated at. This is not a slag at Toyota, every manufacturer has been drawn into what I call the Horsepower wars which have raged for about ten years now. Automobile journalists would slag 5 passenger vehicles which only had 200 HP for being too slow. Consumers need to grow up and stop being seduced with overpowered cars and demand big improvements in fuel economy. That drove the market in the late 70's and early 80's and the engineering and advertising showed it. If we could be content with 200HP for a family car or minivan, just think where our fuel economy numbers would be. Not to mention the lower gas prices we would be enjoying due to reduced demand. To put this in perspective, I was talking to my neighbour today who said that his teenage daughter would be driving their Explorer when she got her license because he thought the (new) Camry with 260 hp was too powerful and might get a rash teenager in trouble. A Camry too powerful to be safe, how bent is that?
Where were you during some of my other lively debates...combine that rational strategy with reduced weight and there'd be no arguing around here as there would be no reason to cry for more power.
As for the CF Carlitos, we have aluminum presently and it can go a way towards reducing weight as has been seen. Greater adoption could lead to reduced production costs making it more feasible in a wider range of vehicles at different price points.
"If we could be content with 200HP for a family car or minivan"
Sorry to disappoint you but I had to spring for the 203hp FS, while that seems excessive in your terms I'll just have deal with the guilt while slogging along as getting a low 8sec 0-60 just isn't good enough any more in the stoplight wars to the soccer field.
"Consumers need to grow up and stop being seduced with overpowered cars and demand big improvements in fuel economy. That drove the market in the late 70's and early 80's and the engineering and advertising showed it."
First of all, asking consumers to "grow up" is a loaded request. I think consumers should "grow up" and learn how to handle a 260HP car so the rest of us don't have to be saddled with underpowered boat anchors. Your point about the teenage daughter is well taken, and I'd love to buy my own kids Rabbit diesels from the late 70's so they can't even get up to the West Texas speed limit. But more likely, I'll try to instill in them some driving knowledge, either myself or through something like Skip Barber, etc. Having the power and not needing it is much better than to need it and not have it. The computers you guys are typing on... did you buy a slower model so the motherboard would use less power?
Secondly, even though there may be turmoil in the Middle East again, the $3.50 gas situation we have now is NOTHING like the late 70's-early 80's. Know how I know? There's no lines at the gas pumps. Sure, there's a bump in Prius sales, and trucks are waning. Great. But this is a blip on the radar compared to the oil embargo and Iranian revolution days. Maybe we should all "grow up" and stop eating fast food, stop putting garbage in landfills, stop burning coal in power plants... the sociological slippery slope of demanding we be "safe" is a doozie if you really must go down that road. And here we are quibbling over HP that you're not even forced to use. Scared of that 203HP rumbling in your Freestyle? Don't push the right pedal all the way down, then. You'll use less gas that way to boot. When the majority of us just can't afford the gas anymore, or are forced to wait in line for it, the market will adjust as it did 28 years ago. Until then, manufacturers are getting incrementally smarter and more efficient, and we should be happy for that.
Whoops... was that off-topic? I did mention a Freestyle in there somewhere.
I'll just have deal with the guilt while slogging along as getting a low 8sec 0-60 just isn't good enough any more in the stoplight wars to the soccer field.
Hmmmmm...I wonder what is the impact of losing the "stoplight wars" ?????? Maybe getting to the soccer field 2 minutes later...wow!
Toyota's 2GR engine is actually more efficient than the 3MZ it replaced. You can't only look at displacement, look at real-world results! Open yours eyes, I can't do that for you.
And you also can't assume that more HP means less fuel economy - because you are ignoring GEARING! Having more power lets you use taller gearing, so an engine can run at lower RPMs at cruising speeds and in some cases (like Toyota's) use less fuel.
Could they have used a 3.0l instead of a 3.5l? Yes, but then there is no way they could have used an extremely tall final drive ratio of 3.08:1.
A 3.0l would have sacrificed either payload or towing capacity or both, forcing more people in to even less efficient large SUVs.
A 3.0l also would not have necessarily been more fuel efficient, because it would require a final drive of 3.5:1 or higher. Do the math and you'll realize it ends up burning the same amount of fuel because it's turning higher RPMs.
I won't try to understand why you think I drink Kool Aid from the Subaru jug and that makes me blindly loyal to Toyota. That makes no sense at all.
As for pink Kool Aid, you may find that at Prodrive's HQ in the UK, but not at SoA. In the US they don't use the pink logo.
FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg
False. Toyotas that got the 2GR engine upgrade were all at least as good as the predecessor models with the 3MZ, in fact most are MORE fuel efficient. You are ignoring new technology such as Direct Injeciton and especially GEARING.
please keep up
You're the one that can't keep track of when models got engine upgrades (as well as increased fuel efficiency). Just look at the Avalon as an example.
NOT once have I compared, mentioned, alluded to the FS
Indeed you have alluded to the FS because it's a crossover, and you keep saying crossovers get great ratings in crash tests.
Yes, can't dismiss someone if the design and advantages of a vehicle fit their needs perfectly which the Sienna does for you, power and all. Maybe that 260 hp is what's required to haul the payload when the "average" american family squeezes into their Camry these days. To keep on topic, my shopping needs were for a second around town family hauler with good fuel economy. Wants were an AWD 3 seater with leather, and given a family of 6 we need 3 seats PLUS some cargo room (back-packs, sports gear, groceries). In the end, the FS finishes on top by a wide margin. Only other vehicles meeting the criteria are bigger and more expensive to buy and run. AWD Sienna with aftermarket leather was tempting, but still definately second place, and there is the question of aftermarket seat coverings and side air-bags. Never owned a Ford, and never thought I ever would. I was trying to decide on the 07 vs 08 Freestyle-Taurus X and was pretty sure I would get an 07 assumimg deep discounts (hasn't happened yet) and I worried that the new engine configuration would drop gas mileage. Turns out the same engine and tranny change has no effect on the sedan versions so the Taurus X should at least hold its fuel economy. Think I'll wait and see what the new ones have to offer. As one of the knocks against the FS has been its performance, the new configuration may improve sales.
Our criteria really weren't that different, we both wanted a balance of space and efficiency for a good value, only I needed more space (2 kids, nanny, dog, plus occasional car pools of kids).
266hp may seem excessive, but I also tow. I'll get a hitch on there soon, and I haul in things like mulch, wood chips, and pea gravel.
So imagine a 5000 lb load (vehicle with payload) with another 1500 lbs worth of trailer behind it. 6500 lbs is quite a burden. I didn't want a Sequoia, no interest at all in trucks. A 3.0l might struggle a bit with 6500 lbs to pull.
For someone like me, a powerful yet efficient choice makes perfect sense. I don't feel like I sacrificed mpg - I'm getting close to 24mpg and the engine isn't even broken in yet.
I'm sure the old 3.3l engine was adequate but the point is the 3.5l engine gets the exact same gas mileage while also providing an extra margin of power for when I tow.
The decision to go with the bigger displacement engine was easy, in fact that's why I waited for the 07s to come out.
As for the Freestyle, well Taurus X, we'll have to see how Ford gears it and what gas mileage is like. Sure, it's possible the ratings will drop, and Ford will gear it to be quicker and use more fuel to keep up with the Joneses, but you gotta admit, if Ford figured out a way to give you 260+hp in the Taurus X with no drop in fuel mileage you'd be tempted to say the least.
"I won't try to understand why you think I drink Kool Aid from the Subaru jug and that makes me blindly loyal to Toyota"
Reread your recent posts, you have freely been quite opinionated about toyota and their minivan around here in the CUV forum, not sure why you continue to post the wonderfullness of your sienna(I believe you have bought), all I was doing was countering you a bit as the minivan free love was getting a bit old in the CUV forum. If I wanted to read about minivan's I'd find the apropos place to do that. Originally you had started your discussion indeed commparing CUV vs MINI and that conversation is now runout with your purchase in the mini camp therebye not really having a reason anymore to post in the CUV camp other than to stir the pot.
It was purple kool aid for toyota and pink koolaid for subaru and WAS A JOKE, as mentioned lighten up...and OF COURSE there are pink sti logo's on STI's around the states hence the reference. LOOK at subaru's own web site and any picture of a wrx/sti and you WILL SEE pink logo's here in NA.
pink logo's, personally I like them and have for years...
Please reference my whole point, not just the byte you needed please.
Adding weight/hp DOES sacrifice efficiency, the same engine will get better mileage with less weight to haul around...period whether it's a 2gr, 3mz, s10, e500, wkrp in cincinnati v6, whatever. We weren't talking about gearing, we were talking about the efficiency of a motor all else the same.
"Please keep up" is yet another byte taken out of context and referenced you and your thinking that you had made a point when you didn't if you had read through all of your previous posts you would realize this. Furthermore, I could care less about keeping up with toyota's line up, as there are far more satisfying drives on the road to take advantage of.
I like that, GEARING is "new technology", seems GEARING has been around a little longer than something that could be termed "new technology". Go to a race track and see how many gearsets they have been carrying around for a lot of years to take full advantage of all the "new technology". I'm sure there have been no other manufaturers until recently that have taken advantage of all of this "new technology" like toyota has. Please...
If you reread my recent conversation with you I HAVE NOT alluded to the FS in any of my posts to you until YOU brought it up. All I was doing was pointing out and questioning the engineering you held dear from toyota and questioned why they can't match their competition, ANY competition which I find suprising.
And as for your challenge there was no ignoiring it, I ALREADY HAD CEDED I wasn't an engineer and suspected you weren't as well thus making our OPINIONS of the footage you provided fairly moot. I'll leave that to people that know way more than you or I to make those finding clear and public.
"266hp may seem excessive, but I also tow. I'll get a hitch on there soon, and I haul in things like mulch, wood chips, and pea gravel."
So instead of buying a more efficient vehicle regardless of who sells it, you chose a less efficient vehicle for the few times a year you actually need the capacity to tow and took on that ONGOING financial and less fuel efficient burden as opposed letting the mulch. pea gravel, and wood chip company deliver it for an extra $50.
"I don't feel like I sacrificed mpg"
You have as toyota put the 3.5 in for people who buy what they really don't need or will use infrequently for their peace of mind. I imagine develping the 3.3 to the same technological level as the 3.5 would have been adequate and more efficient given all else the same without having the added INFREQUENT requirement to tow.
Imagine a market where people actually bought what they needed as opposed to what they think they need, what the marketers have lead them to think they need, or what the jones' said they needed.
Then we might really be on to something...
there you go with the FS/TreX again...there are other manufacturer's out there to reference...
"and Ford will gear it to be quicker and use more fuel to keep up with the Joneses, but you gotta admit"
and you call that progress??? I don't...
"if Ford figured out a way to give you 260+hp in the Taurus X with no drop in fuel mileage you'd be tempted to say the least."
not really as the 3.0/cvt is quite nice as it is. Give me a better interior then we might talk... I'm waiting to see how the flex pans out perrsonally as they have already sold out the FS.
Someone came to this thread that was also considering a minivan, so I wasn't stirring the pot, I was merely responding to that query. A valid response, IMHO.
We weren't talking about gearing, we were talking about the efficiency of a motor all else the same
All else is not the same. You're talking theory, I'm talking on-the-road, real world mileage numbers. Gearing is very much a factor. How much gas we have to put in our fuel tanks is affected by gearing.
You're making far too many (incorrect) assumptions about how and when I drive my vehicles.
I commute in a fuel efficient Miata. And I carpool.
We use the larger vehicle only when we need the space, if I don't I take the Miata. Very simple.
Do you really think that paying a delivery company $50 to bring a load of mulch is going to use less fuel overall? I'm sure their diesel trucks are overkill for the amounts I need, and let's not even get into a debate about emissions.
Getting it myself is more efficient than having an oversized dump truck deliver it. I bet they get 8mpg, if that, belching out blue soot out the exhaust pipe all the way. You call that progress? :P
It doesn't even make sense financially, because it's not one single $50 delivery, it's several per year.
24mpg doesn't exactly create a massive financial burden for me, as you imply. That's just not so. In fact it's better than average for the crossovers in this thread, I'm sure.
Well then if all we are talking about is gearing my cvt wins because I have an infinite amout of gears between high and low, beating your 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 spd gearboxes that are available....lol
It all starts in theory and then moves to the real world, not the other way around...I more than get the fact that that "new technology" called gearing plays more than a passing role in a vehicles performance/efficiency.
It still stands if you didn't have to tow mulch and pea gravel 2 times a year you would be driving a more efficient vehicle regardless of gearing because they could have developed the 3.3 to the same technological level as the 3.5 and not had to increase the displacement to make up for your twice a year need to tow.
This has shades of a previous debate I had that the weight of a vehicle had no bearing on if efficiency...
I'm speaking to bigger issues than just your and my miniscule impact we have on the worlds oil supply.
I bike to work, wife drives the passat to her job and we use the FS for more space with the family seemingly like you. call it a draw...
"Do you really think that paying a delivery company $50 to bring a load of mulch is going to use less fuel overall? I'm sure their diesel trucks are overkill for the amounts I need, and let's not even get into a debate about emissions."
yes you are right they have made NO PROGRESS with regards to emission regarding trucks, that's silly...and depending on how much you drive your mini, it may very well use less fuel overall if you do the math. multiply your small improvement by thousands like you and there is the potential for a significant improvement...it's bigger than you and me.
"Getting it myself is more efficient than having an oversized dump truck deliver it. I bet they get 8mpg, if that, belching out blue soot out the exhaust pipe all the way. You call that progress?"
a lot of the soot mobiles are gone at this point and see above points again, and yes, I see it as better for you to be driving a more efficient vehicle given the opportunity than not.
It doesn't even make sense financially, because it's not one single $50 delivery, it's several per year."
why not plan your deliveries better than several a year taking advantage of not haveing to haul it yourself.
"In fact it's better than average for the crossovers in this thread, I'm sure"
not exactly, it doesn't beat the 27mpg I got over the wknd during my trip to ohio from chicago or my all time best of 33mpg either for that matter, thanks for trying though .
CVTs are great. I have nothing against a good CVT. Well, maybe except the engine droning. But finally, you're making sense to me.
You misunderstood me, I wrote:
new technology such as Direct Injeciton and especially GEARING
And by that I meant:
(new technology such as Direct Injeciton) and especially GEARING
I never said the weight of a vehicle by itself has no bearing on efficiency, of course it does.
You said weight and HP. We really should seperate those two things.
More weight hurts efficiency every time. If you drive around with a bowling ball in your trunk, your mileage will suffer. It may not be measurable, but it will.
More HP, though, doesn't necessarily hurt efficiency, because a more powerful engine can be geared taller. All things are not equal. You have more power. You add a taller gear because you can, because you have more power to overcome that gearing loss. You end up not sacrificing fuel efficiency.
It's funny, you keep saying you're not alluding to the FS, but what other 3-row crossover comes with a CVT?
That's not the only truck on the planet but I'll call it progress as WOW, it finally got you reference something other than a toyota(only because they aren't in the HD market though). There are other size trucks out there like the pick-up based diesel one that was half the size of that which just brought me 5yds, who's exagerating now...
Can't do that - you can't just have one massive delivery of mulch and then use a little bit at a time throughout the year. It doesn't work like that. Mulch erodes, plus where would I store the 11 extra yards?
Not to mention some times it's mulch, other times it's pea gravel, other times it's wood chips for the play ground. A delivery truck would have to make one trip for each of those.
Also, I brought home some drywall the other day, and it was raining so no truck or crossover could have accomplished that task while keeping the drywall dry. Another time I got some lattice 4'x8' panels. It adds up, the number of times the utility comes in handy. I'd be renting a truck or getting delivery several times per year.
I've owned it for 37 days and hauled 4'x8's twice already. A load of pea gravel will come once I get the hitch.
I said I was averaging ~24mpg, mixed driving on a green engine, A/C on (it's 90+ degrees). On a trip I will surely do better. 07 Sienna owners frequently break 30mpg, you'd be surprised.
Tell you what, I'll calculate my mileage for a trip we're taking this weekend. I bet I beat your 27mpg. Gentelman's bet, no stakes.
I didn't misunderstand, you didn't make your point clear, I can only go with what you throw out there...
BTW - engine doesn't drone any more than any other car out there...
"You end up not sacrificing fuel efficiency"
Unless you are privy to all of the manufacturer's data during development, you can't say that as fact.
Nissan makes CVT's as well, dodge, there are a few out there at this point, ALL I was referencing was the CVT, I never said 3-row CUV, I just said MY CVT wins... you keep projecting this mythical battle I'm not here to fight, today anyway...
The drone is worse when the engine maintains the same high RPM. Fair trade-off for keeping the engine at its most efficient/powerful point.
Murano's CVT is nice as well, but that's too small to have even made my short list. Plus, this thread tends to focus on the bigger side of the segment, mostly Outlook, CX9, Freestyle, etc.
I think we've thread-jacked a bit much, I'll let you have the last word and then I'll report back my trip mileage on Monday. 27mpg is the target, we'll see.
Good luck on the trip and I'd hardly call 18-1900rpm at hwy cruise a high rpm drone as the higher rpms are for getting up to speed and really aren't much different sound level wise than any other comparable...
I will be providing a comprehensive update on all my fill-ups in the new Outlook when I get back from a long trip. But, I will post it in the appropriate forum.
I hope I get in the mid 20's for the trip. It will be with 7 passangers and associated luggage.
Comments
I can't resist though...beige? What is more beige than a stylefree FS. Let the flurry of FS emails begin! (again)
ateixeira, "The Forums Test Drive Team" #190, 5 Feb 2007 10:26 am
And at the risk of getting bashed by the Freestlye Fan Club of America, here is my take on the Freebie:
ateixeira, "Subaru Crew Cafe" #11728, 31 May 2006 9:37 am
Hey, at least I tried one.
Very true. Usually when the issue applys to safety. Example, the recent recall of 30,000 Honda Civic Hybrids that would just "shut off" when driving.
I just bought a 1993 Miata with only 75K on it from a service customer of ours. It's a ton of fun. Fast? No, but fun! I'm going to supercharge it to bring the HP to around 160. That will be plenty! Whatta great car the NA Miatas are!
Watch, I bet next year's CX9 gets a new switch for the heated seats, with different settings.
My wife was funny. I drove by a CX9 and showed her and she didn't like it, but I went and test drove it while she was shopping at Costco, and we actually picked her up in the CX9, and she did like it from the inside.
Funny how people some times have to be coerced just a bit to even sample some vehicles, and they end up liking them.
My understanding is that most (if not all) of Mazda's heated seats are a one-position switch but have different levels of heating based on climate control settings, ambient temperature, moon phase, and who knows what else.
Yeah, I would rather have user-selectable two-level heating (or even a 5-position dial like in my VW, which ranges from lukewarm to so-hot-it-could-ignite-the-seat-foam), but so far Mazda's system has worked okay for me.
Then again, it's only below freezing two days a year where I live, so my butt might not be the one to trust.
Agreed!
Watch, I bet next year's CX9 gets a new switch for the heated seats, with different settings.
According to my info, there are no changes so far, except the addition of a "blind spot sensor" system, offered on the GT model.
Funny how people some times have to be coerced just a bit to even sample some vehicles, and they end up liking them.
I see it everyday!
You think 4 stars equals death, well that's just not an intelligent response so I'll let the others here take that for what it's worth. What do 1, 2, and 3 stars mean, then?
Like I said before, swapping to a completely different 2GR engine likely changes the physics and likely the crash test results. The results apply to 2004-2006 models, basically, and it should be re-tested.
You wrote:
add the weight and the hp sacrificing mpg
That is simply FALSE. MPG was not sacrificed. EPA numbers are the same as before.
There was no sacrifice.
how do we go from this to all of your blather about the toyota motor and its efficiency in your next post?
That's pretty self explanatory. You were talking about them adding HP and (incorrectly) mentioned they sacrificed MPG.
It would seem rather natural to talk about - surprise! - the engine that creates that HP and results in that MPG.
True. All Mazda's are one position seat heating. However, it is a pulsating heat. It will get cooler so you don't feel like your butt is on fire.
Sounds reasonable, but all I know is those seats tried to cook my backside, way too hot!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Freestyle:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=586
Sienna:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=182
The most interesting part is it scores lower in "Head/Neck Injury measures".
Here is the quote:
A high head acceleration occurred when the dummy's head hit the steering wheel through the airbag, indicating that head injuries would be possible
By the way, an Average score does not mean you are likely to die, just as 4 stars isn't really a bad result in NHTSA tests, either.
Let's try to be less dramatic. I think we'd both survive a frontal impact.
I believe that with a 1 star rating they put shrapnel in the airbag.
This is the actual photo of the NHTSA 4 star result:
Not bad, and those are the bad results. IIHS scores were better.
Just a shot in the dark but pink koolaid referred to the fact subaru uses pink for it's sti stuff, if that's not it, as you stated before, you don't know me.
FYI - that was my attempt for a subaru "leader" to catch more than a subtle reference, sorry for throwing one right past you.
4 stars doesn't equal death, all I'm pointing out is the vaunted toyota's engineering is a bit lacking in the family hauler arena. Ironic since I would think they would be adamant about having 5 stars in their back pocket across the board like most if not all of their competition does. Again, dancing around the holes in the toyota veil...hmmmmm...
"Like I said before, swapping to a completely different 2GR engine likely changes the physics and likely the crash test results. The results apply to 2004-2006 models, basically, and it should be re-tested."
ummmmm, no, you didn't say this before... please keep up.
and up until I said "add the weight and the hp sacrificing mpg" we were speaking in generalities not toyota specific, your next post made it toyota against the world, I wasn't looking for an argument I was making an observation as to what might be nice in the market place.
FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg, any engine will get better mileage with less weight/hp than with more as it takes fuel to make power, you don't need to be a engineer to figure that one out. If the new engine made the same hp figure as the old but was more efficient it would get better mpg all else being the same, so yes, they did sacrifice mpg to make buyers obsessed with hp numbers happy.
BTW - ditch the emotorcons, they are pointless when trying to have a rational debate...(my opinion)...
Just hit me, NOW I get it, next time I post something like this,
"Not to mention as the driver of the sienna you only enjoy 4 stars of crash protection vs 5 stars for the cuv crowd, at least the passengers will survive."
I'll have to make sure I use the
BTW 2 - NOT once have I compared, mentioned, alluded to the FS, you are bringing that comparison in, not me
and the CUV is where in that picture...
"Earlier a sarcastic comment was made that at least my passengers would survive."
I've been told to lighten up a bit around here, I'll pass the same along as one to another...
Uh, there are plenty of examples of revised engines that end up making more HP and get better mileage in the same chassis. Yes, given the same engine, more fuel=more power, but what you do with the fuel in the combustion chamber and where the power goes before it gets to the transmission make a load of difference. In other words, you can take a 3.3l engine, bump it up to 3.5l, add direct injection, lighten the valvetrain, and change the piston design - and get 15% more horsepower, AND get 10% better mileage. it happens all the time. So, your FACT is, actually, NOT one.
After reading what I just wrote, I could swear Andy Rooney wrote it. Scary.
should have done with the RX400h. Instead of
putting so much horsepower, maybe they should
have put something like 230 hp. Then I think
we would see much better mpg figures than what
the 400h is getting right now.
"FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg, any engine will get better mileage with less weight/hp than with more as it takes fuel to make power, you don't need to be a engineer to figure that one out. If the new engine made the same hp figure as the old but was more efficient it would get better mpg all else being the same, so yes, they did sacrifice mpg to make buyers obsessed with hp numbers happy."
I don't disagree at all that manufacturers should be trying to make the most efficient vehicles possible. I just think you'd have more, er, impact, if you stirred stuff up at a Yukon/Tahoe/Denali/Expedition comparison forum rather than here.
To put this in perspective, I was talking to my neighbour today who said that his teenage daughter would be driving their Explorer when she got her license because he thought the (new) Camry with 260 hp was too powerful and might get a rash teenager in trouble. A Camry too powerful to be safe, how bent is that?
Where were you during some of my other lively debates...combine that rational strategy with reduced weight and there'd be no arguing around here as there would be no reason to cry for more power.
As for the CF Carlitos, we have aluminum presently and it can go a way towards reducing weight as has been seen. Greater adoption could lead to reduced production costs making it more feasible in a wider range of vehicles at different price points.
"If we could be content with 200HP for a family car or minivan"
Sorry to disappoint you but I had to spring for the 203hp FS, while that seems excessive in your terms I'll just have deal with the guilt while slogging along as getting a low 8sec 0-60 just isn't good enough any more in the stoplight wars to the soccer field.
First of all, asking consumers to "grow up" is a loaded request. I think consumers should "grow up" and learn how to handle a 260HP car so the rest of us don't have to be saddled with underpowered boat anchors. Your point about the teenage daughter is well taken, and I'd love to buy my own kids Rabbit diesels from the late 70's so they can't even get up to the West Texas speed limit. But more likely, I'll try to instill in them some driving knowledge, either myself or through something like Skip Barber, etc. Having the power and not needing it is much better than to need it and not have it. The computers you guys are typing on... did you buy a slower model so the motherboard would use less power?
Secondly, even though there may be turmoil in the Middle East again, the $3.50 gas situation we have now is NOTHING like the late 70's-early 80's. Know how I know? There's no lines at the gas pumps. Sure, there's a bump in Prius sales, and trucks are waning. Great. But this is a blip on the radar compared to the oil embargo and Iranian revolution days. Maybe we should all "grow up" and stop eating fast food, stop putting garbage in landfills, stop burning coal in power plants... the sociological slippery slope of demanding we be "safe" is a doozie if you really must go down that road. And here we are quibbling over HP that you're not even forced to use. Scared of that 203HP rumbling in your Freestyle? Don't push the right pedal all the way down, then. You'll use less gas that way to boot. When the majority of us just can't afford the gas anymore, or are forced to wait in line for it, the market will adjust as it did 28 years ago. Until then, manufacturers are getting incrementally smarter and more efficient, and we should be happy for that.
Whoops... was that off-topic? I did mention a Freestyle in there somewhere.
Hmmmmm...I wonder what is the impact of losing the "stoplight wars" ?????? Maybe getting to the soccer field 2 minutes later...wow!
And you also can't assume that more HP means less fuel economy - because you are ignoring GEARING! Having more power lets you use taller gearing, so an engine can run at lower RPMs at cruising speeds and in some cases (like Toyota's) use less fuel.
Could they have used a 3.0l instead of a 3.5l? Yes, but then there is no way they could have used an extremely tall final drive ratio of 3.08:1.
A 3.0l would have sacrificed either payload or towing capacity or both, forcing more people in to even less efficient large SUVs.
A 3.0l also would not have necessarily been more fuel efficient, because it would require a final drive of 3.5:1 or higher. Do the math and you'll realize it ends up burning the same amount of fuel because it's turning higher RPMs.
As for pink Kool Aid, you may find that at Prodrive's HQ in the UK, but not at SoA. In the US they don't use the pink logo.
FACT = adding weight and hp sacrifices mpg
False. Toyotas that got the 2GR engine upgrade were all at least as good as the predecessor models with the 3MZ, in fact most are MORE fuel efficient. You are ignoring new technology such as Direct Injeciton and especially GEARING.
please keep up
You're the one that can't keep track of when models got engine upgrades (as well as increased fuel efficiency). Just look at the Avalon as an example.
NOT once have I compared, mentioned, alluded to the FS
Indeed you have alluded to the FS because it's a crossover, and you keep saying crossovers get great ratings in crash tests.
You also ignored my challenge.
To keep on topic, my shopping needs were for a second around town family hauler with good fuel economy. Wants were an AWD 3 seater with leather, and given a family of 6 we need 3 seats PLUS some cargo room (back-packs, sports gear, groceries). In the end, the FS finishes on top by a wide margin. Only other vehicles meeting the criteria are bigger and more expensive to buy and run. AWD Sienna with aftermarket leather was tempting, but still definately second place, and there is the question of aftermarket seat coverings and side air-bags. Never owned a Ford, and never thought I ever would.
I was trying to decide on the 07 vs 08 Freestyle-Taurus X and was pretty sure I would get an 07 assumimg deep discounts (hasn't happened yet) and I worried that the new engine configuration would drop gas mileage. Turns out the same engine and tranny change has no effect on the sedan versions so the Taurus X should at least hold its fuel economy. Think I'll wait and see what the new ones have to offer. As one of the knocks against the FS has been its performance, the new configuration may improve sales.
266hp may seem excessive, but I also tow. I'll get a hitch on there soon, and I haul in things like mulch, wood chips, and pea gravel.
So imagine a 5000 lb load (vehicle with payload) with another 1500 lbs worth of trailer behind it. 6500 lbs is quite a burden. I didn't want a Sequoia, no interest at all in trucks. A 3.0l might struggle a bit with 6500 lbs to pull.
For someone like me, a powerful yet efficient choice makes perfect sense. I don't feel like I sacrificed mpg - I'm getting close to 24mpg and the engine isn't even broken in yet.
I'm sure the old 3.3l engine was adequate but the point is the 3.5l engine gets the exact same gas mileage while also providing an extra margin of power for when I tow.
The decision to go with the bigger displacement engine was easy, in fact that's why I waited for the 07s to come out.
As for the Freestyle, well Taurus X, we'll have to see how Ford gears it and what gas mileage is like. Sure, it's possible the ratings will drop, and Ford will gear it to be quicker and use more fuel to keep up with the Joneses, but you gotta admit, if Ford figured out a way to give you 260+hp in the Taurus X with no drop in fuel mileage you'd be tempted to say the least.
Reread your recent posts, you have freely been quite opinionated about toyota and their minivan around here in the CUV forum, not sure why you continue to post the wonderfullness of your sienna(I believe you have bought), all I was doing was countering you a bit as the minivan free love was getting a bit old in the CUV forum. If I wanted to read about minivan's I'd find the apropos place to do that. Originally you had started your discussion indeed commparing CUV vs MINI and that conversation is now runout with your purchase in the mini camp therebye not really having a reason anymore to post in the CUV camp other than to stir the pot.
It was purple kool aid for toyota and pink koolaid for subaru and WAS A JOKE, as mentioned lighten up...and OF COURSE there are pink sti logo's on STI's around the states hence the reference. LOOK at subaru's own web site and any picture of a wrx/sti and you WILL SEE pink logo's here in NA.
"http://www.subaru.com/shop/overview.jsp?model=IMPREZA&trim=WRX_STI"
pink logo's, personally I like them and have for years...
Please reference my whole point, not just the byte you needed please.
Adding weight/hp DOES sacrifice efficiency, the same engine will get better mileage with less weight to haul around...period whether it's a 2gr, 3mz, s10, e500, wkrp in cincinnati v6, whatever. We weren't talking about gearing, we were talking about the efficiency of a motor all else the same.
"Please keep up" is yet another byte taken out of context and referenced you and your thinking that you had made a point when you didn't if you had read through all of your previous posts you would realize this. Furthermore, I could care less about keeping up with toyota's line up, as there are far more satisfying drives on the road to take advantage of.
I like that, GEARING is "new technology", seems GEARING has been around a little longer than something that could be termed "new technology". Go to a race track and see how many gearsets they have been carrying around for a lot of years to take full advantage of all the "new technology". I'm sure there have been no other manufaturers until recently that have taken advantage of all of this "new technology" like toyota has. Please...
If you reread my recent conversation with you I HAVE NOT alluded to the FS in any of my posts to you until YOU brought it up. All I was doing was pointing out and questioning the engineering you held dear from toyota and questioned why they can't match their competition, ANY competition which I find suprising.
And as for your challenge there was no ignoiring it, I ALREADY HAD CEDED I wasn't an engineer and suspected you weren't as well thus making our OPINIONS of the footage you provided fairly moot. I'll leave that to people that know way more than you or I to make those finding clear and public.
So instead of buying a more efficient vehicle regardless of who sells it, you chose a less efficient vehicle for the few times a year you actually need the capacity to tow and took on that ONGOING financial and less fuel efficient burden as opposed letting the mulch. pea gravel, and wood chip company deliver it for an extra $50.
"I don't feel like I sacrificed mpg"
You have as toyota put the 3.5 in for people who buy what they really don't need or will use infrequently for their peace of mind. I imagine develping the 3.3 to the same technological level as the 3.5 would have been adequate and more efficient given all else the same without having the added INFREQUENT requirement to tow.
Imagine a market where people actually bought what they needed as opposed to what they think they need, what the marketers have lead them to think they need, or what the jones' said they needed.
Then we might really be on to something...
there you go with the FS/TreX again...there are other manufacturer's out there to reference...
"and Ford will gear it to be quicker and use more fuel to keep up with the Joneses, but you gotta admit"
and you call that progress??? I don't...
"if Ford figured out a way to give you 260+hp in the Taurus X with no drop in fuel mileage you'd be tempted to say the least."
not really as the 3.0/cvt is quite nice as it is. Give me a better interior then we might talk... I'm waiting to see how the flex pans out perrsonally as they have already sold out the FS.
We weren't talking about gearing, we were talking about the efficiency of a motor all else the same
All else is not the same. You're talking theory, I'm talking on-the-road, real world mileage numbers. Gearing is very much a factor. How much gas we have to put in our fuel tanks is affected by gearing.
I commute in a fuel efficient Miata. And I carpool.
We use the larger vehicle only when we need the space, if I don't I take the Miata. Very simple.
Do you really think that paying a delivery company $50 to bring a load of mulch is going to use less fuel overall? I'm sure their diesel trucks are overkill for the amounts I need, and let's not even get into a debate about emissions.
Getting it myself is more efficient than having an oversized dump truck deliver it. I bet they get 8mpg, if that, belching out blue soot out the exhaust pipe all the way. You call that progress? :P
It doesn't even make sense financially, because it's not one single $50 delivery, it's several per year.
24mpg doesn't exactly create a massive financial burden for me, as you imply. That's just not so. In fact it's better than average for the crossovers in this thread, I'm sure.
It all starts in theory and then moves to the real world, not the other way around...I more than get the fact that that "new technology" called gearing plays more than a passing role in a vehicles performance/efficiency.
It still stands if you didn't have to tow mulch and pea gravel 2 times a year you would be driving a more efficient vehicle regardless of gearing because they could have developed the 3.3 to the same technological level as the 3.5 and not had to increase the displacement to make up for your twice a year need to tow.
This has shades of a previous debate I had that the weight of a vehicle had no bearing on if efficiency...
Maybe if I needed 14 yards of mulch, but 3 yards will do for me.
I bike to work, wife drives the passat to her job and we use the FS for more space with the family seemingly like you. call it a draw...
"Do you really think that paying a delivery company $50 to bring a load of mulch is going to use less fuel overall? I'm sure their diesel trucks are overkill for the amounts I need, and let's not even get into a debate about emissions."
yes you are right they have made NO PROGRESS with regards to emission regarding trucks, that's silly...and depending on how much you drive your mini, it may very well use less fuel overall if you do the math. multiply your small improvement by thousands like you and there is the potential for a significant improvement...it's bigger than you and me.
"Getting it myself is more efficient than having an oversized dump truck deliver it. I bet they get 8mpg, if that, belching out blue soot out the exhaust pipe all the way. You call that progress?"
a lot of the soot mobiles are gone at this point and see above points again, and yes, I see it as better for you to be driving a more efficient vehicle given the opportunity than not.
It doesn't even make sense financially, because it's not one single $50 delivery, it's several per year."
why not plan your deliveries better than several a year taking advantage of not haveing to haul it yourself.
"In fact it's better than average for the crossovers in this thread, I'm sure"
not exactly, it doesn't beat the 27mpg I got over the wknd during my trip to ohio from chicago or my all time best of 33mpg either for that matter, thanks for trying though .
You misunderstood me, I wrote:
new technology such as Direct Injeciton and especially GEARING
And by that I meant:
(new technology such as Direct Injeciton) and especially GEARING
I never said the weight of a vehicle by itself has no bearing on efficiency, of course it does.
You said weight and HP. We really should seperate those two things.
More weight hurts efficiency every time. If you drive around with a bowling ball in your trunk, your mileage will suffer. It may not be measurable, but it will.
More HP, though, doesn't necessarily hurt efficiency, because a more powerful engine can be geared taller. All things are not equal. You have more power. You add a taller gear because you can, because you have more power to overcome that gearing loss. You end up not sacrificing fuel efficiency.
It's funny, you keep saying you're not alluding to the FS, but what other 3-row crossover comes with a CVT?
Not to mention some times it's mulch, other times it's pea gravel, other times it's wood chips for the play ground. A delivery truck would have to make one trip for each of those.
Also, I brought home some drywall the other day, and it was raining so no truck or crossover could have accomplished that task while keeping the drywall dry. Another time I got some lattice 4'x8' panels. It adds up, the number of times the utility comes in handy. I'd be renting a truck or getting delivery several times per year.
I've owned it for 37 days and hauled 4'x8's twice already. A load of pea gravel will come once I get the hitch.
I said I was averaging ~24mpg, mixed driving on a green engine, A/C on (it's 90+ degrees). On a trip I will surely do better. 07 Sienna owners frequently break 30mpg, you'd be surprised.
Tell you what, I'll calculate my mileage for a trip we're taking this weekend. I bet I beat your 27mpg. Gentelman's bet, no stakes.
BTW - engine doesn't drone any more than any other car out there...
"You end up not sacrificing fuel efficiency"
Unless you are privy to all of the manufacturer's data during development, you can't say that as fact.
Nissan makes CVT's as well, dodge, there are a few out there at this point, ALL I was referencing was the CVT, I never said 3-row CUV, I just said MY CVT wins... you keep projecting this mythical battle I'm not here to fight, today anyway...
Murano's CVT is nice as well, but that's too small to have even made my short list. Plus, this thread tends to focus on the bigger side of the segment, mostly Outlook, CX9, Freestyle, etc.
I think we've thread-jacked a bit much, I'll let you have the last word and then I'll report back my trip mileage on Monday. 27mpg is the target, we'll see.
safe travels...
I hope I get in the mid 20's for the trip. It will be with 7 passangers and associated luggage.