By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I think most cars will run a battery dead if not run occasionally. Remote sensors and misc setting in the car probably draw x amount of power with the ignition off. I know my BIL installed a switch on the battery of his Corvette so he could quick disconnect it when he doesn't drive it or his battery would would go dead in about a month or two.
Considering how hot it can get under the hood of a car, would it help things much to relocate the battery to the trunk? I guess a trunk can get pretty hot too, though. I was thinking of this about a week and a half ago, when my '76 LeMans left me stranded at the liquor store in 95 degree heat. It had been okay that morning, but that evening, I left work around 6, and it was still brutally hot. It started, but not easily. I should have gone straight home, but didn't. When I got ready to leave from the liquor store, the car just had it, and wouldn't start. Turned over really slow and strained, and wouldn't fire up. It never overheated, but it still got brutally hot under that hood, and the battery felt pretty hot.
I left it, and two hours later came back, after sunset, and it fired right up. I'm sure part of the problem was also some heat soak to the starter motor, but I'm sure the battery itself was stressed out. So in a case like this, would moving it to the trunk make any difference?
Heat kills batteries. Lately, I've been getting 3 years out of them - 2 years used to be the norm, you could set your calendar by them failing in exactly 2 years, but they seem to have improved lately. At least, the original Lexus and Ford batteries have been lasting longer. But the heat really takes a toll on them.
Heat: For the most part, the problem with heat for traditional batteries is that the water evaporates. If you maintain the battery properly with distilled water, it should give about the same life as in cooler climate. The biggest problem is that the water added to a battery is usually not that clean. Some people just add tap water. Some people use distilled water, but let dust or dirt get into the battery which means they just wasted the cost of the distilled water.
Vibration: Merely running the motor, which causes vibration will theoretically weaken the plates over time. But the big problem is drop damage when handling.
Bad charging/discharging: Up here in the cold north, we tend to help each other boosting run down batteries. Doing that wrong will cause a sudden surge of power in the low battery and a sudden drain of the boosting battery. Either can cause damage.
If your battery dies from misuse, how can you tell how good the battery might have been?
Outside of the Turbo Ecotec and good looks, these cars were flawed from the start. Maybe they'll get the next iteration right.
Regards,
OW
All they had to do was copy the Miata but give it a bit more power with that great ecotec engine.
It's elementary...the accountants were directing the show, as usual. Sometimes they butcher the exterior aesthetics, sometimes they destroy the performance....and sometimes, both!
Regards,
OW
I was one of those who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Saturn Sky and came away utterly disappointed. Even the promise of a cheap, affordable roadster for the masses went out the window as soon as you check off the box to include a stereo and A/C. :shades:
No loss. The Kappa was a typical overpromise, under-deliver product, just like many in GM's past. :sick:
2009 Saturn Sky: 2932 lbs
2009 MX5: 2592 lbs
Oops.
Regards,
OW
Steve, I've asked. Where's edmunds review?
The Future of Caddy
The Escalde becoming another Lambda?? 3-Series fighter? SRX that is still second-rate? Bigger CTS?
Hmm...
Regards,
OW
And California, of all states, grants the biggest exemption:
".....California is also granting CO2 exemptions to these companies, but it applies to all the vehicles they sell and will be in effect for the next seven years. Remember, this comes from the state that loudly proclaimed it was finally going to force Detroit to do something about CO2 emissions. Can you imagine the uproar if GM, Ford and Chrysler asked California for the same exemptions?"
Wasn't second rate in C&D's last comparison;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/07q2/bmw_x5_vs._acura_mdx_cadill- ac_srx_m-b_ml350_lexus_gx470_volvo_xc90_vw_touareg_land_rover_lr3-comparison_tes- ts
It is now...
2010 SRX comes up short
Regards,
OW
Its only seven years. Hmm that is about the end of Barry's 2nd term.
If you can afford your very own lobbyists (or your very own congressional seat) then the law doesn't apply to you. The other side of it is that Detroit can't even build supercars and halo cars that compete either: if they could the rich would want them, and there would hence be exceptions in the emissions regs for them. :shades:
Maybe that's the way to go if GM wants to make money, when you get down to it...
like I said, try driving through Westchester County, NY one day. Similar view. It isn't the LA elite weenies. TO be honest, it's probably everyone with gobs of money. Especially since gobs of money can go to gobs of lobbyists. And Infinitis, Lexuses, and Cadillacs are just too "pedestrian" because too many of those commoner-people drive them.
This says it all:
".....Preferring more sales to moral victories, Cadillac has reconstituted the SRX for 2010 as a slightly smaller, mellower crossover. Say goodbye to the options — like the magnetic suspension, the V-8 engine and the third-row seat — that had the SRX nipping at BMW’s heels. Instead, Cadillac’s product planners have trained their jealous eyes on the popular Lexus. In some ways, it’s hard to blame them."
The next statement sums up your point:
".....What is blameworthy is how Cadillac has gone about the transformation."
I'd agree that using the basic underpinnings of the Equinox is NOT a smart move. However, if it appeals to customers, then it will sell. Traditional SRX buyers may like the CTS wagon. If not, then those sales may be lost to the Germans.
a hand built $200,000 car that may sell 1000 units in a good year.
Ironically, the Corvette doesn't seem to be bit by these laws
We'll see....
Could I tag along with my 79 5th Ave? The one with the 360 and no muffler? That should be good for a few upturned noses among the elite crowd. :shades:
I just don't see GM making any bold new decisions destined to grow sales, particularly at Caddy, vs. the competition. Perhaps that will change.
Regards,
OW
keeping spending in hometowns being embraced in some areas of U.S.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/smallbusiness/grassroots_stimulus.smb/index.htm
Probably the Olds
Let's load 'em up and go!!!!!
Oh I see it growing in sales, as it is a more traditional CUV than the previous generation. Where the sales come from?? I dunno. If they do defect from Lexus, is it good enough to keep them when trade in time comes?? I dunno.
Regards,
OW
I parked next to a newer STS the other day. A couple with two grown teenagers were camping out of it. My '97 Outback looked cramped compared to it - the Caddy must have a huge trunk to hold their tent, pads, bags and cooking gear. Unfortunately the family took off on a hike and didn't get back until after sunset so I didn't get to chat them up about their ride. It looked right at home in the primitive forest service campground though.
I did, like you suggested awhile back. Still no response. Maybe they are busy flogging it??? No??? :shades:
Odd as Edmunds is one of the first to test drive new models.
Regards,
OW