Ask a Car Nut - Part Deux

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Haha. Thanks heaps for helping me with the pics.

Only got the hoodie pulled up cause my friend had had a few beers and had been pestering me to let him have a cigarette in the car which I let him do if we wound down all the windows and it was absolutely freezing. The stadium we watched the game at was right on the ocean too so warmth was at a premium. I'm certainly no home boy.

I didn't actually remove plates/engine identifiers etc. It's just glare from the flash.

Not sure what a sunshade is.

By far the most satisfying driving experience was a 3km incline up a very steep, very twisty hill section. I could wind it out to 120km/hour in second. Yep, 2nd.

Obviously the big selling point of the car is 6200cc of Detroit's finest however the handling was a revelation. For a big, heavy sedan I really didn't feel like I had to wrestle it through the corners. I'd just point it into a bend and the ass would faithfully follow without the slightest objection.

It's biggest failing? The half assed attempt at being a luxury car aswell. If you are going to try to be a luxury vehicle it can't just feel like an afterthought,especially with such awesome performance setting the standard for the car. It had quite a bit of cheap plastic, average sound system etc which frankly would have been fine except it contrasted poorly with the leather trim etc. A stripped down, hard edge racing interior would have been better.

Oh, and the A pillar was huge and extremely annoying in the way it restricted vision.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sorry. I meant visor. But it does look like it could possibly be big enough to act as a sunshade, which many Floridians stick in their windshield when they park to reduce the interior heat.

And I agree. 4000 lbs is obscene for a "sports" car, even one with such a huge engine and four doors. The Cadillac CTS-V suffers from the same sort of problems, including the overuse of cheap plastic. At least it can also be ordered with a manual transmission.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm saving up for my first car, and it will be in the $4000-5000 price range.

What would you recommend? Safety is my number one concern.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can't get much safer than a Volvo, especially in an older car. The problem is going to be trying to find something in that price range that has reasonably low miles. You might be able to find a 2000-2003 S80 in that range, but it is likely going to have over 100K miles.

In general, bigger is better when it comes to safety. So stick to larger sedans for maximum safety.

But there are a lot of other cars that are reasonably safe that are smaller and more fuel efficient.

You should be able to find the NHTSA crash test ratings for any car you would likely want to buy.

 

[peter grimes]

I heard about a technique for picking up really good quality gently used cars, but have yet to try it myself:

My friend's father lives outside of Phoenix. There are tons of retirement communities there. It's very common for an older couple to have 2 cars. One of the people dies, then there's a single person with 2 cars. Then remarry, and you have an older couple with 3 'extra' cars. He checks the bulletin boards for available cars. He's bought a couple of cars this way.

I thought about trying that last year, but we're in NYC, so the added cost of a flight didn't make sense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Buying cars from the elderly can frequently result in great deals. Just be careful about body damage.

It is always a good idea to get the Carfax on any used car and closely examine it for signs of body repairs. Not all repairs get reported, especially if they were not covered by insurance. Paying an independent mechanic who is familiar with that vendor and model to inspect the car is also highly recommended, especially with higher priced ones.

It is also a good idea to try to buy cars where the owner has kept all the receipts from past maintenance and repairs.

The main things I look for when buying a used car are the mileage and whether it was garaged. If you can find one where the owner didn't jack up the price accordingly, you can get a really great deal on a car that has little wear.

 

[GinandTonic]

Is there any level of power draw from an alternator that does not effect fuel consumption? Eg a level of resistance the alternator will always provide to the engine regardless of if that electricity is required.

 

[Formaldehyde]

AFAIK all alternators negatively effect fuel consumption no matter the draw. But it does increase substantially the more power you are consuming. Using high-beam headlights in particular can have a dramatic effect on fuel efficiency.

BMW developed a system for their 5-series that tries to only use the alternator when you are coasting or braking to maintain an adequate charge. But it only provided a 3% decrease in in fuel consumption. Interestingly, they used the same sort of methodology to control a power steering assistance on-demand pump that gained another 2%. But not only do these changes increase fuel efficiency, they also increase performance when you are accelerating.

Natalie Neff at Autoweek just glowingly reviewed the 2013 Ford Focus ST.

It has a 252 hp turbocharged 2L engine that gets 25 mpg and only costs $24.5K in standard trim. It is far more refined than the Mazdaspeed 3 and compares favorably to the VW Golf R that sells for $12K more.

Her only real complaints were that the variable rate steering made it handle like an Expedition in really sharp turns and the "lane-keeping assist was downright annoying, even with the sensitivity and intensity of its vibrating warning dialed way down".

And watch out for Heikki Kovalainen. He is now an "Angry Bird" in more ways than one:

 

[peter grimes]

AFAIK all alternators negatively effect fuel consumption no matter the draw. But it does increase substantially the more power you are consuming. Using high-beam headlights in particular can have a dramatic effect on fuel efficiency.

BMW developed a system for their 5-series that tries to only use the alternator when you are coasting or braking to maintain an adequate charge. But it only provided a 3% decrease in in fuel consumption. Interestingly, they used the same sort of methodology to control a power steering assistance on-demand pump that gained another 2%. But not only do these changes increase fuel efficiency, they also increase performance when you are accelerating.

3% and 2% are actually pretty huge gains from such a 'simple' tweak! Considering that we are very close to the upper bounds of the maximum efficiency of a gasoline engine, that's nothing at all to scoff at.

Actually, re-reading your post I'm unclear whether or not you are really scoffing at the size of the gains.

Here's my source for gasoline efficiency:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/100-mpg-on-gasoline/

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is certainly an improvement. But when you consider that alternators are typically only 40-60% efficient and can rob you of 1.7 mpg at 200W loads, there is still far more which can be done to improve the efficiency of these systems.

It is also noteworthy that automakers have been making substantial gains in fuel efficiency by simply going to direct fuel injection, a technology which was first invented in 1925 and was first used on automobile engines in 1952.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Here's an interesting graph that appeared in today's newspaper:

It's Official: Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans

The U.S. is ranked 25th in world by number of passenger cars per person, just above Ireland and just below Bahrain. There are 439 cars here for every thousand Americans, meaning a little more than two people for every car. That number is higher in nearly all of Western Europe -- the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, etc. -- as well as in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. It's higher in crisis-wracked Iceland and Greece. Italians and New Zealanders have nearly 50 percent more cars per capita than does the U.S. The highest rate in the world is casino-riddled Mediterranean city-state Monaco, with 771 cars per thousand citizens.

America actually starts to look unusually auto-poor when cars per capita is charted against household consumption per capita, which the Carnegie paper explains are two typically correlated variables. That is, countries where household spend more money on average tend to also own more cars.

The Carnegie paper explains that car ownership rates are closely tied to the size of the middle class. In fact, the paper actually measures car ownership rates for the specific purpose of using that number to predict middle class size. Comparing the middle class across countries can be extraordinarily difficult; someone who counts as middle class in one country could be poor or rich in another. Americans are buying fewer cars -- is it possible that this is another sign of a declining American middle class? Even if Americans are on average richer than Europeans, after all, U.S. income inequality is also much higher. According to the Carnegie paper, about 9.6 of Americans' cars are luxury cars, an unusually high number; but it unhelpfully defines "luxury" as "Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Lexus" (no Cadillacs?), which may help to explain why Germany's "luxury car" rate is 26.6 percent.

Amazingly, Americans still manage to suck up far, far more energy per person than do the people in those Western European nations with so many more cars per capita. Our oil usage per capita is about twice what it is in Western Europe, and here's our overall energy usage:

Whatever the reason for America's comparatively low car ownership rate, it may be time to update our stereotypes. The most car-obsessed place in the world isn't the nation of Detroit and Ford and Cadillac. It's Western Europe, the land of Peugeot and Smart Cars and Ferrari, where cars are most common.

Hmm. Another stereotype bites the dust? Many of the real car nuts live in Western Europe, particularly Monaco?

 

[Archbob]

Which tire class should I buy to get the most comfortable ride?

 

[MobBoss]

Do you like NASCAR?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Most tires are essentially the same in this regard except for mud and snow tires. Those have such deep cuts in the tread patterns that they generate a lot of noise during normal driving conditions. Also, the higher the aspect ratio the more cushioning the tires will provide. But you also sacrifice performance.

I do have a recommendation that can likely save you a substantial amount of money on your next set though. You can frequently negotiate the price with the vendors by knowing how much the same or comparable tires sell for online at sites like Tire Rack. Be sure to add in the cost of mounting and balancing, installation, and tire disposal which can also be negotiated. A good estimate for these charges is in the $15-20 per tire range. Tire Rack will also even ship the tires to a given vendor so they can mount and balance them for you on appointment. If you buy a set of aftermarket wheels as well, Tire Rack and similar places will mount and balance them for you.

This is one area where shopping around can definitely save you some money. But just remember that tires are radically different so you could end up comparing apples and oranges unless you get a quote for exactly the same tires in exactly the same sizes.

 

[Cutlass]

Here's an interesting graph that appeared in today's newspaper:

It's Official: Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans





Hmm. Another stereotype bites the dust? Many of the real car nuts live in Western Europe, particularly Monaco?

Are light trucks considered?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The graph says "passenger vehicles" so I presume so.

 

[peter grimes]

The graph says "passenger vehicles" so I presume so.

I would definitely not make that assumption. Just look around you the next time you're in an interstate. My Fermi question style observations in the greater New York City metropolitan area suggest that suvs and pickups are nearly HALF the cars on the road.

Determining the included classes of vehicles in that story is essential to understanding it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hmm. It looks like you are right. You have to include all motor vehicles before the US comes out second:

This article is a list of countries by the number of motor vehicles per 1000 people. All figures include automobiles, SUVs, vans, and commercial vehicles; and exclude motorcycles and other motorized two-wheelers.

1 Monaco 908 2009[1]
2 United States 812 2010[2]
3 Liechtenstein 796 2008[3]
4 Luxembourg 749 2008[3]
5 Malta 743 2011[4]
6 Australia 730 January 2011[5]
7 Iceland 724 2005[3]
8 New Zealand 718 2009[1]
9 Brunei 696 2007[1]
10 Italy 690 2010[6]

The World Bank has completely different figures for all passenger vehicles which closely echoes the graph:

Passenger cars refer to road motor vehicles, other than two-wheelers, intended for the carriage of passengers and designed to seat no more than nine people (including the driver).

Italy 596
Luxembourg 666
Monaco 771
New Zealand 603
US 439

While their numbers for all motor vehicles is essentially the same as Wiki:

Motor vehicles include cars, buses, and freight vehicles but do not include two-wheelers. Population refers to midyear population in the year for which data are available.

Monaco 908
United States 802
Luxembourg 739

So are pickup trucks commercial vehicles or passenger vehicles?

According to Wiki, the DOT treats pickup trucks as "passenger vehicles", but they cast doubt on the numbers above altogether:

Note: this article adopts the U.S. Department of Transportation's definition of a passenger vehicle, to mean a car or truck, used for passengers, excluding buses and trains.

The United States is home to the largest passenger vehicle market of any country in the world.[1] Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study.[2] This number, along with the average age of vehicles, has increased steadily since 1960, indicating a growing number of vehicles per capita. However the China car market is bigger in the terms of selling and registering new cars(for e.g. in first eight months of the 2011 they registered 9.83 million new automobiles, and 79.45 percent of which were passenger cars), and not far ahead in the number of existing vehicles(100 million).[3]

According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base, while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009. [5]

254 million vehicles would be about 800 per 1000. There can't possibly be that many commercial vehicles in the US to go from 439 per 1000 to 802 unless you include pickup trucks and SUVs in that category.

 

[Cutlass]

I think a source of confusion arises because many vans and pickup trucks are dual purpose. So while many people use them as personal transport, they could as easily be used commercially, and many individual pickups and vans are actually used as both. And the various states are inconsistent in how they register these things, so the differences remain obscured.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Speaking of pick up trucks, you guys may make the best cars but we have this end of the market sewn up