Have people changed their attitude to cars?

[bookworm_020]

With all that has been written about "green cars" and "new directions" for car manufacture, have people really changed there thinking about what type or size car they need???

Would you get a smaller car or would you still want that big V8??

Post your reasons and your thoughts!

[Stealth Hunter]

I prefer a more powerful and larger vehicle (I'm a van guy) compared to small vehicles that are really only good for in-town/city driving. Of course, efficiency is also important to me as well.

[TarJak]

I've got a fuel efficent 4pot screamer so I'm not changing.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

With all that has been written about "green cars" and "new directions" for car manufacture, have people really changed there thinking about what type or size car they need???

Would you get a smaller car or would you still want that big V8??

Post your reasons and your thoughts!

Personally, I think the economy has done far more to change people's desires for the oversized car than any "green" movement.

$4/gallon gas doesn't mean squat if incomes are 33% higher. Likewise, it's crippling when incomes are lower.

[Letum]

If by small you mean two wheels...

[AVGWarhawk]

Supersize me. Been looking at Ford Explorers, Chrysler Magnums. You know, gas suckers. I have been eyeballing some of the smaller vehicles. I only drive 15 miles a day. Efficiency is not at the top of the list. I have a family of 4. I can not get a showbox on wheels. Sometimes it is just being practical. A Smart Car is not practical.

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Supersize me. Been looking at Ford Explorers, Chrysler Magnums. You know, gas suckers. I have been eyeballing some of the smaller vehicles. I only drive 15 miles a day. Efficiency is not at the top of the list. I have a family of 4. I can not get a showbox on wheels. Sometimes it is just being practical. A Smart Car is not practical.

Especially for short distances it would really make sense to get something like a station wagon that is at least more efficient than an SUV. 7.5 miles isn't exactly a distance where the motor gets in it's optimal operating range temperature wise, at least not for long. So you'll consume more gas anyway than what manufacturers claim (although I heard you got better methods of testing fuel consumption than European carmakers, so I might as well be off on that claim). But still only because a Smart isn't practical for you (which isn't the most efficient car by any stretch either) you're going the other extreme? Doesn't make that much sense to me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

Especially for short distances it would really make sense to get something like a station wagon that is at least more efficient than an SUV. 7.5 miles isn't exactly a distance where the motor gets in it's optimal operating range temperature wise, at least not for long. So you'll consume more gas anyway than what manufacturers claim (although I heard you got better methods of testing fuel consumption than European carmakers, so I might as well be off on that claim). But still only because a Smart isn't practical for you (which isn't the most efficient car by any stretch either) you're going the other extreme? Doesn't make that much sense to me.

Station wagons are not like those of old. Today's wagon are to small for vacations and day trips. As far as operation temps. yes, after the first two miles of drive I'm at operating temps(winter time not as quickly obviously). Never the less, a 4 banger will not be at optimal temps either but the V-8 heats quickly. No matter, it is a matter of practicality for me. The Mountaineer and Lincoln both average 21 miles to the gallon highway. 15 miles per gallon city. (yes both have the information center for these readings and they are fairly accurate) I do my own fuel/mileage average outside of the program offered on the vehicle dash. Currently a Chevy 4 door Cavalier is not practical for a family of 4 IMO.

[Thomen]

I choose " I am happy with what I've got".
Ford Explorer and Suzuki Aerio.

[Kapt Z]

I was torn between -

A more efficient car.

and

I'm happy with what I have.

I really like my 09 Subaru Forester. It is just big enough for our needs, handles good in bad weather, tops in safety and I actually get over 30mpg on the highway.

If it was a hybrid I'd be golden.

That being said, if I had the garage space and the $$ I'd have a Bullitt Mustang just for fun days/nights.

[JHuschke]

Trucks are better, F-250 ftw!

[Task Force]

yea, you got a point... Truck are nice... cant haul stuff in a car. lol

[Letum]

Motorbikes are the way to go.
How else can you get from 0-60 in less than 3 seconds for under £1000?

[Task Force]

airline ticket...

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Task Force

airline ticket...

Are you kidding?
The majority of fighter jets can't accelerate from a stand that fast.

Air provides great speed, but poor torque.
You need a thrust to weight ratio significantly above 1:1 to accelerate
faster than 0-60 in 3 seconds. Modern jets rarely achieve more than 1.1:1.

The F-15 is one of the faster to accelerate and manages ~1:1 with a
normal load, but can get up to 1.6(!) with no weapons, almost no fuel
and abusive use of the afterburners.

That gives it a theoretical 0-60 time of just over 3 seconds under normal
load and just under 2 seconds stripped down assuming it can give
100% of it's rated thrust instantly from a standstill. That doesn't account
for any drag from the wheels or air as well.

Given the time for the engine to go from idle to full thrust, drag and
human reaction times....my bike is still in with a chance.

You might be rich enough to buy airline tickets to space, but even then,
a motorbike is in with a chance of out-accelerating you. A fully loaded
space shuttle has a thrust to weight ration of 1.5:1 (Less that the
stripped down F15!). The theoretical acceleration time is longer.

The shuttle has achieved 3g on takeoff. That's 1g of gravity and 2g of
acceleration. That doesn't match the thrust/weight ratio on a full load,
so I guess the shuttle can manage a thrust/weight ratio of 2:1 with a
lighter load. That seams a little optimistic to me, but I will run with that
number...

2:1 gives a 0-60 time of 1.3 seconds. (plus the time to get to full thrust,
plus drag etc).

That's faster than any road bike, but quite a bit slower than some drag
racing bikes.