www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote: Kevsha - kudos for giving props to the GNX. A car so stupidly fast and torque-y that they had to stop selling them because they literally ripped themselves apart.

i knew, at the very least, that you would appreciate it

Reliant121 wrote:...Nor do I intend to live there.

Nor do I, in the long run. I intend to live somewhere like here:



Where the only car I'd need to drive would be a modern version of this:

Tsukiyumi wrote:I think we've been over this before, but the main reason we have big engines in our cars is because we'd like to get where we're going before we die of old age. Houston is 212 sq miles (339 km², IIRC), and that's just the city. That doesn't count surrounding stuff like Sugar Land (where I live now).

And yet until recently you had a national 55mph speed limit. Certainly in the time of these cars.

Driving from where I am to where Uzume lives at the moment is a 132 mile (211 km) round trip. Drive that far in Europe, and you'd be in a different country.

Actually not. You can drive from Brigton (on the south coast) to Gretna (on the Scottish boarder) and it's nearly 400 miles.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:Tyyr: i guess it just doesnt make sense to me. I just cant connect desire with need and cost. I cant quite compute it in my head.

It's part of American culture. Fast cars and big engines. Most people don't want to drive a dinky four cylinder or even less. They want to put the pedal down and have the engine rev and the car take off. There's no real need to it*, just want. As gas prices rise I'm sure people will care about efficiency but even with where they are now they're still about a third to a half of what ya'll pay for gas. If prices keep rising I'm sure people will get over it but not for a while. And while we may buy a pissant 4 cylinder or a hybrid they'll still want a big V8.

*There are exceptions. If you buy a truck to do any towing or hauling with anything less than a V6, more realistically a V8, then you're fairly well an idiot.

Like I said, I don't know where you live, but driving a little econo-car here is bound to get you dead. If your 0-60 takes double-digits to achieve, you're screwed.

In what way?

Besides, like I also said, making a 66 mile trip in three hours isn't a very good option.

Even the little 3 cylinder cars we have here will go at at least 90 mph. That would make your 66 mile trip in 45 mins.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:The problem arises when I want to go to university. Portsmouth university isnt exactly great, i'd stride to get into Winchester if I can. There are virtually no transport links for me to get there from where I live if I dont own a car. The thing we might be able to do is get multiple car insurance to insure the whole family which my parents pay, and I pay for the car only.

Did you mean $4,000 a year, or just a one-time-ever fee?

If it's the former, I wouldn't even be able to drive to work.

He's very young, I'm only paying £500/year for a 3.0 BMW Z4 with a top speed limited to 155mph.

Mikey wrote:The problem is, I think, that many Europeans - especially Britons - can understand the scope of distances in America, but don't really get it. My wife drives over 100 miles a day round trip to work and back - and that's not terribly uncommon. The fam drove to Cleveland, Ohio a couple years ago - 8 hours on the road plus bathroom and meal stops. If I had to do that with a Euro-style 1.3L engine, a few things would happen.

Not really, I've driven around the entire outline of California in a single two week holiday. Well over 2,000+ miles and I didn't find it an issue at all. I was in a little 2.0 litre soft top (The newish one that looks like a 1920's gangster car.

#1 - my travel time would be multiplied by 1.5.
#2 - the difference in economy from my 4.2L straight-6 to the little I-4 would be minimized.
#3 - that 1.3L would suffer three times the wear-and-tear that my big American engine did, because of the constant running at significantly higher RPM.

As to the body of the vehicle - I couldn't take either my kid (only had one at the time) or my luggage on the trip if I had one of these typical Anglo-Fords, Peugots, Vauxhauls, or whatever.

Kevsha - kudos for giving props to the GNX. A car so stupidly fast and torque-y that they had to stop selling them because they literally ripped themselves apart.

Wow, this thread exploded.

Kinda like that tiny Smart Car on the highway today.

IanKennedy wrote:In what way?

In the "flattened by a semi-rig" way. Sorry: in British, that's "120,000-lb GVW articulated lorry."

IanKennedy wrote:He's very young, I'm only paying £500/year for a 3.0 BMW Z4 with a top speed limited to 155mph.

Great googly-moogly! I'm only paying $1100/year for two cars.

IanKennedy wrote:Not really, I've driven around the entire outline of California in a single two week holiday. Well over 2,000+ miles and I didn't find it an issue at all. I was in a little 2.0 litre soft top (The newish one that looks like a 1920's gangster car.

Pontiac Solstice turbo?

Anyway, I obviously didn't mean that such a car was incapable of handling the trip; rather that such driving as a continuing pattern would wear out a small (<1.5L) engine far more quickly than it would a larger one. To the speed issue; yes, those smaller engines are capable of getting folks to a normal travelling speed. But again, those engines need to work much harder to acheive and maintain the same speed than a larger engine, and thus degrade faster.

And during high accelerations are less efficient.

I think you Americans are over estimating much how small our islands are. I live on one of the two main islands of NZ, yet to reach the top of the island it is a 6 hour trip and to reach the bottom is about 7. And thats just half the country.

To say you travel more thus need bigger cars is BS. I own this:



Its 23 years old and can still go 0-100 in under 6 seconds and it tops out at about 230ish (all in km). It has amazing fuel efficency and decent internal space considering its a 2 door.

The idea that euro/jap cars arent fast enough or powerful enough is stupid. Are cars are cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain.

a 60 mile round trip is about what Dad has to do counting in his journeys that he has to do for work around Southampton. He has a 1.4 L petrol Hyundai i30. That car will last 10 years at the very least.

Teaos wrote:
The idea that euro/jap cars arent fast enough or powerful enough is stupid. Are cars are cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain.

not over here, over here imports are more expensive to maintain, not always cheaper. Christ a smart car here with all the options is $18,000!!! for a car that seats two, can't keep up with traffic and is a death trap in anything but city driving. where as you can buy a fully loaded focus that seats 4 very comfortably, 4 doors and very well optioned for the same price and gets almost the same milage. little cars with tiny motors just plain do not work around here. our roads are bigger, our cars are on average bigger and faster. most of those tiny cars overthere would have a hard time outrunning my 7,200lbs truck, and would fare terribly in a crach with said truck. not to mention to keep up with traffic in the highway that i take to work those little motors would be screaming, thus negating thier efficiency and putting much more wear on the motor.

I can sort of respect the bigger roads and such. After all, you have a bigger country. I dont believe a highway/motorway with 5 lanes is uncommon there. Thats almost unheard of here, where 3 is the universal standard with a few 4 laners here or there (M25 - Fucking nightmare). But the speed and acceleration I really do have to disagree with. most 1.8-2.0L engines will get to 60 in under 10 seconds, and carry on to at the very least 125. A lot of smaller cars with large engines for their size (by our standards can do that as well). Take an Alfa Romeo Mito with a 1.4 Turbocharged engine. That'll do 60 in 8 seconds and keep going at that kinda rate up to a 105, where it starts to take longer to accelerate. However, our engines wont last as long, your right there. But still, properly maintained and working hard, that engine will still last a good 10 years.

little cars with tiny motors just plain do not work around here. our roads are bigger, our cars are on average bigger and faster. most of those tiny cars overthere would have a hard time outrunning my 7,200lbs truck, and would fare terribly in a crach with said truck. not to mention to keep up with traffic in the highway that i take to work those little motors would be screaming, thus negating thier efficiency and putting much more wear on the motor.

The only thing you said there that is true is that the small cars get destoryed in crashes. But at least they dont roll over when you take a corner at more the 3 miles an hour

My car posted above can out accelerate and out top speed yout 7,200lbs truck any day of the week. My car as 280,000km on the clock and runs beautifully and with minimal maintence, it has only ever needed thing like new air filters/spark plugs ect. It has never been overhauled. And my car is my no means out of the oridinary.

Teaos wrote:

I think you Americans are over estimating much how small our islands are. I live on one of the two main islands of NZ, yet to reach the top of the island it is a 6 hour trip and to reach the bottom is about 7. And thats just half the country.

To say you travel more thus need bigger cars is BS. I own this:

Its 23 years old and can still go 0-100 in under 6 seconds and it tops out at about 230ish (all in km). It has amazing fuel efficency and decent internal space considering its a 2 door.

i have owned 23+ year old cars, some with 200k plus miles, some ok on gas, others were modiefied and terrible on gas and all big cars. you don't need bigger cars for big trips, and i don't think thats what were saying, though on a 6 hour trip its cartainly nice to be driving something big that can carry my stuff. thant an

lol 0-100 kph in under 6 seconds.... what? unless you got some serious work on that thing i don't think so. a new 300HP Mustang GT would have trouble breaking that without a half decent driver behind the wheel. did you time that down hill, with a 80 mph tail wind in your head? with that kind of 0-100kph (62.14mph) you are looking at a lof 14 second 1/4 mile time. if that thing is pulling low 14s, sign me up for one. by looking at that car i would guess a high 15-16 second 1/4 mile and about an 7-8 sec 0-100. what kind of car/engine is it anyways