|
Salsa Shark
|
Why is 22mpg considered "favorable" for a 4-cylinder? My 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme (170,000 miles) with a 3.1L 6-cylinder gets 20mpg in the city and 28mpg highway.
|
|
Cheap-shot
|
I have been glancing over your colum for decades now I'm still wondering if your ever going to grow up before it's too late.
Your all about NEW toys and FADS but never about how
to get the most out of the car we purchase.
I have owned 2 vehicles since 1980. One was a 1980 Ford F-100 and the second is a 2000 Ford Ranger. I'm still driving the Ford Ranger and plan to get another 10 years out of it. Can you or any of your "foreign" cars lovers boast the same???
|
|
GeorgeS Park RidgeIL
|
In May 2008 the Tribune publishes the always au courant Jim Mateja's review of the 2008 Mitsubushi Lancer? The article starts off by stating the Lancer has been absent from the market for the past year?
Which year is he speaking of? There is a Mitsu dealership 3 blocks from my home. I seem to clearly recall the new "shark nosed" Lancer on dealership lot since very early last spring. As in over 1 year ago.(BTW it's significantly upmarket in appearance and size since the previous gen. Lancer. Proportioned like a Civic fairly well contented at $14K.)
Doesnât Jim Mateja, an auto industry âexpertâ know about the growing trend to introduce re-designed models of a car later in the model year season (rather than in September) with the following model yearâs designation. In this manner the Lancer was introduced as a 2008 model in early 2007.
Makes you wonder where Jim Mateja has been for the past year. Tells me exactly where the Tribune is headed in the upcoming years.
|
|
GeorgeS Park RidgeIL
|
In May 2008 the Tribune publishes the always au courant Jim Mateja's review of the 2008 Mitsubushi Lancer? The article starts off by stating the Lancer has been absent from the market for the past year?
Which year is he speaking of? There is a Mitsu dealership 3 blocks from my home. I seem to clearly recall the new "shark nosed" Lancer on dealership lot since very early last spring. As in over 1 year ago.(BTW it's significantly upmarket in appearance and size since the previous gen. Lancer. Proportioned like a Civic fairly well contented at $14K.)
Doesnt Jim Mateja, an auto industry expert know about the growing trend to introduce re-designed models of a car later in the model year season (rather than in September) with the following model years designation. In this manner the Lancer was introduced as a 2008 model in early 2007.
Makes you wonder where Jim Mateja has been for the past year. Tells me exactly where the Tribune is headed in the upcoming years.
|
|
GeorgeS Park RidgeIL
|
My mom's then 1976 Honda Civic provided about 30 mpg combined. Thirty years later the Civic offers no better mileage. To be fair the car did gain about 500 lbs. in weight.
The trend in the past 15 years has been to build heavier cars with a lot of technology to add performance and safety, with little emphasis on improving mileage. That trend was bolstered by a strong dollar at which oil was bought and sold, and therefore inexpensive gasoline. Everywhere else on the planet gasoline has been selling at the relative costs we are now seeing for more than 30 years!! Two years ago American manufacturers claimed oil would not in the near future exceed $65 per barrel. WRONG! Now it is repeatedly being projected to climb to a per barrel price of $200 by 2010. Thatâs means $7 per gallon people!$4000 per consumer per year who drives 12K miles per year. That translates to roughly 18% of the average Americanâs annual income.
Also it takes about 1-2 billion to completely re-tool a massive auto assembly plant. The US auto makers have dozens which would have had to be re-tooled in the US and Canada. With the UAW on their back and strong sales of large engined heavy passenger cars, what incentive did the manufacturers have to spend 100s of billions to completely re-tool to manufacture smaller displacement engined vehicles?
Certainly not our Congress. In the Europe motorists for decades have required to pay up to $1000 of the vehicle price annually just for license plates if based on engine size and hydrocarbon emissions. They cough up as much as 35% sales tax to buy the car if displacement exceeds 3500 cc. To boot, About 60% of Europeans take public transport to work.
Now that the dollar has fallen and there is panic about immediate and long-term oil global oil supplies. American consumers have been broadsided. They have lived a dream and have now woken up to the global reality.
Just look what the situation is when I rent a car in Greece this summer. Gasoline there is currently sold at $5.5 per gallon. I will be renting a VW Polo (just smaller than a VW Golf) with a 1400 cc engine rated at 45 mpg combined. If I drive 1000 miles it will cost 30% less to run that car than the typical US passenger car even though gas prices there are 40% higher than in the US.
Small displacement diesels get even better mileage. Typically 60 mpg combined. Look at the UK websites for FIAT, VW, BMW, Ford, Vauxhall (GM UK). Diesels are the short term future for the salvation of the auto industry. Just look at the healthy global automakers. BMW, Mercedes and VW will be bringing more of their diesel powered products to US shores this year.
True renewable energy based fuel is the long-term future. Time will be needed to make the technology affordable. Fuel refining and delivery infrastructure changes will have to be implemented (hydrogen fueling stations). GM projects 10 years minimum to feasibility for mass production. What will US engine foundries be making in the next few years?
|
|
Tic
|
Cheap-shot wrote: I have been glancing over your colum for decades now I'm still wondering if your ever going to grow up before it's too late.
Your all about NEW toys and FADS but never about how
to get the most out of the car we purchase.
I have owned 2 vehicles since 1980. One was a 1980 Ford F-100 and the second is a 2000 Ford Ranger. I'm still driving the Ford Ranger and plan to get another 10 years out of it. Can you or any of your "foreign" cars lovers boast the same??? I'm still driving my 1987 Bronco II
|
|
huh
|
huh? The 2008 Lancer has been out since March 2007. I know because I bought one. This is old news, how can you say it's back? The evo is back this year, not the vanilla lancer.
|
|
ReplaceMateja
|
I am amazed at how such a large news organization as the Tribune cannot find someone better qualified than Jim Mateja to write about cars. His articles are uninformed and he always seems to be grouchy. GeorgeS Park RidgeIL wrote: In May 2008 the Tribune publishes the always au courant Jim Mateja's review of the 2008 Mitsubushi Lancer? The article starts off by stating the Lancer has been absent from the market for the past year?
Which year is he speaking of? There is a Mitsu dealership 3 blocks from my home. I seem to clearly recall the new "shark nosed" Lancer on dealership lot since very early last spring. As in over 1 year ago.(BTW it's significantly upmarket in appearance and size since the previous gen. Lancer. Proportioned like a Civic fairly well contented at $14K.)
Doesnât Jim Mateja, an auto industry âexpertâ know about the growing trend to introduce re-designed models of a car later in the model year season (rather than in September) with the following model yearâs designation. In this manner the Lancer was introduced as a 2008 model in early 2007.
Makes you wonder where Jim Mateja has been for the past year. Tells me exactly where the Tribune is headed in the upcoming years.
|
|
|
|
Russell
|
The article included no performance data. What about 0 to 60 time? What about 40 to 60 time? What about stopping distance from 60 mph? What about noise levels, measured in DB? What about handeling? What about the effectiveness of the air conditioning and heating? What about the effectiveness of the windshield wipers? Etc. etc. etc.
It was not a very thorough report.
|
|
Bob
|
Salsa Shark wrote: Why is 22mpg considered "favorable" for a 4-cylinder? My 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme (170,000 miles) with a 3.1L 6-cylinder gets 20mpg in the city and 28mpg highway. It is considered favorable because Jim Mateja is in the business of trying to sell you big .3 automobiles and all they have is 22-29 MPG vehicles that just won't cut the mustard with todays gas prices. I have been trying to tell Jim to wake up and smell the coffee for a long time, but he just don't get it. Jim, what we need is a car that gets 50 MPG city, 65 MPG highway, like the cars the big .03 are making for the people in Europe, but NOT for us. When will he wake up???
|
|
Russell
|
Bob wrote: <quoted text>
It is considered favorable because Jim Mateja is in the business of trying to sell you big .3 automobiles and all they have is 22-29 MPG vehicles that just won't cut the mustard with todays gas prices.
I have been trying to tell Jim to wake up and smell the coffee for a long time, but he just don't get it.
Jim, what we need is a car that gets 50 MPG city, 65 MPG highway, like the cars the big .03 are making for the people in Europe, but NOT for us.
When will he wake up??? Certainy we need vehicles which are more fuel efficient. However, the market for cars that get 50 mpg in the city and 65 mpg on the highway would be very limited. It would greatly help if there were fewer SUVs, vans, and small trucks. Some people actually need them, but most people who have them don't need them. Another problem is that modern engine technology has been used to increase power to a level that would have been almost unimaginable 10 years ago. If the same technology had been used instead to improve fuel efficiency, we'd be much better off. We really don't need to be able to accelerate from 0 to 60 in less than 8 seconds. Zero to 60 in 10 seconds would be fast enough. Here in the U.S., there are very few small and mid-sized stations wagons available, so people get vans instead and vans are less fuel efficient. In other countries, small and mid-sized stations wagons are more readily available. When I returned to the U.S., I considered buying a Mazda 6 station wagon. However, here in the U.S., in station wagon form, the Mazda 6 was available only with the V 6 engine, which uses considerably more fuel than the 4 cylinder engine which is used in the Mazda 6 sedan. In Australia, the Mazda 6 station wagon is available with the 4 cylinder engine. So, I ended up getting a Mazda 3 hatchback which isn't totally adequate (it's very hard to get my bicycle into it), but at least it gets better fuel mileage.
|
|
bmohr
|
I find it to be a good thing that the Lancer is not automatically equiped with Stability Control. These systems aren't doing much of the driving public any good.
Like ABS, these systems are only good for a very, very brief moment in the cars life. Also, these systems are only beneficial to a driver that panics in a bad situation.
A good driver pays attention and judges situation by situation as it comes at them, adjusting their speed and distance from those around them constantly. Anticipating that something will, inevitably go wrong around them.
The fear I have in these systems is what happens when they break or become confused? They are often tied to both the the throttle and the brakes individually. Imagine the last time your brakes failed, now put that scenario even more uncontrolled when you least expect it, going 75mph down a crowded interstate. The fear is that as these systems age, they will fail, everything eventually fails. Depending on how and when they fail, they may kill the people they were intended to save.
Often, less is more. Keep the cars simple please. Good parts, fewer pieces, less gizmos to go wrong that cost a fortune and stop telling people that the car will keep you safe. The driver keeps the car and therefore themselves out of harms way. Too many drivers already act like they are riding a bus bench to their destination and seem to have little respect for the ton and half of plastic and metal they are hurling down the road in as they chat on their cell phones and play with their sound systems.
Money should be spent in teaching people how to drive better, more aware. Not blindly trusting in the 'safety features' in their car. The driver is the first and largest line of safety, nothing else should be depended on.
Thanks for the article.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
