Johnny_P wrote:Mini 3 cylinder
Turbo
134 HP
Premium fuel

Johnny_P wrote:Mini 3 cylinder
Turbo
134 HP
Premium fuel
I mean, Fraud can cough up a 3 cyl that makes ~180 HP and runs fine on regular.troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:27 pmJohnny_P wrote:Mini 3 cylinder
Turbo
134 HP
Premium fuel
![]()
Let's see...
come drive a corolla hatch. it's not terrible.
I should. CVT with the launch gear is probably decent enough for what I want. On paper I like the Civic more because more power. But really its probably fine. The Hyundai I rented didn't bother me at all. 142 HP and a (very good) CVT got it to 60 in 8 flat which was acceptable to me. The Subarus are a bit slower than that. Crosstrek is a lot slower.
MexicanYarisTK wrote:Let's see...
Mustang
EcoSport (Fiesta chassis)
Escape (Focus Chassis)
Edge (Taurus Chassis?)
Explorer (Taurus Chassis)
It sold over the weekend :/max225 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:01 pmCaleDeRoo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:17 am
https://rochester.craigslist.org/ctd/d/ ... 18777.html
I know leather was an option on the Laredo but does leather seats also mean heated seats?
I see heated seat buttons!!!!!!!!!!!
![]()
My Subaru had less. There's usually never more than a couple inches on the roads here. My town pays higher taxes than the surrounding ones so we get cleared better than they do. The
Subaru had less ground clearance than a C5?
How is it any worse than Troy's 86? Or all the g35/350z/e92 that get driven around? I live in Western NY but we really don't get much snow.
Yes coilovers + front lip
For anyone who caresBut when an engine and turbo intercooler circuit get too badly heat-soaked, the engine controller starts pulling spark advance to prevent knock, which is hard to compensate for with math. That's when you end up with a 235-hp, 260-lb-ft turbocharged engine that can't keep up with its 185-hp, 178-lb-ft naturally aspirated sibling.
All vehicles tested were loaded to Ultimate trim spec, and both the hot and cool 2.0-liter turbos feature HTRAC all-wheel drive while the 2.4-liter naturally aspirated cars are both front-driven. Despite still enjoying a 3.5-pounds-per-horsepower advantage on paper, in the desert the turbo trailed the 2.4-liter by 0.7 second to 60 mph (9.6 versus 8.9 seconds) and by 0.4 second and 1.5 mph through the quarter mile (17.1 seconds at 82.8 mph versus 16.7 at 84.3).
The results of our winter test session at California Speedway reverse that outcome, with the turbo beating its down-market sibling to 60 mph by 0.8 second (7.8 versus 8.6 seconds) and by 0.5 second and 4.4 mph in the quarter (16.0 seconds at 88.9 mph versus 16.5 at 84.5).
That’s just a testament to shitty engineering designed with a budget in mind. Slanty H lifeJohnny_P wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:58 am This article on the Hyundai Santa Fe highlights what's wrong with turbocharged motors.
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hyundai ... st-review/
For anyone who caresBut when an engine and turbo intercooler circuit get too badly heat-soaked, the engine controller starts pulling spark advance to prevent knock, which is hard to compensate for with math. That's when you end up with a 235-hp, 260-lb-ft turbocharged engine that can't keep up with its 185-hp, 178-lb-ft naturally aspirated sibling.
All vehicles tested were loaded to Ultimate trim spec, and both the hot and cool 2.0-liter turbos feature HTRAC all-wheel drive while the 2.4-liter naturally aspirated cars are both front-driven. Despite still enjoying a 3.5-pounds-per-horsepower advantage on paper, in the desert the turbo trailed the 2.4-liter by 0.7 second to 60 mph (9.6 versus 8.9 seconds) and by 0.4 second and 1.5 mph through the quarter mile (17.1 seconds at 82.8 mph versus 16.7 at 84.3).
The results of our winter test session at California Speedway reverse that outcome, with the turbo beating its down-market sibling to 60 mph by 0.8 second (7.8 versus 8.6 seconds) and by 0.5 second and 4.4 mph in the quarter (16.0 seconds at 88.9 mph versus 16.5 at 84.5).this is why I fucking HATED driving my GTI through the city. Philly summers end up in the mid to high 80s and mid 90s, with high humidity (not Texas humidity mind you but up there). And South Philly is a stop and go environment with all the street intersections. All tiny turbo motors heat soak to the gills within 5-10 minutes of driving in these conditions.
The fact that the turbo motor here lost almost 2 seconds 0-60 is ridiculous, but goes to show how much the engine is leaning on the turbo to make power, and when that turbo is useless the whole thing goes to shit. Look at the consistency of the NA motor. There is literally no point in getting the turbo in this specific vehicle.
You can’t be serious about your question.