siegen

Ethanol is not worth it until it is produced from waste cellulosic materials and does not impact our food supply. Ethanol from corn is rubbish. And even if we wanted to, switching over our entire domestic corn crop to the production of Ethanol fuel would only displace in the neighborhood of 12-13% of gasoline usage. As it stands right now, we are only displacing around 2% of gasoline and using 15% of our corn crop. Many other crops have been displaced to make room for more corn land. Often times studies fail to take into account the lessened supply of all food crops, not just corn. Increasing Ethanol production from corn is going to raise the prices of all farm crops. Source

Well better pull every single car that's every been sold ever off the roads!

I would like to see a large BOF Cadillac get hit in the same manner by a Trailblazer. While the car probably won't crumple as much, $10 says the driver will just as likely die. And does anyone know the speed that these tests were done at? Honda's ACE body structure which it is slowly incorporating into all of its cars and SUVs is designed to help with the size disparity between SUV's and cars in collisions, as well as pedestrian impacts. Is GM doing anything with its SUV's to make them safer when colliding with cars and pedestrians?

'88 Buick Regal '04 GMC Sierra (5.3) '99 Saturn SC '94 Pontiac Sunbird '03 Pontiac Grand Prix '04~ Chevy Impala '96 Chevy Cavalier '92 Pontiac Firebird/Trans Am (V6) '03 GMC Sierra (diesel) Plenty more but those are the first ones to come to mind. Most I have driven on several occasions, but a couple were just once. The list does not include any test drives. The Impala and Grand Prix were rentals. I've driven more GM vehicles than any other make combined.

I have a brilliant idea. Simply brilliant! I have been working on the prototype for quite some time now. It will solve all of our fuel problems without impacting the corn supply. And not only this, it will single-handedly solve America's obesity problem! Here are some technical documents for my invention. They are quite technical and designed for engineers, so normal folk might not grasp them, but I can assure you, the system is quite simple in execution.

The Prelude engines were all transversely mounted, however the RL/Legend did have a longitudinally mounted engine during one generation. I would have to look it up though as I don't remember which.

No more urea injection?

You have to remember though, the competition is completely different here, as almost every car has a bigger engine. And the Civic here and in Europe are entirely different models; C&D tested the manual-transmission Sedan at 7.7 0-60, the coupe might be a tenth or so quicker as it is 30-40lbs lighter weight than the Sedan in each trim level. Oldsmoboi is right in that we all have lead feet. I like to accelerate to 65mph by the time I'm at the end of the on-ramp, and I think everyone should be able to as people entering the freeway at 50mph who are still accelerating are slowing everyone down. The Cobalt does quite well with the 2.2L. Based on user reports here, it averages 28mpg with auto (31 submissions), and 35mpg with manual (only 12 submissions). That is combined of course, and there aren't a whole lot of submissions to draw a solid conclusion from, but it gives an idea.

I'm not disagreeing that a 1.8L is fine for this size vehicle (most others on this board will be the ones to disagree), I'm saying that GM could have used a 2.0L or 2.2L and probably achieved very close on mileage and given the car some performance over the Civic, Corolla, and others. I realize that GM wanted to bring over the Astra as quickly as possible, which is the reason for the no engine choices. The 2.2L from the Cobalt will hopefully find its way into the Astra in the next model year or 2, and should be a much better performer. Cobalt 2.2L Sedan 2,747 lbs 24/33 (MT) 22/31 (AT) Astra 1.8L 5-door 2,778 lbs 24/32 (MT) 24/30 (AT) From Car and Driver: Regardless of how good it handles, that kind of acceleration is going to hurt. C&D tested the manual-trans base civic at 7.7 seconds 0-60. And just for the record, I am quite used to compact cars. I drive a 1.8L Integra and 2.0L Escort wagon, and used to have a 1.6L Civic.

Most of the overhang in Honda products is due to ACE body structure, or so it seems.

"midsize"? More like asiansize. har har har.

I see a lot of Elements, driven by every possible demographic you can think of. This is probably because it is indeed a very useful vehicle. You are right about the xB though, I see mostly old farts driving those around. But then what we see driving these vehicles doesn't indicate the majority. The xB was made to be trendy, the Element was made to be useful. The Element SC is marketed more inline with the xB.

Gotta love the glove-box cup holders. Probably made by the same people who did the old EPA rating system. You know, the people who think everyone drives calmly and slowly all the time. The way I drive, a drink wouldn't make it out of my driveway before ending up on my passenger's lap. (it probably wouldn't make it out of the garage.... hell I'd probably knock it over just getting into my car --which is through the window like a racecar driver.... err j/k on that last part .

(Spoken in the voice of "Bruce the Performance Artist" from family guy): "Heeeey, I'm a hybrid car. I'm comin' through. Better watch out now I might run ya over."

Anata wa Cadillac desu ka Edit: It looks like GM does sell some cars in Japan, although only a small selection. GM Japan. That's news to me.

I saw an ad for the Astra the other day tauting 32 hwy mpg, which prompted me to look into it (I didn't even know it was available here yet). I am quite astonished at the EPA ratings. It has a 1.8L engine slightly weaker than the Civic's, yet only achieves 24/32. The automatic looks even more grim at 24/30. Getting barely better mileage than a considerably larger, heavier, and probably faster mid-size sedan isn't a good selling point: Accord 2.4L Automatic 21/31 Astra 1.8L Automatic 24/30 The Astra weighs about 100 lbs more than the Civic in base form (the gap narrows to only a few lbs in the high end model), has one less gear on the automatic, and less hp and tq. I can't imagine driving it is going to be that exciting. Why didn't GM put a larger engine in it? I bet the mileage would be the same.

Are you drunk?

That is a tremendous exaggeration. I replaced the timing belt in my car (a '99 Integra) at 85-90~ thousand miles just to be safe (I did it myself along with water pump). The old belt looked nearly new, almost difficult to tell the difference between the new and old one. The recommended interval is 90k miles for my car I believe, and newer cars are over 100k. It is possible very old Accords or Camry's had 50k intervals, but I highly doubt it. It might cost you close to $1000 if you take your car to the dealer, bend over, and take it up the ass . If you take it to a respectable shop, at least for my car, I could have had it done under $400. I spent around $100 in parts and did it myself however. I didn't think timing chains had to be replaced?

The last-gen Accord was much classier looking than the G6. The G6 looked like it was a copy of that Accord, with some slightly more aggressive angles but otherwise very close to the level of blandness.

How can you judge the "cheapness" of trim by a picture? Real wood is offered as part of the Tech package (I believe), and real wood used to be standard on the base RL prior to the MSRP being lowered. Acura switched to fake wood for cost reasons obviously. The one thing I don't like about the RL's interior in particular is the foot e-brake. Would have liked to see something more elegant incorporated -something operated by hand preferably. Or perhaps an electronic e-brake.

What year is your TL? If it's still under warranty, the blue-smoke, rattle, and dash should be fixed. Sounds like you have a lot of questions about your car's features. Hopefully the dealer can get you straightened out. (Btw, good job making it sound much worse than it is though ).

However Top Gear tests different cars in different racing conditions. Different temperature, humidity, sometimes in the wet. They tested an NSX-R in a downpour, subtracted 3-sec from the time, and put it on their wall of lap times.

Barely? 1:09 vs 1:12 is more than just barely, it's very significant. After 4 laps, the S2000 and RX8 aren't even in the same sections of the racetrack. The timed acceleration runs only tell part of the story, its on the track where both of the cars excel in handling and balance. Agreed that the S2000 is more hard core and should therefor spank the RX8. As it does, and more than just barely. If you really need the 4 seats, you can always stuff the kids in the trunk. :AH-HA_wink:

I know, I don't see any point in comparing Mazda to Acura. There is the one obvious comparison, and that is the CX-7 and RDX, mainly because they are similar in size and powerplant. But they are very different and compete in different segments. Reg likes to compare the two brands a lot though. The S2000 is similar to the RX8 in that it is about handling and balance, except it takes it to a much higher level. The RX8 has a back seat, adding the extra weight, which puts it at a disadvantage. However, the S2000 is a convertible, adding weight and putting it at a disadvantage to hard tops. How do you explain the Integra Type R (which is essentially our RSX Type S) matching and even beating the RX8? The Integra was out-cornering/braking the RX8 and pulling away on the straights. We could chuck it up to a bad driver... Omg, is this a thread about the RL? I completely forgot.