siegen

I'm not commenting on the towing or hauling ability of the Sierra, it is more than sufficient and believe me I have had ours full (maybe a bit overfull). But it has its fair share of problems despite being very well taken care of. And my car isn't lowered anymore, that is an old picture (very old actually). It sits about an inch higher, enough for me to get over speed bumps at normal speeds :AH-HA_wink:

Too bad the new ones aren't as good. :AH-HA_wink:

Do we know for sure it is based off of the Atima Sedan? It's hard to tell how big it is from those pictures.

So this is just a reskinned G35? Do they really need it if they already have the 350z? It just doesn't seem right. It looks good for sure, but it just seems too small and sporty to make a good mid-size coupe. Maybe this is the replacement for the 350z haha :AH-HA_wink:

GM did create their own problems, just as Toyota is now. You can't deny that Toyota has had a lot more recalls recently, and has been struggling to meet their model cycle deadlines. We may poke fun at Toyota but they do seem to be overextending themselves quite a bit to acheive their goals (rather than growing steadily).

Good ol' Geely again. Every vehicle they make is a direct rip of another. It's kind of funny actually.

I'm guessing his wife probably likes it, and it doesn't bug her.

But it's true. That's what Toyota told us and they never lie.

How do you define usable power? If a car doesn't have a lot of get-up below 1300rpms or so, does it not have any usable power? If a car can't roast the tires off idle, does it not have any usable power? Would an ecotec 4cyl not also choke if you gave it a lot of gas below 1300rpms? Here's the solution...... are you ready?...... shift into the correct gear. It's that easy. I regularly drive two vehicles at opposite ends of this spectrum. A '99 Integra (daily driver) and a '04 Sierra (work horse). The Sierra rarely gets above 1500rpms, and drives just fine. If I need to go fast, I give it some gas, it shifts down to around 2000-2300rpms, and I'm gone. In the Integra, I normally shift between 2500-3000rpms, and never let the rpm's drop below 1500rpms. If I want to go really fast, I just make sure I shift at a higher rpm. If I'm at 1600-1800rpms cruising and need to accelerate quickly, with just a flick of the wrist I'm back at about 3000rpms and have no trouble accelerating. It takes a different driving style, but once you're used to it, you realize there is nothing wrong with it, and it is more fun at the same time.

It looks like it was styled in the early 90's, and kind of resembles the Civic's of that time, except taller like a minivan. Not the best exterior styling, but I'm sure they had more important things to worry about.

Not bad for the old version. Sounds like it's pleasant to drive.

I hate automatic transmissions. I remember the one in my last Buick... the last auto I've ever owned (or every will if I have anything to say about it). I also hate not having a tach! That's almost as bad as not having a speedo.

Looks like Reg has found a new home at www.canadiandriver.com. After seeing those pictures, my opinion is still that the new Sentra looks cheap, at least cheaper than its competition. It looks like a sedan version of the Versa with a nice looking front end that doesn't match the rest of the body.

All of the 4 cylinders you posted there are turbocharged. The Si does have to be revved to go fast, which is no secret. For some people that is a problem, and there's nothing we can do for them. :AH-HA_wink: The mileage depends greatly on throttle position and load, and not so much on RPM's. How you drive effects mileage a lot more than any other factor. Driving the Civic Si and shifting at 2500rpms or at 5000rpms will make little difference in your average fuel economy. Driving the Civic Si at WOT or part throttle will make all the difference. Here's a nifty little chart courtesy of the guys at Team Integra, where we don't just guess at things (hint). It is the stock fuel map out of the ECU for the Integra Type R. You can see the rpm axis and how little it effects fuel until you get to the high load area. With a turbocharged car, whenever you are in boost, you are using considerably more fuel to compensate. This can happen at part throttle and even low rpms, depending on the turbo and tuning. The main reason for poor fuel economy with a 4 cyl is actually do to giving it too much gas at too low rpms, or shifting too early. You are increasing both load and throttle (more fuel) without acheiving as much work (miles traveled).

That's nothing :AH-HA_wink:

That is a pretty hefty drop. Compare it to the GTI which only lost 11% hp and 7% tq and the Si which only lost 9% hp and 4% tq. Also compare it to the RDX dyno I posted. They ran the RDX on a 2 wheel roller dyno just like the one in the Automag test. Not quite sure about elevation or humidity though. The RDX engine is rated at 240/260 and did a 211/227 through an automatic transmission. The Mazda is rated to 263/280 and did a 216/245 through a manual transmission. Somethings not right here

Only Toyota could get away with marketting a mini-minivan like this... I think every manufacturer could learn from their marketting department.

25hp may be a little much, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is close. The torque converter robs quite a bit of power. I think the bigger thing we're missing is that the Mazdaspeed 3 engine is rated to 263hp / 280tq at the crank by Mazda, yet this test shows 216hp / 245tq at the wheels. A bit overrated there Mazda?? :AH-HA_wink: I wouldn't be surprised if the CX-7 engine is a bit overrated as well, which may also be why it is slower than the RDX. So not only does the Mazda have a cruddy tq curve, but it is overrated as well. For comparison, the Civic Si is rated to 197hp / 139tq by Honda, and made 180hp / 134tq at the wheels. I'm not trying to say the Civic Si is a faster car than the Mazdaspeed 3. I'm just ragging on the Mazda. Wasn't the RX8 also overrated quite a lot? That must mean the Corvette is a less useful car than the 350z, since it weighs less. Right? :AH-HA_wink:

Damnit, I have to upgrade again! I hate these patches. Why can't they fix all the bugs in beta testing and only have one release?

The RDX is a little better. It doesn't drop off as much in the high end. the TOV did a dyno test on it, and posted the chart (you can see it here). I overlaid its torque curve onto the Mazda dyno below (light green line is RDX TQ). Keep in mind the RDX's power was being fed through an automatic while the Mazdaspeed through a manual, so the numbers will be lower on the RDX. The dark green line should be approximately what the RDX would do with a manual transmission (since they both have the same peak TQ number at the crank, the losses would hopefully be about the same). Looking at the torque curve you can see it doesn't drop off as much. Also, the reason it looks like the power comes on so late is because I don't think they went WOT until 2.5k to 3.0k rpms where-as the testers doing the Madza dyno stomped on it much sooner. I have a feeling the RDX has better low end TQ as well, since Acura focused a lot on that and the i-vtec would help optimize both ends of the rev range.

Powerband referes to the TQ curve as that shows what work the engine is actually doing. The HP curve is derived from the TQ curve (hp = tq * rpm / 5252) and isn't a real number that your car produces (so to speak) but more of a helper equation designed to show how a car accelerates . Having a flat TQ curve means acceleration increases at a constant rate and doesn't drop off or surge. It is very important for a race car as sudden changes in the TQ curve (dips or surges) can cause instability while accelerating. It's funny cause Honda generally tunes their vtec engines to have a slightly abrupt vtec crossover, which would actually be bad on a race track (you can see the abrupt crossover on the Civic Si's dyno in the article). They do it though as it feels cool I guess for all the "Vtec Yo!" kids. The flat TQ curve, among other things, in almost all Honda vtec engines is why every review you read of them talks about how they love to rev and rev easily. It's because the TQ doesn't drop off like most N/A (naturally aspirated) 4cyl engines do around 5k-5.5k rpms. I'm not saying the GTI has a bad TQ curve though, just the 3. The GTI's is pretty good, even though the TQ does drop off steadily, it doesn't suddenly come on and then drop off abruptly like the 3.

The good ol' SLX. An Isuzu Trooper in disguise. :AH-HA_wink: The Troopers were not bad SUV's at all, and the Acura was like a loaded up version of one. I think Acura even used the Isuzu engine, but I don't know for sure. CR did complain a lot about how both the Isuzu and Acura rolled over, and gave them a "Not Acceptable" rating. No the Acura emblem didn't help with the stability.

That's why I said almost identical. It is the most flat, which is ideal. It just lacks in displacement.

You really are one-track minded aren't you? The Mazda3 makes big peak TQ and HP numbers, but has a poor powerband. It will be fast in a straight line, but the GTI would probably beat it around the track. Where the 3 keeps falling out of its powerband, the GTI will pull strong. The Civic Si has the nicest looking powerband and makes 85% of its peak TQ from 2k to 8k rpms, if it only had .2L or .4L more displacement... Also remember the Civic Si weighs 250-400 lbs less than these other two. The Ariel Atom uses an almost identical engine out of the Civic Type R and it isn't slow by any means.

I disagree. Specially with the HFP kit. :AH-HA_wink: