The definition of "slow"

[Blackbird.]

Not that it has bad 0-60 times(maybe it does) but the 2001 Montero has a very doggie engine. It's horrible.

 

[Famine]

It depends, really. The Accord Hybrid is a rocketship; it's the most powerful, quickest, and fastest Accord sedan ever. But it's not doing much better than 30mpg.

Quicker than the 2.2 litre VTEC Honda Accord Type-R? 0-62mph took 7.5s and they quoted mpgs in the 40s (when you weren't ragging it, obv).

Or didn't you get that in the USA?

 

[1X83Z]

eurovans that came after them weighed even more, had a slightly peppier engine. but also have a weekender option that increased weight a whole bunch if it was alraedy the top level model. i dont know thier 0-60times either.

Fair point - one of my friends owned a Eurovan weekender, which was totaled then replaced with another non-weekender Eurovan. In 1999 they added a V6 to the Eurovan but it only got 140hp; in 2001 it finally got the power bump it needed to be a decent vehicle when it was re-rated at 201hp. But before that it was definitely a dog. The 1999-2000 V6 did 0-60 in 12.2, the 1993-1998 four in about sixteen. I think the 2001-2003 V6 finally got it under ten.

Quicker than the 2.2 litre VTEC Honda Accord Type-R? 0-62mph took 7.5s and they quoted mpgs in the 40s (when you weren't ragging it, obv).

Or didn't you get that in the USA?

I don't know what generation the Accord you mention comes from. Europe currently gets no Type-R Accord, so are you referring to the previous generation?

Either way - the Accord Hybrid is certainly quicker than the 2.2 Type-R; our current Accord V6 does 0-60 in about 7.3 seconds, and the Hybrid's likely under seven. The mileage figure I quoted for the Accord Hybrid is for 'normal driving'; EPA will probably rate it in the forties. But no-one drives that conservatively anyway. The US has never gotten a Type-R Honda, with the exception of the Integra, which was sold here badged as an Acura in 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001.

 

[Duke]

The 1980-vintage Chevette Diesel with automatic trans had a 0-60 time in the very high 20s range, like 28-30 seconds. They were a serious road hazard.

Remember, folks, Consumer Retards specifically recommends against buying the more-power option for their readers, because they say it's "not necessary".

 

[Famine]

I don't know what generation the Accord you mention comes from. Europe currently gets no Type-R Accord, so are you referring to the previous generation?

Yes.

 

[1X83Z]

Remember, folks, Consumer Retards specifically recommends against buying the more-power option for their readers, because they say it's "not necessary".

That's why they suck. Though I agree in some cases, because sometimes manufacturers can't justify the expense. The Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Rally, for instance, or the Ford Crown Victoria LX Sport over the LX with the Handling & Performance Package and some options.

 

[Blackbird.]

Do those devices that measure HP & Torque and 0-60 times work or have I fallen to the level of many gullible people?

 

[skip0110]

Such as the G-Tech? I have no personal experience, but Hot Rod magazine rated them a 4/5 for accuracy. I think thats pretty good.

 

[1X83Z]

Do those devices that measure HP & Torque and 0-60 times work or have I fallen to the level of many gullible people?

Anything's better than a stopwatch!

 

[Duke]

Do those devices that measure HP & Torque and 0-60 times work or have I fallen to the level of many gullible people?

Like Doug says, they're better than a stopwatch and eyeballs looking at the speedo.

The G-tech, etc. are not exceptionally accurate in absolute numbers, but they're not bad. The real way to use them is not so much to find absolute times but to measure relative differences in times, as a tuning tool.

 

[Azuremen]

Hybrid cars can be exceptionally fast... because of the additional torque. I've heard the new V6 Accord Hybrid can break into the 6's for 0-60 MPH times.

Basically, it all comes down to how you setup engine and computers to work. The Prius has about 200 ft/lbs (maybe more) because of its electric motor. Not alot of HP though, only like 20 from the electric, but well, 160 Ft/lbs or something, at least. They don't help top speed, but launches and acceleration... from hybrid tech... can become nuts...

 

[retsmah]

Toyota's site says the electric motor is good for around 300ft-lbs and 70ish hp, but the battery can only put out a maximum of 28hp. The car is still pretty slow because 300ftlbs doesn't do you a whole lot of good if the engine can only make that kind of power at 1000rpm. You'll either accelerate up to about 5mph at 1000rpm, or you have to do longer gearing, which reduces the torque put to the wheels.

Really, 28hp is 28hp, regardless of how much torque the engine puts out.

 

[Ronnn]

i think SUV/Van engine are slow because they have high torque
they usually have high torque with low hp numbers.

 

[skip0110]

Really, 28hp is 28hp, regardless of how much torque the engine puts out.

This is true in all-out driving, where the engine is held at peak hp rpms for a long time. But tootling around the city at 2000 rpms or under, peak torque matters a lot. So peak hp is going to play the leading role in determining 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, but does not dictate the "feel" of the engine all around.

 

[TheCracker]

PAYING ATTENTION TO MAINSTREAM MAGAZINES FOR 0-60 TIMES IS A STUPID MISTAKE. Don't rely on them, ever.

...what should people read to get their comparisons then?

 

[1X83Z]

...what should people read to get their comparisons then?

I read ConsumerGuide.

The Internet is your best resource, though. Find several sites, compare times, use common sense.

 

[Azuremen]

Actually, hybrid tech can do quite a bit to 0-60, depending on setup. A system equipped to standard production car, such as the WRX, if setup correctly, can kill over a second on teh 0-60...

So yeah, it helps with acceleration, just depends on how the Electric motor works in conjuction with the gas.

 

[neanderthal]

Find several sources, compare times, use common sense.

corrected that for you. italics mine.

i agree.

 

[TheCracker]

I read ConsumerGuide.

The Internet is your best resource, though. Find several sites, compare times, use common sense.

Whats wrong with comparing several magazine listings and using common sense?

I personally choose EVO as my source - but that because i respect the talents of the testers - mostly Barker, Meaden and Bovington and i know they always use the same quality equipment.

 

[skip0110]

Reading Car and Driver to compare cars seems fine in my book. In the real world, which car is faster from a light or on the strip depends on so many factors--the age of the cars, the driver, the traction, the condition of the tires, the temperature/humidity, how fat each driver shifts, etc.--that it is pointless to attempt to compare these times to C&D's SAE corrected figures.

What Car and Driver attains is reapeatability, so that you can compare the virtues to two different cars tested on different days.

And the WRX is an outlier. Why do you have to bring it up? For the most part C&D's test figures show excellent repeatability considering the varying conditions under whihc they test.

 

[1X83Z]

corrected that for you. italics mine.

i agree.

You probably shouldn't though - purist that you are, you can probably replicate the fast-shifting of C&D and R&T like no-one else here. Of course, I'm assuming here, but most people I know who have 2002s drive like no other.

 

[TurboLevin2NV]

Car and Driver also does dump clutch starts, NOT something you want to do on a daily basis. I usually look at the 5-60 rolling start, it's a more realistic gauging of accel. We never just drop the clutch or brake toraue our cars now do we? Unless of course, we pay for a new clutch more often than tires

 

[neanderthal]

You probably shouldn't though - purist that you are, you can probably replicate the fast-shifting of C&D and R&T like no-one else here. Of course, I'm assuming here, but most people I know who have 2002s drive like no other.

im tempted to say i dont drive like that, but the car kinda begs for it. good thing im driving a much more staid 300E instead right now. even though it does twice the speed limit (any speed limit in california) with consumate ease.

i certainly cant replicate the rapid shifts of the magazine crews as drag racing isnt my thing. i can find my way around a track though. id say the same is true for most 2002 drivers. but dont hold me to it.

 

[1X83Z]

More than I can do; I need an automatic on a track. Or an SMT. Though I've never actually driven an SMT on a track, I just imagine I could. Have you ever driven an SMT? I think for people who can't shift seamlessly it's better - wouldn't you say?

 

[neanderthal]

i get easily confused in the heat of the moment, so they arent for me. might shift up instead of down. and grenade a motor. not good.

anyway, thought id post this in support of my "anti SUV" stance. i found it amusing. i wonder if they even compared the greenhouse emissions of a large engined car, like say an S500. or 745iL. instead of comparing it to a pt criuiser.

if they really wanted to prove thier point they should have compared to same sized engined vehicles; one an SUV and one a car, say a CR-v vs a honda accord. dont believe the hype.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Toyota's site says the electric motor is good for around 300ft-lbs and 70ish hp, but the battery can only put out a maximum of 28hp. The car is still pretty slow because 300ftlbs doesn't do you a whole lot of good if the engine can only make that kind of power at 1000rpm. You'll either accelerate up to about 5mph at 1000rpm, or you have to do longer gearing, which reduces the torque put to the wheels.

Really, 28hp is 28hp, regardless of how much torque the engine puts out.

You're forgetting one thing. Electric motor torque is not dependent on RPM. So the 300 lb/ft is made throughout the full RPM range.

Additionally, the battery may only put out 28HP. However, the electric motor is not only powered by the battery, but gets most of its power from the alternator.

 

[1X83Z]

anyway, thought id post this in support of my "anti SUV" stance. i found it amusing. i wonder if they even compared the greenhouse emissions of a large engined car, like say an S500. or 745iL. instead of comparing it to a pt criuiser.

Yeah - pretty weak comparisons there. And I'm loving this quote:

"Their 4x4s are the size of double garages and they do eight miles to the gallon and it's completely wrong".

I've got to say, I'm not seeing that...

 

[87chevy]

Remember, there's two maxims in life:
1. Treat others the way you want to be treated
2. Only idiots buy Toyota trucks used

Wow, your calling alot of people idiots.... But why? I think you need to brush up on your truck history. Toyota trucks are some of the best trucks ever made. Maybe that's why people will pay so much for them. The 2.4L 4cyl your talking about , aka 22R/RE, is probably the best 4cyl engine ever put in a truck. Mine has 152000 miles, and the only reason it runs like crap is operator stupidity. It's amazing my '89 p/u still runs as good as it does considering i sucked muddy water down the carb. You don't see other trucks holding there value as well.... So what if it's slow? If it does it's job, and doesn't let you down, who cares? Obvioulsy not too many. I didn't know you could even get 4runners in manual, well maybe it's just the 4x4's that only come in automatic. I've got a '77 Landcruiser, Am I an idiot?

 

[1X83Z]

Wow, your calling alot of people idiots.... But why? I think you need to brush up on your truck history. Toyota trucks are some of the best trucks ever made. Maybe that's why people will pay so much for them. The 2.4L 4cyl your talking about , aka 22R/RE, is probably the best 4cyl engine ever put in a truck. Mine has 152000 miles, and the only reason it runs like crap is operator stupidity. It's amazing my '89 p/u still runs as good as it does considering i sucked muddy water down the carb. You don't see other trucks holding there value as well.... So what if it's slow? If it does it's job, and doesn't let you down, who cares?

So if all you need is a reliable engine, you could get a truck that does that job for half - or better - what a used Toyota truck costs. And it would be quicker, a side bonus. Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Dodge, Nissan, and Mitsubishi (if you're desperate) all come to mind.

Toyota trucks are as bad an investment as pre-1992 BMW cars. DO NOT BUY THOSE VEHICLES USED. Nearly every competitor is a better alternative.

I've got a '77 Landcruiser, Am I an idiot?

Depends when you bought it and what you paid.

 

[87chevy]

So if all you need is a reliable engine, you could get a truck that does that job for half - or better - what a used Toyota truck costs. And it would be quicker, a side bonus. Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Dodge, Nissan, and Mitsubishi (if you're desperate) all come to mind.

Toyota trucks are as bad an investment as pre-1992 BMW cars. DO NOT BUY THOSE VEHICLES USED. Nearly every competitor is a better alternative.

Why are they a bad investment, I still don't understand? Sure, a NEW truck from the other brands might be as good, but why spend all that cash? And how is buying a reliable vehicle, which clearly has great resale, a bad investment?