Javelin wrote: In reply to yamaha: Disagree. The 01/02 Cobra's were dogs, too. In fact, that's how we got the SC Cobra in 03/04. The head of SVT was so pissed off at how slow the cars were he forced the engineers to add forced induction. But that's off the topic.
Thanks, I needed a laugh. I wish that's how the auto industry actualy worked some times!
Javelin wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: So how much were the 2001-2002 (if we care about the 2002, since it was never sold in the states) overrated in terms of HP?Que? If you're talking about the Mustang, it was 2000 that they skipped. And they did do revisions for the 01/02 models, but they were still underpowered and over-estimated. Find any car magazine from back them. Hot Rod did a very in depth piece in mid-02 when the SC 03 Cobra came along, including the head of SVT/blower story.
It wasn't so much underpowered, as undertorqued. It made the numbers as promised, but it wasn't "brutal" fast. It was very much the opposite of the old pushrod 5.0 that made the Mustang fun to drive. Big reason was the switch from the "B" to "C" 4v heads. The huge port cross section increase killed all the torque, well, as much as a limpdick 4.6 can make.
SlickDizzy wrote: Wasn't the 4+3 transmission in the early C4 'Vettes also designed to fool the EPA test or something?
Don't know about the 4+3, but the six speed forced a 1st to 4th upshift if you weren't on the throttle hard enough. It wasn't too hard to bypass, IIRC.
Javelin wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: So how much were the 2001-2002 (if we care about the 2002, since it was never sold in the states) overrated in terms of HP?Que? If you're talking about the Mustang, it was 2000 that they skipped. And they did do revisions for the 01/02 models, but they were still underpowered and over-estimated. Find any car magazine from back them. Hot Rod did a very in depth piece in mid-02 when the SC 03 Cobra came along, including the head of SVT/blower story.
The 01 made the power they claimed, but it still wasn't enough for them to take on their hated rivals(camaro ss, and t/a ws6). They built the '03-4 basically to never have that issue.....except gm canned the f-body in '02, thus no competition.
I believe the '99 claimed 315hp but ended up making around 290 after they revised things before production. After the recall/fix they generally made their advertised power, its just 4.6L n/a wasn't enough to compete versus the lsx.
Ranger50 wrote: It wasn't so much underpowered, as undertorqued. It made the numbers as promised, but it wasn't "brutal" fast. It was very much the opposite of the old pushrod 5.0 that made the Mustang fun to drive. Big reason was the switch from the "B" to "C" 4v heads. The huge port cross section increase killed all the torque, well, as much as a limpdick 4.6 can make.
This exactly, they made the power claimed, they just didn't have the torque of the other cars. The '03-4 definitely changed the way ford viewed it. And I think is why they've held the power advantage in the top of their lineup(gt500 vs zl1) Personally, they should have kept the 5.4L 32v used in the '00 Cobra R
Edit, Also to clear the historical instances.....'99 saw the svt cobra, '00 there was the limited production cobra R, '01 the standard svt cobra was back, for '02......there shouldn't be any cobra's built for north america this year(aussieland only), and then for '03/4 the "terminator" was built.
Javelin wrote: I know that a vast majority of new cars (looking you square in the eye FORD!!!) have onboard "mileage computers" that are *wildly* optimistic (Edmunds is reporting some Fords claiming 4-5 MPG better on the PC than it actually gets), but that's not covered by law.
I think it was EVO a few years back that tested a few high efficiency cars (Prius vs Panda, maybe?) and checked the computer claims at the same time. The Prius computer was wildly optimistic from what I recall.
Javelin wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: So how much were the 2001-2002 (if we care about the 2002, since it was never sold in the states) overrated in terms of HP?Que? If you're talking about the Mustang, it was 2000 that they skipped. And they did do revisions for the 01/02 models, but they were still underpowered and over-estimated. Find any car magazine from back them. Hot Rod did a very in depth piece in mid-02 when the SC 03 Cobra came along, including the head of SVT/blower story.
Right, they did skip 2000, but 2002 was only sold in Australia, and EXTREMELY small quantities.
I'm simply asking how much the 01/02s were over-rated vs. actual. Is that hard number out there?
I know they were "slow," but that's not what's being discussed here.
This pisses me off. The combined rating differences between most of these are 1-2mpg. 3-6%. I've owned 3 now and every single one exceeds the window sticker, some by a crap-load.
I put this out there right now.... any of these whiny bitches that claim they're not getting the economy, give me your car for 2 weeks and I'll show you above average numbers on every tank.
Learn to drive morons.
As far as the onboard mileage computers go...
My 2009 WRX was always optimistic. It got about 2 mpg less than whatever the thing said.
In my Mazda 3, the computer is pessimistic. I always get 1-2 mpg BETTER than what the dash says! It's rated at 21/28, and the worst I've gotten is 26. That tank was last year during the winter, on snow tires, and stuck in bumper to bumper traffic to and from work every day. Best I've gotten so far was 32mpg.
joey48442 wrote:Javelin wrote: In reply to EvanB: Consumer perception. If it had been GM or Toyota there would be rioting in the streets right now. Look at how much flak Mazda (RX-8) and Ford (Mustang Cobra) still get for over-selling horsepower!They did it with the Miata as well. Joey
They did the opposite with the mazda2.
rated at 100hp and it dynos at 95-97whp. I don't think there is a 4% drivetrain loss in that badboy...
"Hyundai and Kia executives said the higher figures were unintentional errors. They apologized and promised to pay owners of the 900,000 cars and SUVs for the difference in mileage. The payments, which will be made annually for as long as people own their cars, are likely to cost the companies hundreds of millions of dollars."
and
"The EPA said it began looking at Hyundai and Kia when it received a dozen complaints from consumers that the mileage of their 2012 Hyundai Elantra cars fell short of numbers on the window stickers. Staffers at the EPA's vehicle and fuel emission laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich., included the Elantra in an annual fuel economy audit."
Bobzilla wrote: This pisses me off. The combined rating differences between most of these are 1-2mpg. 3-6%. I've owned 3 now and every single one exceeds the window sticker, some by a crap-load. I put this out there right now.... any of these whiny bitches that claim they're not getting the economy, give me your car for 2 weeks and I'll show you above average numbers on every tank. Learn to drive morons.
Dude, that's not what's happening. I don't even think anyone is claiming poor mileage (unlike the Honda case). The issue is the EPA says the cars get 37, 38, etc and Hyundai/KIA put 40 on the window sticker.
I think Honda is behind this.......
I understand what happened here. A simple mistake in translation. The word for 38 in Korean is 40.
Javelin wrote:Bobzilla wrote: This pisses me off. The combined rating differences between most of these are 1-2mpg. 3-6%. I've owned 3 now and every single one exceeds the window sticker, some by a crap-load. I put this out there right now.... any of these whiny bitches that claim they're not getting the economy, give me your car for 2 weeks and I'll show you above average numbers on every tank. Learn to drive morons.Dude, that's not what's happening. I don't even think anyone is claiming poor mileage (unlike the Honda case). The issue is the EPA says the cars get 37, 38, etc and Hyundai/KIA put 40 on the window sticker.
..... Read the post right above yours. 
That is, in fact, exactly what's happening.
Hyundai put 33 on my window sticker. In the fine print, on the sticker, it says up to 39 mpg highway.
So they fluffed the big number a little bit, its probably still well within the expected fuel economy range of the car. Of course owners who are not very car savvy of the car are probably E36 M3ting themselves in anger right now, and want some money from Hyundai.
2 mpg is practically nothing when you look at the big picture anyways.
yamaha wrote: I think Honda is behind this.......
Them or Nissan.
Bobzilla wrote:yamaha wrote: I think Honda is behind this.......Them or Nissan.
Nah this is GRM. It's Toyota's fault.
Speaking of which... i guarantee that if this article had "Toyota/Lexus" swapped in place of "Hyundai/Kia," Bob would be targeting his rage at the manufacturer, not the owners.
No, I distinctly remember defending Toyota with the gas pedal issue. Even though I despice the car company, driver stupidity is still just that... stupidity.
86k in 18 months, this could be interesting
I agree with Bob I have an average every tank of 40mpg
Even if I qualified for this stupid rebate thing, I personally wouldn't take it on principle alone. If you're too stupid to understand that you aren't going to get 40mpg when you live in Long Island and drive 11 miles of stop-n-go traffic each way, then there is nothing any of us can do to help you.
Bobzilla wrote: Even if I qualified for this stupid rebate thing, I personally wouldn't take it on principle alone. If you're too stupid to understand that you aren't going to get 40mpg when you live in Long Island and drive 11 miles of stop-n-go traffic each way, then there is nothing any of us can do to help you.
Meh, i'd take it! Money is money. If someone is offering, i'm accepting.
We didn't take it back in '04 when Hyundai over reported the hp ratings (138 instead of 140). Wife wanted it. I said "no, we didn't buy it because it made 140hp. We bought it because it was the best carfor the money, hands down"
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Sorry man, that wasn't in the linked story and that post wasn't there when I was writing my response to Bob.
failboat wrote: Hyundai put 33 on my window sticker. In the fine print, on the sticker, it says up to 39 mpg highway. So they fluffed the big number a little bit, its probably still well within the expected fuel economy range of the car. Of course owners who are not very car savvy of the car are probably E36 M3ting themselves in anger right now, and want some money from Hyundai. 2 mpg is practically nothing when you look at the big picture anyways.
Yeah if you consider highwayspeeds of 60 I'm sure you will get 43mpg.
You'll need to log in to post.
