VW Passat 78.5 MPG (Imperial gallon) 65.2 MPG US gallon in the Uk

[Epidemic]

SoloCamo,

I often find it funny how people worry about the car that took 14 seconds to reach speed. generally speaking how does that impact your day.

a little more preparation for merging? You need to head for work 12 seconds earlier? When you had the 14 second car was your life all that much worse?

I mean I like going 0 to 60 in 6 seconds more than 14 but as far as the utility of the vechicle I am still gonna arrive at soccer practice, school and work in a reasonable time. The only sacrifice is a bunch fun.

[SoloCamo]

SoloCamo,

I often find it funny how people worry about the car that took 14 seconds to reach speed. generally speaking how does that impact your day.

a little more preparation for merging? You need to head for work 12 seconds earlier? When you had the 14 second car was your life all that much worse?

I mean I like going 0 to 60 in 6 seconds more than 14 but as far as the utility of the vechicle I am still gonna arrive at soccer practice, school and work in a reasonable time. The only sacrifice is a bunch fun.

I prefer SC, but spelling it out is fine too

That said, driving over an hour (40 miles) each way to work on mostly highway is my main reason. Sure, you can get by w/ an extremely slow car around town locally.

However, you NEED a car with a little more get up and go when merging at 60-70mph, BOTTOM LINE.

When coming from a stop with a short "runway" you will need every drop of power you need to SAFELY merge. There are no breaks in traffic, and people don't let you in.

My corolla struggles to merge at times, I literally often have to floor it to get up to speed in the short distance. My Jeep was faster, but not by much and you usually did ok (it was a lot louder, faster and people seemed to move over more for it)

The point being, short of a city w/ a max speed of 40, a 14 second vehicle is not ideal for anyone.

[Epidemic]

I guess we will have to disagree on this one.

I merged just fine with my 1976 dodge colt. My fathers Chevy Chevette diesel Automatic got me through up state new york traffic just fine even 20 seconds 0-60.

You may like to have the greater power but it is really far from an absolute requirement as evidenced by people who already drive dogs on the road with out incident.

I never ever found myself waiting 5 minutes on a merge looking for a break in traffic. I doubt I ever waited 20 seconds.

I don't suggest we have cars become chevette diesels but 10 to 14 seconds really deals with any reasonable traffic condition.

[SoloCamo]

I guess we will have to disagree on this one.

I merged just fine with my 1976 dodge colt. My fathers Chevy Chevette diesel Automatic got me through up state new york traffic just fine even 20 seconds 0-60.

You may like to have the greater power but it is really far from an absolute requirement as evidenced by people who already drive dogs on the road with out incident.

I never ever found myself waiting 5 minutes on a merge looking for a break in traffic. I doubt I ever waited 20 seconds.

I don't suggest we have cars become chevette diesels but 10 to 14 seconds really deals with any reasonable traffic condition.

Upstate New York is far from Tampa morning rush hour near I-275 my friend. And if you've never found yourself waiting to merge, or for the times were it's a rolling merge and never needed the power, then you really haven't driven anywhere that I would consider has traffic.

Keep in mind, again as noted in my previous post, I'm driving a corolla that is far from fast and it does "ok" but I often find I have to near floor it to merge. And again, my Jeep with a bit more power 180hp/235ftlbs torque (plus being a bit lighter than a new corvette) fares much better.

There's nothing to disagree on. A car that hits sixty in 14 seconds or more is NOT safe for daily highway merging in high speed, high traffic areas. It is fine in the city. Unless you consider "safe" cutting everyone off that is doing 60-70mph and watching the mayhem behind you

[Epidemic]

well you will have to show me where prius drivers are causing problems on I-275. It is clocking in at 10 seconds. I am sure that the drivers of the prius are not all lead footin it into the redline. As for upstate new york. I am not talking about albany. I am talking I 95 corridor, long island expressway.

I have never had a car that I could not reasonably achieve road speed in with out causing turmoil.



In fact I will one up you. I drove this to florida a couple of times. Plymouth voyager with the 4 cylinder and automatic

Then again perhaps the problem is the speed limit being too high. Perhaps in the interests of making more fuel efficient cars safe we need to lower the speed limit.


I guess part of the key is of course to try not to come to stop on the ramp before the merge.

[SoloCamo]

well you will have to show me where prius drivers are causing problems on I-275. It is clocking in at 10 seconds. I am sure that the drivers of the prius are not all lead footin it into the redline. As for upstate new york. I am not talking about albany. I am talking I 95 corridor, long island expressway.

I have never had a car that I could not reasonably achieve road speed in with out causing turmoil.

In fact I will one up you. I drove this to florida a couple of times.

I know the LIE, from long island myself (Glen Cove). This said, A prius capable of of 9-10 second 0-60 second times and good low end torque while being very aerodynamic moves alot faster than something hitting 60, as you noted, in 14 seconds or more.

4-5 more seconds may not sound like a lot, but it's a huge difference at such low speeds. Drive a car that does it in 5 seconds, then drive a car that does it in 9-10. HUGE difference, one is sport car acceleration, one is slow.

Add an aditional 10 seconds to that sport cars acceleration and you can only image the difference.

Currently at work so I can't view the video.

Now one thing I like you are misjudging here is that I'm saying cars need 300hp+ to go down the road, thats not the case. My Jeep is lucky to hit 8.x seconds to 60 on a good day with 200k on the clock as well as my corolla in the 10 second range w/ 200k on it.

I manage in these vehicles. Anything much slower, and my commute would be a disatrous nightmare

[The Real Bingo]

As a guy who loves fast cars and V8s and guzzling gas, I have to say there is absolutely no need to accelerate to 60MPH in less than 10 seconds. Even when merging, I rarely go half throttle on any vehicle I'm driving.

The argument made by some is we should mandate highly efficient cars to be manufactured no matter what the cost. A subsidy, you say? Well who pays for it? Everyone. So it doesn't make it cheaper...it just spreads the cost around to everyone, even if they don't plan to buy the product.

A business' first job is to make a profit. Sounds horrible, right? But when you account for the fact that the profit is derived from making things people want/need and/or providing a needed/wanted service, then it's not so bad. People are willing to pay for this. If a company can't make money making efficient cars (Chebby Volt), then there's no benefit to do it.

If the government/governmentalists want to "mandate" these efficient cars, then maybe the government should contract a company to build them and see how they sell. They would have to raise their own capital, though, and not use taxpayer money. It would be an interesting, albeit an impossible experiment.

[Gomer]

Those heavier cars are also a lot safer. If you throw out all of the safety equipment from today's vehicles that were not available in the past, the weight would be a lot closer.

ABS, stability control, air bags, etc. have added very little weight to the vehicles. Increased occupant protection is more of a result of improved engineering and design with very precise implementation of high strength steel in key components of the frame/body.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that the safety gear weighs more than the heavier drivetrains and stiffer chassis needed to manage the increased HP.

On one of the Fifth Gear (I think it was Fifth Gear, but may have been FDL or a half dozen other car shows I watch) episodes they talked with one of the engineers from Toyota asking them what the biggest hurdle was when designing the new Toyo-baru (This was a while back, before the prototype had even been shown) when it came to weight savings. The engineer said that if they add nothing to the car but just safety equipment (No A/C, radio, power steering, interior upholstery, ect...) and basically just had the bare essentials just to make the car drivable, they would only be a couple hundred pounds under their weight goal for the car. They originally wanted the car to only weight 2600lbs, but because of the new mandatory safety regulations that were introduced during the time the car was being designed, they ended up only being able to get the car down to a little over 2800lbs to be able to keep it at the price point they wanted. (And even then the price is $2,000 more than what they first announced). Car companies would love to strip out all of the safety equipment for their sports cars to make them light and affordable but the government won't let them.

You are also going to be hard pressed to convince me that the components that make this a race car (0-60 in 6 seconds, standing 1/4 mile in 15 seconds, top speed of 143 MPH) factor less into the weight of the car than does the safety requirements. Without any race car gear my civic weighs in at 2,400 pounds. So that argument is pretty much a non-starter.

Mazda decided to sacrifice the A/C in the RX8 to save weight so they installed a tiny wimpy ass compressor that only blew mildly cool air.

Again... the emphasis is on race car performance, not efficiency.

As for the horsepower thing, nother way to look at it is that it has increased without mileage decreasing, and in many cases both horsepower and mileage have increased. If you detune an engine to reduce horsepower, you are also going to lower the mileage as it will no longer run as efficiently. If you put a tiny under powered engine in a vehicle, that engine will have to work harder and may end up burning more fuel just to keep the same speed as a higher horsepower engine.

It's a good thing I have suggested doing neither of those things!

This is a very simple concept. Reduce 0-60 times and HP will go down efficiency will go up. Reduce HP and acceleration, and the weight of the components required to manage the forces those things generate will go down, and mileage will go up.

The charts don't lie.

The new Camry V6s are rated only 1mpg less in the city and equal the mpg on the highway as the new 200hp 4 Banger 2800lb FR-S/GT-86/BRZ. That is a 268hp V6 powered car weighing 3450lbs getting almost identical epa ratings as a 200hp i4 powered car weighing over 600lbs less.

So what? Do we need family sedans that do 0-60 in under 7 seconds with top speeds of 140+ MPH? That illustrated my point perfectly.

The reason why? They had to gear the FR-S/BR-Z/GT-86 transmission will really short gears to get it to accelerate at a decent rate since it was a sports car (Even then it is still slower than the Camry) and because of that it cruises along at around 4,000rpms at 70mph while the Camry cruises along at only 2,000rpms. An engine that makes more power, but isn't worked as hard will be more fuel efficient than an engine that makes less power but has to work harder.

Again, that perfectly illustrates my point.

I am not disagreeing with your points Gomer, I just wanted to say that it isn't always as simple as just cutting the horsepower and cutting weight. There are a lot of other factors to take into consideration. You can tell a car company to put in a smaller engine to save on gas, but unless they also put in a more efficient transmission, make the engine more efficient through higher compression/direct injection/variable valve timing/ect..., and make the car more aerodynamic they won't get the mileage gain that you would be hoping for just by lowering the horsepower and reducing weight.

Yes. It is that simple. It's as simple as you have made it out to be and I have never made it out to be otherwise. And if you think I have, you're mistaken.

HP and weight are the primary indicators. Reducing them are part of the comprehensive, easily implemented approach to drastically improving efficiency.

I am not suggesting that just taking a car and turning off the horsepower is the answer. I am stating that we have made great gains in efficiency and turned it into GOBS of HP and race car 0-60 times. Dial those things back to normal and efficiency will shoot up accordingly. They have been taking the energy from the fuel and putting it in the wrong places.

[Gomer]

All that stuff is still more expensive than steel.

How your grand dreams of lightweight efficient cars will probably be too pricey for the average person. Chevy Volt ring a bell?

My "grand dreams" only require dialing vehicle performance back to what it was in the 80s. That doesn't require any exotic materials. That doesn't require any special parts. And that decreases rather than increases the price.

Not entirely. Obviously not with manufacturers that make diesels and hybrids and small, efficient cars (which is almost every manufacturer).

The average doesn't lie. See the chart.

[Gomer]

To correct a few things here...

More SAFETY and features = more weight = more power to compensate for the weight.

You would be right if that 0-60 trend line was flat. The trend doesn't lie.

ABS, stability control, air bags, etc. have added very little weight to the vehicles. Increased occupant protection is more of a result of improved engineering and design with very precise implementation of high strength steel in key components of the frame/body.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that the safety gear weighs more than the heavier drivetrains and stiffer chassis needed to manage the increased HP.

Ever drive a 14 second to 60 vehicle? I'm glad those cars are long gone.

Yes. People still do on a daily basis. On the highways. And they manage to merge just fine.

Reducing power doesn't necessarily result in better gas mileage. But as was pointed out by Bizkit, you've got to be on the throttle more to get any sort of acceleration. More engine wear, just as much fuel consumed if not more.

Yes. On a fundamental basis it does. You only need that HP for acceleration.

You illustrate that perfectly here:

Now keep this in mind, I currently drive a 1997 model Corolla w/ a 1.8L (about 200k on the clock) and average atleast 30mpg.

The car also weighs a bit less than the newer models and doesn't have all the bloat. Yet the new ones, still get better mpg, and still are a lot faster with increased displacement. If we can get them lighter, and more aerodynamic with more efficient trasmissions, that will make way more noticeable improves than dropping the hp down.

There is no reason that vehicle has to be a lot faster. That engineering has focused on turning the energy into more speed instead of more miles.

[Gomer]

As a guy who loves fast cars and V8s and guzzling gas, I have to say there is absolutely no need to accelerate to 60MPH in less than 10 seconds. Even when merging, I rarely go half throttle on any vehicle I'm driving.

The argument made by some is we should mandate highly efficient cars to be manufactured no matter what the cost. A subsidy, you say? Well who pays for it? Everyone. So it doesn't make it cheaper...it just spreads the cost around to everyone, even if they don't plan to buy the product.

Gosh. I'm glad that's not me. The point I've been trying to make for years and in this thread is that the efficiency is already there. It's been turned into hot rod family sedans though. The "cost" is a reduction in the performance of these vehicles. The auto industry has spent decades convincing the consumers that this is was it most important. "Sexy" sells. Fuel economy isn't sexy.

A business' first job is to make a profit. Sounds horrible, right? But when you account for the fact that the profit is derived from making things people want/need and/or providing a needed/wanted service, then it's not so bad. People are willing to pay for this. If a company can't make money making efficient cars (Chebby Volt), then there's no benefit to do it.

If the government/governmentalists want to "mandate" these efficient cars, then maybe the government should contract a company to build them and see how they sell. They would have to raise their own capital, though, and not use taxpayer money. It would be an interesting, albeit an impossible experiment.

They already does (and has for decades) mandate efficiency via CAFE standards. They have finally raised the bar and can easily raise it more. Everyone has to play by the same rules. And they will all still sell cars (unless everyone just stops buying them, do you see that happening?). And there is no prohibition to selling non-efficient cars... but the manufacturers will have to price them accordingly (i.e. higher) to balance the CAFE scales.

[Bizkitkid2001]

ABS, stability control, air bags, etc. have added very little weight to the vehicles. Increased occupant protection is more of a result of improved engineering and design with very precise implementation of high strength steel in key components of the frame/body.

I was including the addition of high strength steel to the safety features required in vehicles. In the doors of cars you will find a steel support beam running from one side to the other in modern cars that you won't find in older cars. You also have thicker firewalls to protect the occupents from the engine because the front ends crumple now. They didn't use to do that in older cars. Also, some cars are now starting to come out with engine ejectors that will catapult the engine from the car in the event of a high speed accident. Car makers started adding strengtheners like that when the IIHS started crashing SUVs into small cars and finding out that the outcome was not very good. That extra steel needed to strengthen a car to with stand an impact from an SUV alone could easily add another 100 pounds to the curb weight just by itself. Steel is heavy.

Add up all of the electronics needed (Wires, sensors, redundant systems, ect...) to run all of the TPMS, TC, DSM, A-TRACT, ect... and those systems alone could add another couple hundred pounds to the weight of the car. Even on a not so modern car, when a friend of mine stripped out an old crown vic for demolition derby, the electronics and wireing alone added up to almost 150lbs. Cars today probably have more than double the amount of sensors, computers, and wires as cars from the 80s. My car has more electronics in it devoted to safety than it does entertainment. (Only has radio and CD player, no navigation or DVD or anything fancy like that)

Soon, the IIHS will make reverse sensors and blind spot sensors mandatory just like they did with ABS, TC, TPMS and a half dozen other systems. Eventually backup cameras will become standard on all cars.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that the safety gear weighs more than the heavier drivetrains and stiffer chassis needed to manage the increased HP.

The strengthening is done to also improve safety. Look at the Smart Car as a good example. The car has around 100hp yet has one of the strongest chassis of any car sold today. The majority of small cars today are made to be stronger than most bigger cars because of the fact that they don't have the mass to compete it an accident. Its definitely not because they need it to handle those 100hp engines they are putting in them.

You are also going to be hard pressed to convince me that the components that make this a race car (0-60 in 6 seconds, standing 1/4 mile in 15 seconds, top speed of 143 MPH) factor less into the weight of the car than does the safety requirements. Without any race car gear my civic weighs in at 2,400 pounds. So that argument is pretty much a non-starter.

It factors into both, but you need to understand that improved efficiency comes improved performance. Also, the "race car" as you call it (lol, a race car ) is a lot safer than your 2,400lb Civic.

You can't improve a cars efficiency without improving its performance. Its the same way that computers work. Intel creates smaller and smaller chips to improve efficiency, but because of that the chips get faster the smaller they are made.

Again... the emphasis is on race car performance, not efficiency.


It's a good thing I have suggested doing neither of those things!

This is a very simple concept. Reduce 0-60 times and HP will go down efficiency will go up. Reduce HP and acceleration, and the weight of the components required to manage the forces those things generate will go down, and mileage will go up.

The charts don't lie.

So what? Do we need family sedans that do 0-60 in under 7 seconds with top speeds of 140+ MPH? That illustrated my point perfectly.


Again, that perfectly illustrates my point.


Yes. It is that simple. It's as simple as you have made it out to be and I have never made it out to be otherwise. And if you think I have, you're mistaken.

HP and weight are the primary indicators. Reducing them are part of the comprehensive, easily implemented approach to drastically improving efficiency.

I am not suggesting that just taking a car and turning off the horsepower is the answer. I am stating that we have made great gains in efficiency and turned it into GOBS of HP and race car 0-60 times. Dial those things back to normal and efficiency will shoot up accordingly. They have been taking the energy from the fuel and putting it in the wrong places.

What I am saying is that you can increase horsepower and increase mileage. When you make an engine more efficient, the power goes up. It is unavoidable. You can't tune an engine to be more efficient and also lower the power. That is why i4s are producing the power of V6s from yesterday, and v6s today are making the same power produced by V8s from yesterday. That same i4 and V6 making more power than previous V6s and V8s are also getting better mileage than those previous V6s and V8s that they replaced. Who ever thought that a 300+hp Mustang would get over 30mpg? Even the old 4banger Mustangs didn't do that good.

If a modern car today could be made with the same horsepower, but had its weight reduced to the levels it was say in the 1980s, it would get better mileage than what it did in the 80s with its lower powered engine. Its the weight that is really killing the mileage, not the horsepower.

My Camry V6 gets better mileage than my brothers 2003 Focus. The Camry V6 comes within 2mpg of matching the real world mileage of the Camry i4s. Why? That is because even though it is a much more powerful drivetrain, it is also a much more efficient drivetrain.

Now, I agree that cutting weight will help with mileage, but cutting horsepower is not such a simple thing. There are several examples of cars with more power getting better mileage than cars with less horsepower. It has to do with how the power is implemented. Just because a car makes more horsepower doesn't mean it will get worse mileage.

Do you know what would be an even better way of increasing the mileage of the Camry V6? Lowering the weight but making the gears longer. Keep the same engine and horsepower. The engine produces a lot of low and mid torque that would benefit from longer gears when it came to fuel economy. If you gear the V6 Camry to accelerate at the same speed as the i4 Camry, but kept the same power, I bet it would easily beat the i4 Camry in mileage especially since it they are already very close in their real world mileage. Its the same reason why a 300hp V6 that accelerates to 60 in 5 seconds gets better mileage than a 300hp V8 that also accelerates to 60 in 5 seconds, because it is more efficient.

But there is a sort of medium that must be found. An engine that isn't too small that you have to ring it out all the time, but an engine that isn't so big that you always have unused power. Yes I agree the 6 second 0-60 time of the Camry V6 is more than what is needed, but I believe that even greater fuel economy could be met with an engine that produces power between the i4 and the V6 Camry. (Kind of like what the Hybrid does. It sits between the i4 and V6 power wise) The new 2.5l i4 in the Camry is a big improvement over the older 2.4l. Even though the 2.5l is bigger and makes more power, it increased fuel economy by 4mpg in the city and 4mpg on the highway. Increased efficiency means more power and better fuel economy. I think that the best mileage may be achieved with a small V6 that produces low end torque and makes around 210hp or so in the current Camry. Basically a gas engine that works like a diesel I think that would be a much better choice than the i4.

Having more diesel options would be great as well. Diesels are even more efficient than gasoline engines. A 200hp diesel will greatly out perform a 200hp gasoline engine when it comes to fuel economy.

[Bizkitkid2001]

Wanna see something neat:
Volkswagen XL1 Prototype Revealed by Naked Spyshots - autoevolution
260+ MPG
1700+lbs
0-60 in 12 seconds

As I have pointed out repeatedly over the past 10 years... we've made gobs of efficiency and churned out fatter faster vehicles. Leaner and slower will be the solution.

Lets see how much weight gets added to the vehicle to get it to pass safety tests.

The same problem happens with a lot of cars promising lower weight, but end up several hundred pounds over their promised prototype weight because the cars need to meet safety standards. (Volt, BRZ, Miata, ect...)

[Bizkitkid2001]

You would be right if that 0-60 trend line was flat. The trend doesn't lie.

The trend also shows a big jump in fuel economy after 2005 even though 0-60 keeps on decreasing and horsepower keeps on increasing. That was 7 years ago and cars today are getting more and more fuel efficient.

And the weight also shows to be dropping between 2009-2010. It would be interesting to see what the charts look like at the end of the decade.

Ever since gas prices have started to double every year it seems, cars are becoming a lot more fuel efficient. I'm happy about that, you should be happy about that (I think you are), everyone should be happy that the trend line is reversing now.

At the current rate it looks like that we will be able to have our cake and eat it too with cars getting faster and getting better mileage. Everyone should just be happy about that and enjoy their cars

[Epidemic]

At the current rate it looks like that we will be able to have our cake and eat it too with cars getting faster and getting better mileage. Everyone should just be happy about that and enjoy their cars

Well as for cake. You really can't have your cake. If you find a way to provide more horsepower then you should be re-gearing/shrinking engine size to gain efficiency.

if you design cars based upon a minimum performance criteria of say 0-60 in 10 seconds and take any gains in acceleration and top end and dump them into efficiency

I like having the speed, it is nice to play with it is convenient to not have to plan my merge as carefully, but I would much rather have gasoline budget reduced to the sweet spot in bell curve between safe merges and MPG.

If you keep low 0-60 times in the equation your MPG progress will be minimal.


I don't know if there is a market for the 10 to 12 second 0 to 60 car, is whether, in mass, the american public is quite ready for it?

[sharder8]

Out here, raw speed isn't the big thing. Power is!

Try a 6% uphill grade for 7 miles in a I4 or even a V6 . . . then add in traffic and find out how slow things get when someone in an anemic I4 is holding up 4 miles of cars and there's no way to pull over or pass.


Harder

[Epidemic]

Out here, raw speed isn't the big thing. Power is!

Try a 6% uphill grade for 7 miles in a I4 or even a V6 . . . then add in traffic and find out how slow things get when someone in an anemic I4 is holding up 4 miles of cars and there's no way to pull over or pass.


Harder

an I4 can easily do 6% grade at 70 mph. It is not the HP that controls that, it is the friction, power to weight ratio. My Ford probe 2.2 liter was more than capable of climbing any highway hill you threw at it.

My brother in laws I4 2.5 liter jeep could not get through the mountains out in arizona.

My 1.8 liter subaru never had difficulty maintaining road speed. I would like to know of a car that can 0 to 60 in 10 to 12 seconds that can not climb any grade in the USA.

[sharder8]

an I4 can easily do 6% grade at 70 mph. It is not the HP that controls that, it is the friction, power to weight ratio. My Ford probe 2.2 liter was more than capable of climbing any highway hill you threw at it.

My brother in laws I4 2.5 liter jeep could not get through the mountains out in arizona.

My 1.8 liter subaru never had difficulty maintaining road speed. I would like to know of a car that can 0 to 60 in 10 to 12 seconds that can not climb any grade in the USA.

Bring it on Epi . . . I got the hill near me and I watch a lot of "economy" cars struggle to maintain 40-45mph going over it. My wife's MPV van with a V6 has trouble on that hill, even when empty. (If she's lucky, she can maintain 45-50.)


Harder

[Bizkitkid2001]

Well as for cake. You really can't have your cake. If you find a way to provide more horsepower then you should be re-gearing/shrinking engine size to gain efficiency.

if you design cars based upon a minimum performance criteria of say 0-60 in 10 seconds and take any gains in acceleration and top end and dump them into efficiency

I like having the speed, it is nice to play with it is convenient to not have to plan my merge as carefully, but I would much rather have gasoline budget reduced to the sweet spot in bell curve between safe merges and MPG.

If you keep low 0-60 times in the equation your MPG progress will be minimal.


I don't know if there is a market for the 10 to 12 second 0 to 60 car, is whether, in mass, the american public is quite ready for it?

Yeah, I agree that would be a quicker way to achieve better mileage. That is why I think if you gear the V6 Camry to match the same 0-60 as the i4, it will get much better mileage than the i4.

To me, I would be happy with a car in the 8-9 second range as a daily driver. 10 seconds is not fun when you have to pull onto a busy frontage road from a side street from a dead stop with people going 60mph (55mph speed limit). Driving my grandparents old Corolla (0-60 in 11 seconds) there were several times where people still had to slow way down and some even honked their horn at me because they thought I pulled out without accelerating. I was WOT during that. 11 seconds is how long it took that car to match the speed people were traveling. 11 seconds is an eternity in a situation like that.

[The Real Bingo]

an I4 can easily do 6% grade at 70 mph. It is not the HP that controls that, it is the friction, power to weight ratio. My Ford probe 2.2 liter was more than capable of climbing any highway hill you threw at it.

My brother in laws I4 2.5 liter jeep could not get through the mountains out in arizona.

My 1.8 liter subaru never had difficulty maintaining road speed. I would like to know of a car that can 0 to 60 in 10 to 12 seconds that can not climb any grade in the USA.

All I know is my Focus rental did not know which gear to be in for some of the mountain climbs out in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, etc. The engine wasn't the problem; it was the poor gearing of the transmission. A manual or a 6-speed auto would've been much more efficient.