|
| ▲ | Aurornis 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Why would anyone buy such a product when they can get an SUV instead? Isn't this just a circular way of admitting that people actually wanted SUVs? This doesn't explain why the used car market is full of very cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a new SUV. > [1] Some examples: turbochargers, Have to disagree. These are a great way to downsize the engine and maintain the same torque output. Yes it's more parts, but modern OEM turbochargers are very reliable. If you can reduce the number of cylinders from 6 to 4 or 3, that's a net win in moving parts, consumables, and repair costs. |
| |
| ▲ | wredcoll 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This doesn't explain why the used car market is full of very cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a new SUV. Is it really? Just to check I looked at carmax and found this kind of price: 2016 Honda
Fit LX
$16,998*
26K mi You can get cheaper ones in the $11k range with like 110k+ miles on them, is this really a meaningul price difference? | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But they only wanted SUVs because government nerfed sedans. |
|
|
| ▲ | MegaButts 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > both shittier and more expensive > Some examples: turbochargers I disagree that turbochargers are shittier. For most people, hell even for a large subset of people that only want to race their cars on a track, turbochargers provide huge benefits. Yes, they add complexity and cost; they also vastly improve fuel efficiency, create the best torque curve possible on an ICE vehicle, and substantially improve power output. Sometimes you actually need more complexity to build a better system. I think turbochargers are a marvel of modern engineering. And while it's subjective and admittedly more enthusiasts prefer naturally aspirated to turbocharged, I personally prefer the character of a turbocharged engine. I'd rather hear turbo whistles than a whining V10. |
| |
| ▲ | lupusreal 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | If what you want is a reliable commuter, because knowing you can get yourself to work is more important than even fuel efficiency, then turbochargers are a clear net negative. I think most people view their car as a tool first and foremost, and don't have the luxury to view it as a toy. > V10 Lmao what | | |
| ▲ | MegaButts 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Turbocharged cars have been reliable for a while now. There was a time when people said the same thing about fuel injection - because it is objectively more complicated than carbureted engines. But as time went on and they became more reliable and cheaper the only people that care about carburetors now are enthusiasts because they have so many drawbacks. It's the same thing with turbo engines today, except they're already reliable and better to drive (assuming you ever want to merge onto a highway). If you consider the higher RPM typical for NA vehicles they're arguably less reliable over time. If you include rising fuel costs turbocharged is arguably cheaper over the lifespan of the vehicle. Buy whatever you want. But most people's perceptions of 'reliable' for cars is based entirely on rumors and hearsay and has nothing to do with data. Most awards for reliability are marketing gimmicks and aren't based on useful data. | |
| ▲ | rjsw 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am happy with my 1.6L EcoBoost Ford Mondeo. It gets good fuel efficiency and has plenty of power to climb hills. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrguyorama 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The Honda Fit had none of these. It was just a tiny car with a tiny engine. It's just that Americans do not buy tiny cars or tiny engines. |
