This is interesting. So that is how Suzuki plans on getting so many sales by 2010. Rebadge Nissans

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13096971/from/RS.4/

 

How well has Mitsubishi's rebranding of Dodge trucks/SUVs worked out?

I really haven't followed it much.

I've never ever gotten excited about any vehicles I've seen come from suzuki or mitsubishi but last time I was at a car show I saw what was very obviously a dodge with a mitsubishi badge on it.

 

This is just like Nacho Libre and his side kick.

 

suzuki can't sell many cars per year ... when are they going to go away?

 

Poorly. The Raider is not selling well, according to the last article I read.
Part of the problem is that the price is supposedly higher than the Dakota (I haven't checked).


Suzuki's been doing pretty well selling Daewoos. But a lack of pickups makes for a glaring hole in their product line in the U.S. The Suzuki dealer I bought my GV at (it was cheap, with a V6, and RWD) also sells Hyundais and Volkswagens. They could definitely use a pickup truck to sell, even if it's a Nissan clone, and Suzuki will probably price it right.

 

Suzuki should stick to ma king good bikes and medicore cars, and Nissan should stick to playing heavy catch up to Toyota

 

Oh come on! You have a Corolla XRS? You could have bought the Aerio with a 155hp 2.3l engine. More torque, if a bit less HP, fewer $$. Same basic type of vehicle.

 

Hold on, here... so in this thread you're more moved by the greater torque in the Suzuki... enough to overlook the missing horsepower. And this is in a car no less. In the other thread you were more impressed by the GM 3.7's 6 extra ponies and ignored the 24 pounds of torque it was missing - in a truck, no less.

Something doesn't add up here.

You must be a ricer - talking about specific output horsepower per liter mumbo jumbo.

 

It was a joke reply to the guy dissing the Suzuki cars. Besides, in the thread you refer to, I never said which engine I'd rather have. I just said that it was impressive. Jeez.

 

You said it was more powerful.

And now we've discovered that you don't believe that torque is a measurement of power.

 

Maybe you should have taken a class in physics at some point . . . .

 

I'm 6 hours short of a minor in it.

Torque is a measure of force applied in the rotation of an object.

It's a measure of force. AKA - power.

 

If you're six hours short of a phyics minor, then you should know that force is not power, either. In SI units, force is measured in newtons, power is measured in watts. They're different things. To get power from torque, you have to know how far that torque has been rotated.

This is pretty basic physics. You remeber learning about work, as the term applies in physics? Power is work done over time. You remember learning that force is not work?

 

Notice I said AKA - in a car application, when are not going to be applying force from the motor without accomplishing work?

 

Right. The work may be heating up tires or transmission fluid, but there is work being done. Here's the thing. Force determines acceleration, right? If you actually work through the math, you can derive force directly from horsepower, not torque. When deriving force from torque, you have to divide by RPM. That's why it's the horsepower that has a direct relationship with acceleration. In SI units, 100NM at 8000 RPM gives you the same force as 800NM at 1000 RPM. This is why torque is not that useful by itself -- at least if you want to know how fast you'll accelerate. Now, if you know torque AND RPM, then you have useful information. That's what power is.

Is it clear now?

I left off something important. The comparison above assumes that the vehicles are going at the same speed, i.e. the total gear ratio of the 8000 RPM vehicle is 4 times that of the 2000 RPM vehicle. And you can derive force from torque if you know the gear ratio. And you need to know the speed of the vehicle to derive force from horsepower.

Clear as mud, maybe