I will also agree about the rear room of the Lancer. I have ridden in the back seat, the seats felt like cardboard, were unsupportive, and I felt cramped, I am 5'8" and 150 so I am not a big guy. Also with the door being so freaking thin I would HATE to be in a side impact against a F250.

 

Toyota alreaddy has a few V8's that are almost up there in power with American V8's

 

Its not so much the side as the front side impact you need to worry about...2 stars

 

Hmm, I’m not sure HP matters in the overall buying decision as much as some might think. Would I buy a Chevy Lumina, Pontiac Bonneville or a Ford Taurus… if it had 450 HP? No way. People buy cars for different reasons. I think the type of person who likes the F-bodies, Mustangs, and to a certain extent the Corvette, put a lot more emphasis on HP than the typical person buying an import sport compact or other standard import sedan. People in the market for your average car only needs HP that is good enough for the job. If it’s going to be a grocery getter, or baby hauler, HP is not very critical.

Sport compacts are very trendy right now. That right there is one reason people buy them. HP is part of the equation, but it’s very well mixed in with other reasons to buy. For the most part, they are not very expensive, so it’s easy to buy into the sport compact market. The acceleration stock = . Even the EVO and STi are lucky to trap 102-103 stock. Yet, this doesn’t stop them from selling well. There is a big aftermarket for upgrade parts, as well as asthetics.

The EVO 8 and the STi can hang with or beat many cars on the road coarse. Does this necessarily make them fun to drive? No way. I’ve had plenty of seat time in a WRX, and I could never see myself considering buying one. They don’t inspire me. When the Z28’s and Trans Am’s were being produced, they were huge “Bang-For-Your-Buck” cars, and I had a feeling that I was buying something of substance. The EVO, STi and other sport compacts are also big “Bang-For-Your-Buck” cars, but they just feel so “economy” to me. I can’t see myself or others wanting to hold onto one for nostalgic reasons, like many do with F-bodies.

Just my rantings…

Dan

 

Import companies don't have to worry much all they have 2 do is keep adding more cams...problem solved.

 

The insurance on my SS is $118 a month.

 

EVO VIII stock times are ~13.2@102-103, the last C5 Vette was a ~13.0@109-110 car. So in the 1/4 mile, it's a pretty even race. After that it's all Vette.

The V6 Altima ran a 14@102 in C&D. That'll embarrass a stock LT1 Fbody. I'm thinking the 6spd V6 Accord is a low-mid 14 car and the Maxima is mid-high 14sec car.

 

I know this is from the first page......

Our insurance went down when we Traded the SRT-4 for the 300C. We went from a turbo 4 to a much more exspensive V8 car and oir rates droped 30 bucks.......

 

13.9-14.2 sec is easily LT1 territory. I don't see where there's embarrassment.

I'm sure the SRT-4 does have higher premiums. The younger buyer it attracts and its comparable affordability (even moreso used, $15k), along with the FMIC doesn't add up to a nice rate. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a much more powerful STi is cheaper to insure. As others have mentioned, there are many factors involved, and maybe hp plays little part. Thus high rates for Civics, Integras, etc...

 

Umm I work for Lexus, and our V8 cars feel like pigs, my 305 Iroc felt faster than a SC430. Toyota V8's feel fast because the tourque converters stall at like 3500 rpm. there is no torque to be mentioned, and a tranny kickdown is required for any acceleration.

 

So they will be bigger in every dimension, weigh more and be more complex? How will that solve the problem?

What will they do when Gm releases the 2 cam small block with Eaton electronic variable ratio rocker arms, 2 piece A Tap valves and 3 or 4 valves per head or just 2 valves? What will they do then? The cam phasing will be more precise than DOHC or TOHC(the future?) and wil get better milage as well as have DOD?

 

I know this is magazine talk but the last issue of C&D or MT had the C6 listed as well as a Honda Accord V6. The Honda with its 240hp V6 only had 1 MPG over the 400HP V8. That does not sound to impressive from Honda if the above figures are accurate.

FWIW, I have a aritcle from 1988 on the Quad 4. It was initially to have 220hp in manual form and don't remember the HP rating for auto, but it kept blowing out the trannies. So they detuned it to 190 for manual and 160? for the auto.

 

well, not to say the accord does terribly but rather the lsx based engines are quite a piece of work
not a lot of companies can do what chevy (pardon me, gm )did with the lsx based engines (great power and great economy)

 

Honda just needs to add another gear I suppose.

 

The main reason for the LSx engines getting such good mileage on the highway is the very tall 6th gear. All the torque of these engines allows them to do that without it bogging when you stomp on it.