2.4L 4 cylinder

[stil bil]

a friend of  mine has a 2.5L 6 cylinder engine in his cougar

i was wondering why nissan put a 2.4 4cylinder  wouldnt it have been easier to just drop in a V6 i mean with just 2 more cylinders the possibilites are endless, and not to mention the stock hp would be at least 50 more putting it right around the 200 mark...

i know it would weigh more, but there is such a thing as weight reduction <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

i was just curious as to why they did this???

[ca18guy]

V6 would cost more and push it out of it's segment. Also they allready had a V6 sporty car in the 300zx.

[Kreator]

Number of cylinders has nothing to do with how much hp your car has. Basicly it just makes the engine work smoother. Going back to your example, the cougar engine being a v6... if you check the stats, it putting out as much torque as our engines. More hp, but that really depends on how your engine is built. plus it's .1L bigger (doesn't really matter but anyway).

So yeah, whatever ca18guy said. Dropping in a v6 would be much more costly and won't do much performance wise

[stil bil]

o ok....


didnt think about that...

[KiDyNomiTe]

Whats done is done, Nissan did what they wanted to do. They made a decent car, which has lots of potential the way it is.

[240Dori]

Dude screw a six, why didnt we get the SR20DET &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hehe.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hehe:'>

[AKADriver]

The KA24E was in the works already when the car was being built. &nbsp;It's derived from the Z-series engine that had existed since the '70s. &nbsp;Cheap to build, good torque, a nice relaxed larger displacement engine for American tastes.

A V6 would have had to have been a VG-series. &nbsp;The S12 200SX had a VG30E as an option. &nbsp;It made the car clumsy and front heavy, and it hurt 300ZX sales.

Of course what the car should have had was a nice 1.8-2.0L high winding four cylinder with a turbo... <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

[blink0r]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kreator @ July 07 2002,5:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number of cylinders has nothing to do with how much hp your car has. Basicly it just makes the engine work smoother. Going back to your example, the cougar engine being a v6... if you check the stats, it putting out as much torque as our engines. More hp, but that really depends on how your engine is built. plus it's .1L bigger (doesn't really matter but anyway).

So yeah, whatever ca18guy said. Dropping in a v6 would be much more costly and won't do much performance wise</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Exactly. Look at the 13b 1.3 litre rotary engine. No cylinders and it makes over 100hp/litre.

[misnomer]

Bah, you guys don't know what you're talking about <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

We did get a v6 option, it's just called the 300zx :-)

[flipboi13]

You're a V6 option!!

Anyways, I'd still rather take a KA or SR equipped 240SX anyday...

[revat619]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (flipboi13 @ July 08 2002,03:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, I'd still rather take a KA or SR equipped 240SX anyday...</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
true, very true...so would i.

[adey]

Why is it that Americans always like large displacement and more cylinders? The notion that bigger is always better (obvious in domestic 'super' cars) is so... well, both dominant and stupid. If it weren't for this blasted big=best narrow mind frame, chances are we WOULD have gotten the SR20DET!

Haiiiii I mean, look at the Europeans! if we were there the 240sx would probably not be a 200sx nor a 180sx... but a 120sx or something like that. That would be quite interesting though...

[hashiria]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (240Dori @ July 07 2002,5:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dude screw a six, why didnt we get the SR20DET <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hehe.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hehe:'></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
i figure they're getting us back (still mad about the bombs)

[CoasTek240]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (240Dori @ July 06 2002,6:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dude screw a six, why didnt we get the SR20DET <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hehe.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hehe:'></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
b/c it was cheaper to give us the ka block out of the nissan hardbody pickups... but think of it this way. if we had sr's in our 240's it wouldn't be as fun because then we wouldn't be able to spend a whole semester &nbsp;working my ass off and saving to buy one from japan(Sarcastic)

[sil80]

hmm can we say RB series............................

[blaqsilvia]

I love my KA and can't wait till its a KA-T thats gonna eat the snakes off the road.. &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

[Anubis]

I thought the KA was the biggest 4 cylinder, but the porsche 944 has a 2.5L 4 cylinder. yea.

[Grant]

The Toyota 4 runners had 2.7L 4cyl.

[nrcooled]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it weren't for this blasted big=best narrow mind frame, chances are we WOULD have gotten the SR20DET!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Actually if it weren't for already not so hot z32 sales and the fact that the SR powered 240sx is faster 0-60 than the n/a z32. &nbsp;And on equal footing HP wise. &nbsp;Nissan would have been cuting their own throats on that one. &nbsp;And no one would have paid the sticker for the SR 240sx (cheap americans) <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':crazy:'> &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

[flipboi13]

At the time the 240sx was about to be introduced into the US, factory turbos weren't so popular because of fuel consumption and price. &nbsp;Nissan even gave the public the TT 300ZX, it sold, but not as much as a car that could go 30 mpg. &nbsp;After the turbo craze started to refathom in, it made it alot cheaper for Nissan to keep the KA in the 240SX anyways. &nbsp;

If you ask me, I think they were challenging us to see if we could build bad ass cars from the heavy duty iron\aluminum KA engine which were just as overbuilt as the SR20DEs.... &nbsp;

There's also nothing wrong with 4 cylinders, rebuilding a v6 is would make me insane too, and funny how our 4 bangers beat v6 cougars... but that was a given &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

- Phil -
95 240SX SE w/ 4 lugs

[uuninja]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nrcooled @ July 08 2002,07:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it weren't for this blasted big=best narrow mind frame, chances are we WOULD have gotten the SR20DET!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Actually if it weren't for already not so hot z32 sales and the fact that the SR powered 240sx is faster 0-60 than the n/a z32. And on equal footing HP wise. Nissan would have been cuting their own throats on that one. And no one would have paid the sticker for the SR 240sx (cheap americans) <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':crazy:'> <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Bingo! &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'> I am glad I am not the only one who feels that way.


Oh and CoasTek240, the KA24 first appeared in the Nissan Stanza, so it is actually a sedan motor <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

[Griffon2k]

A lot of the reason why the sr20det was never brought stateside has to do with U.S. emissions, prices, and expected performance of the engine. it was thought that running the sr20det on american octane would cause it to detonate frequently. it was also thought that U.S. emissions were too tight for the car....which was right. Look at how long it took to get other turbo beasts stateside, the wrx just got here, we're still fighting for the sti, the lancer evo is finally coming....the U.S. has just not been the best market for the turbo beasts of japan, and judging from the sales of the twin turbo beasts that were brought here and disappeared, 3000GT, Z32 300zx, Supra TT, and Rx-7, import auto makers couldn't be confident in bringing over more turbos to lose more money....

Cheap Americans+Tight ass American emission standards+American ignorance toward the quality of import supercars as compared to domestic muscle cars= American import lovers getting hosed....sucks doesn't it?<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

[Loren]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kreator @ July 07 2002,5:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number of cylinders has nothing to do with how much hp your car has. Basicly it just makes the engine work smoother. Going back to your example, the cougar engine being a v6... if you check the stats, it putting out as much torque as our engines. More hp, but that really depends on how your engine is built. plus it's .1L bigger (doesn't really matter but anyway).

So yeah, whatever ca18guy said. Dropping in a v6 would be much more costly and won't do much performance wise</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
more cylinders with the same displacement DO make more horsepower. The exact same engine all things being equal: compression, heads, cams, boost, intake, etc. same displacement, the one with more cylinders will make more horsepower. your dumb for thinking otherwise.. and you said it makes it run smoother, a smoother running engine makes more power, friction steals hp, kinda like why people use underdriven pulleys, windage trays, etc.

[Loren]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blink0r @ July 07 2002,6:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kreator @ July 07 2002,5:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number of cylinders has nothing to do with how much hp your car has. Basicly it just makes the engine work smoother. Going back to your example, the cougar engine being a v6... if you check the stats, it putting out as much torque as our engines. More hp, but that really depends on how your engine is built. plus it's .1L bigger (doesn't really matter but anyway).

So yeah, whatever ca18guy said. Dropping in a v6 would be much more costly and won't do much performance wise</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Exactly. Look at the 13b 1.3 litre rotary engine. No cylinders and it makes over 100hp/litre.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
rotorary engines are a completely different beast and as far as comparing them directly with engines with pistons.. well thats like comparing apples and oranges.

[uuninja]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Loren @ July 08 2002,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kreator @ July 07 2002,5:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number of cylinders has nothing to do with how much hp your car has. Basicly it just makes the engine work smoother. Going back to your example, the cougar engine being a v6... if you check the stats, it putting out as much torque as our engines. More hp, but that really depends on how your engine is built. plus it's .1L bigger (doesn't really matter but anyway).

So yeah, whatever ca18guy said. Dropping in a v6 would be much more costly and won't do much performance wise</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
more cylinders with the same displacement DO make more horsepower. The exact same engine all things being equal: compression, heads, cams, boost, intake, etc. same displacement, the one with more cylinders will make more horsepower. your dumb for thinking otherwise.. and you said it makes it run smoother, a smoother running engine makes more power, friction steals hp, kinda like why people use underdriven pulleys, windage trays, etc.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Hey Loren, I wouldn't start calling names just yet. <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sly.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':sly:'>

I have a little correction for you. Less friction has noting to do with a v6 making more power than a inline four. In fact it is the opposite. <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hmmm.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hmmm:'>

A six cylinder with equal displacement....ect. Will have more frictional loss than a 4 cylinder. Take this simple example. Say the total surface area of the pistons in each motor is 100, the circumference of each piston in the six cylinder would be 14.50 vs 17.71 in the four cylinder.

Now when you multiply that by the total number of cylinders. The six cylinder has 87.04 or total circumference where as the four cylinder has 70.84 of total circumference. I only calculated the outer edge of the piston in 2 dimensions but from this you can see that there is more total area in contact with the cylinder wall in the 6 cylinder than the four. More contact area = more friction, all things being equal. Don't try and say that the six is using moble 1. <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

From what I understand more power from a greater number of cylinders has some thing to do with the fact that a 4 cylinder engine produces a power stroke every half crankshaft revolution, where as an 8 cylinder motor produces a power stroke every quarter crank revolution. Think about it, every rotation the v8 has twice as many power strokes. This should be more than enough to over come any frictional disadvantage. &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':thumbsup:'>

[Kreator]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Loren @ July 09 2002,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kreator @ July 07 2002,5:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number of cylinders has nothing to do with how much hp your car has. Basicly it just makes the engine work smoother. Going back to your example, the cougar engine being a v6... if you check the stats, it putting out as much torque as our engines. More hp, but that really depends on how your engine is built. plus it's .1L bigger (doesn't really matter but anyway).

So yeah, whatever ca18guy said. Dropping in a v6 would be much more costly and won't do much performance wise</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
more cylinders with the same displacement DO make more horsepower. The exact same engine all things being equal: compression, heads, cams, boost, intake, etc. same displacement, the one with more cylinders will make more horsepower. your dumb for thinking otherwise.. and you said it makes it run smoother, a smoother running engine makes more power, friction steals hp, kinda like why people use underdriven pulleys, windage trays, etc.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Oh god damn dumbasses.

Well, smart boy who has 2000hp in his garage and is supposed to know so fuckin much about cars, let's go to the basics. A cylinder produces power 1/4 of the cycle. Consider a 1 cylinder engine. The crankshaft is getting power to it just 1/4 of the cylinder cycle and during 1/2 of it's revolution, every 2 revolutions it makes. If you take a 4 cylinder now, the time between the power strokes is 4 times less and the power stroke is weaker, so it doesn't hit the crankshaft too hard. Pluses:
1. Power stroke is weaker.
2. The crankshaft has less time to slowdown -> less acceleration when the power stroke occurs, and combined with 1. it produces smooth operation
3. The power strokes occur more often, and combined with 1 and 2 again make it even smoother for the crankshaft and for the enigine as a whole.

Same analogy for I4 vs I6

I would even go further and say that V6 (cuz that's what is used most often) is designed in such a way so that the crankshaft experiences minimal impact from the cylinders.

But you are still burning the same amount of fuel. And as i said, v6 will have better performance, but not alot. Most of it due to when the power stroke occurs, the power produced is being lost (imagine the power stroke. The piston is being stroked directly down words, yet the crankshaft is a rotational oject. It slows down the rod that is going down as well and in the end pushes them back up using their own downward force. Now if you have a little clue at how physics work, you would guess that crankshaft heats up and that heat is the power lost from the power stroke. With a more powerful stroke crankshaft heats up more and more power is lost). And the more powerful is the stroke, the more power is lost. 4cylinders produce a stronger power stroke than v6 (hold engine displasement constant) therefore they lose more power than v6s. And the only reason they came up with V6s and V8s is to make the crankshaft's life longer. Imagine a 6.0L I4. That's 1.5L volume of each cylinder! The power stroke from each of the cylinders will easily damage or destroy the crank. On the other hand, putting 6 cyls in engines w/ 2.4L displacement is too expensive.

Cliff Notes: V6 DOESN'T produce more horsepower than I4 w/the sam displacement in IDEAL curcumstances. In real life though, it will produce a little bit more power due to the loss of power at the crank during the power stroke(the loss for I4 is bigger than for v6) and not because of friction.

[HippoSleek]

Every time I see this debate, one thing comes to mind:

With inflation adjusted dollars, the 350z costs the same as the 240sx. &nbsp;Go buy it right now or don't complain about what we didn't get. &nbsp;We got it now. &nbsp;That is WAAAY more value than the 240 ever was. &nbsp;If you can't afford to buy it FROM THE DEALER OFF THE LOT you have no right to gripe about what we *should* have gotten. &nbsp;Manufacturers respond with $$$ not gripes from kids who can't pay to play.

It is indisputable that Japan gets TC engines b/c 1) taxes favor low displacement engines; 2) the shorter life-span/increased maintenance of a turbo motor is offset by the costs of registering an older car in Japan (i.e., it will be junked before it starts to break); 3) the emissions control regime is not as strict b/c it is unlikely that most cars would exceed the mileage at which they start spewing excess toxins; and 4) basic vehicle ownership in Japan is not commonplace so that a consumer is willing to pay a premium for maintenance, operation, and insurance of a vehicle.

In the US, we do not get TC engines b/c 1) strict emissions standards due to long-term vehicle operation, after engines begin to expell excess pollutants; 2) CAFE fuel consumption standards; 3) long term vehicle ownership that dramatically increases maintenance costs of TC engines in later years; 4) the used car market's desire for cheap, reliable transportation; and 5) an auto insurance market that deems TC motors in sporty cars to be "higher risk" (w/ corresponding higher premiums).

In Europe, car ownership is more like the Japanese model, only w/o the tax regime on older or smaller displacement engines.

You will notice that almost all of these factors are based on a couple simple premises: &nbsp;1) cars aren't considered a right, but a privilege in other countries; 2) owners must be willing to pay to play over there. &nbsp;Not so here.

Example: &nbsp;uu - ask someone in Sweden what it costs to obtain a driver's license. &nbsp;I've heard in excess of $3500 - ten years ago! &nbsp;Check and see what a litre of premium gas costs (and then convert that to gallons <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'> ). &nbsp;I'd wager at or above $US 3/gal. &nbsp;With that much of a starting investment, consumers there are more willing to put up with higher maintenance costs, higher fuel consumption rates, higher insurance rates, and decreased operable lifetime.

Mark
-who is happy w/ his low hp, RWD, NA I-4 b/c it's what he can afford.

[AKADriver]

It pains me to say it, but yep, given the cost, a turbo 240SX would have failed on the market as a new car. &nbsp;The DSM turbos sold well because they were cheap - for about the same $$$ as a 240SX SE, you could get an Eclipse GS-T.

Toyota learned that lesson the hard way with the Celica All-Trac Turbo.

[240 2NR]

I also think detroit iron had something to do with it as well.

Think about it. &nbsp;12 years ago, would you have felt comfortable spending $25k on a turbo charged car? &nbsp;Back then, thanks to a couple really lame offerings from the domestic market, turbos got a fairly bad rap. &nbsp;There weren't that many turboed cars and the ones that were were either unobtainable (porsche, lotus, etc), or weren't that stellar (MX-6, FC turbo II, and numorous forgetable US cars). &nbsp;Just like with the introduction of deisel cars, US companies underengineered a car to compete in a market they didn't develop and as a result offered some piss poor cars that tarnished the impression americans had of that technology (notice deisel is only now becoming acceptable again 30 years later).

Another thing to remember is that the Japanese market got some pretty lame offerings of the silvia as well. &nbsp;Would you have rather they gave us the SR20DE (notice, no T) motor found in the J's and Q's (i think) cars? &nbsp;Less displacement, less torque and less horsepower.

[uuninja]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HippoSleek @ July 08 2002,11:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Example: uu - ask someone in Sweden what it costs to obtain a driver's license. I've heard in excess of $3500 - ten years ago! Check and see what a litre of premium gas costs (and then convert that to gallons <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'> ). I'd wager at or above $US 3/gal. With that much of a starting investment, consumers there are more willing to put up with higher maintenance costs, higher fuel consumption rates, higher insurance rates, and decreased operable lifetime.

Mark
-who is happy w/ his low hp, RWD, NA I-4 b/c it's what he can afford.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Way ahead of you man <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

Yeah, Sweden is unusually difficult compared to many European countries about granting drivers licenses. It costs about one hundred dollars after several thousand worth of mandatory driving instruction. Also is provisional for the first 2 years, that means no speeding tickets. Petrol (god I have been here too long) costs on the average of 10 kr a liter. A gallon is what 3.8 liters? And 10 Kr is ~$0.96. So closer to 4 bucks a gallon &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':crazy:'>. But the up side to most of Europe is that you can live with out a car. The mass transit system is awesome. Where as back home I would be SOL getting to work or school without a car.

[AKADriver]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (240 2NR @ July 09 2002,11:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another thing to remember is that the Japanese market got some pretty lame offerings of the silvia as well. Would you have rather they gave us the SR20DE (notice, no T) motor found in the J's and Q's (i think) cars? Less displacement, less torque and less horsepower.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
How about the CA18DE... &nbsp;It's a nice high revving little engine, but it can barely make those little Pulsars move.

Still, the CA and SR non-turbos are no worse than what came as the standard engines in most of the 240SX's competition. &nbsp;The base 1g DSM had a 1.8 SOHC...!

[HippoSleek]

AKA - keep in mind that DSM dropped that car when they changed it. &nbsp;Not to mention that turbo sales didn't even drive that class - secretaries in na fwd base models did! &nbsp;I found a reference to FI sales (15% of all Eclipses) and IIRC, awd turbo sales were around 1-2% of all FI Eclipse sales.
15% article (http://www.newsargus.com/newsport/jimscars/MitsubishiEclipseSpyder.html)
In short, DSM learned too. &nbsp;There is a reason there is no more turbos and they are selling better than ever.

2NR - I'm not so much a conspiracy theorist as I am a believer that despite everyone's best attempts, turbos have problems. &nbsp;Always have. &nbsp;Likely always will. &nbsp;The more parts you have, the more can break. &nbsp;Why go FI if you can get a suitable amount of NA power? &nbsp;Even the best imported turbos of the 80's sucked and it turned Americans off. &nbsp;Particularly when we had nothing restricting us from grabbing our large displacement V engines and scooting along.

uu - I know Sweden's driver's ed was HARSH. &nbsp;But they are not alone on that (although definately at the extreme end). &nbsp; Further, their gas prices are in line w/ those from virtually every other country in the world (I didn't adjust for recent price spikes). &nbsp;We trade emissions controls for cheap, dirty gas. &nbsp;And this leaves out the whole parking thing! &nbsp;

As a US reference, I was in NYC this weekend visiting a friend who is going to buy either a Boxter S or the track edition of the 350z (provided he can fit in it) for his weekend drives. &nbsp;He's already paying over $500/mo. for parking and insurance on a Teg. &nbsp;With that, what's a little extra for a car payment?

Mark
-who doesn't drive to work b/c it would take just as long and cost $180/mo. for parking