The Most Depressing Automotive Conversation Ever

[LeonOfTheDead]

High beam is not forbidden with fog, but discouraged iirc. I found myself using them every now and then because it never really disturbed me seeing it all white as opposed to all black.
Anyway, since I got xenon equipped cars, things improved substantially I have to say.

IIRC Volvo will remove fog lights from the 2011 model year of the XC60, with all other models following.

If anything, bespoke DRLs will reduce consumption as opposed to now.
I'm a bit doubtful on having lights on on the motorway, but otherwise I always saw it as a good thing, mandatory or not.

[pimento]

I hate fog lights.. too many idiots leave them on. It's illegal to leave them on over here, but many people seem not to have gotten that memo.

My bikes both have their lights on at all times the engine is running, there's no off switch. It doesn't bother me, I like that people can see me easier. I never run a car with the lights on during the day though.

[wwgkd]

It's illegal to have fog lights on in normal weather in every place I've lived but I often see people with them on, unless it's foggy.

They've done a bunch of studies here and the results never showed any decrease in accidents running headlights in the daytime. I tend to think DRLs are useless unless you're in heavy fog or dust and not bright enough to turn on some sort of lighting, especially if your car color mathes the fog/dust.

[Clivey]

It's illegal to have fog lights on in normal weather in every place I've lived but I often see people with them on, unless it's foggy.

They've done a bunch of studies here and the results never showed any decrease in accidents running headlights in the daytime. I tend to think DRLs are useless unless you're in heavy fog or dust and not bright enough to turn on some sort of lighting, especially if your car color mathes the fog/dust.

This.

As I've said, if someone needs DRLs to see other cars in normal daylight, I don't want to share the roads with them!

However, I drove to work with my headlights on this morning - the weather is foul today. The disturbing thing is that out of the hundreds of vehicles I passed, I noticed only 2 others with lights on. I couldn't help but think that most people must still be half asleep. Either that or just crap drivers.

[henk4]

This.

As I've said, if someone needs DRLs to see other cars in normal daylight, I don't want to share the roads with them!

However, I drove to work with my headlights on this morning - the weather is foul today. The disturbing thing is that out of the hundreds of vehicles I passed, I noticed only 2 others with lights on. I couldn't help but think that most people must still be half asleep. Either that or just crap drivers

I don't need MY lights to see other people, but for other people to see ME.
The circumstances you just describe shout for mandatory daylights. Now those stupid people you talk about can hide behind the law. Even during bright daylight, but on tree bordered roads, lights are very useful.

[Ferrer]

A few things.
The Prius generates 100 kW, as opposed to the Bravo's 66 kW. Fiat's doesn't have something with 100 kW as a diesel car, but the second step of the 1.6 diesel engine offers 88 kW, and the 2.0 liter engine has about 121 kW.
Trying to "create" another version in the middle, it would start at 23.000 € (Italian price), while the entry level Prius costs 26.000 €
That's indeed more, but not so much as what you mentioned. Equipments are somewhat comparable.
On the other hand you're paying for some advantages, and for a new technology as well. Even diesel engined cars may be overpriced for some users, depending on what they are looking for.

I used the Fiat as an example and I quoted the price of the base 120bhp version. They are comparable since they have pretty much the same 0-100km/h time (the Fiat's only a tenth slower) and the Bravo has a 14km/h advantage in the top speed. But there's still other examples like the C4 which has the 140bhp diesel for 19 grand.

As for the fuel consumption, the fact that a big, rear wheel drive estate car with a 175bhp diesel engine manages to get a better fuel consuption than the specialised Toyota hybrid I think that further enhances my point.

As you say all this sophisticated tech sometimes doesn't really produce the results it should, at least at first. Fine tuning of known technologies is often a better way of improving efficiency.

That's why I personally wouldn't consider a Prius just yet. It still has to be improved to make sense objectively. Of course here you could argue that if at least someone didn't want to put with the downfalls that occur with every new development at first we would never move forward.

But in anycase, is the Prius really that much of a move forward? I think I'd argue against it. At least when after three generations the gains aren't all that evident, at least to me. Maybe the Insight is better in that aspect, I don't know.

That's what makes sense.
As an enthusiast who don't want to see supercars and sportscars dying, I'm looking forward to some mild hybrid model. Consider the CR-Z as the first step in the right direction. Not saying it is perfect, but neither it is rubbish.

I'm quite interested in the CR-Z as well. I'm sure it does have inconvenients and that it could be improved in many ways. But it sure looks like a way to continue enjoying cars in this day and age.

Then again you look at the Mini which manages to get similar homologated fuel consumption figures without all this hybrid malarkey, and you start to wonder if the complication is really worth it.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I used the Fiat as an example and I quoted the price of the base 120bhp version. They are comparable since they have pretty much the same 0-100km/h time (the Fiat's only a tenth slower) and the Bravo has a 14km/h advantage in the top speed. But there's still other examples like the C4 which has the 140bhp diesel for 19 grand.

Over here the C4 with 140 bhp costs 22.000 €, so a 4.000 € difference. On the other hand, the C4 is an aging model about to be discontinued, which means it is carrying both some discounts or a lower price because of "older" features (and little sale success).

As for the fuel consumption, the fact that a big, rear wheel drive estate car with a 175bhp diesel engine manages to get a better fuel consuption than the specialised Toyota hybrid I think that further enhances my point.

Which car are we talking about?
I believe hyibrds can rely on a smaller variations of mileage both when it comes to real world driving and among the various scenarios it would face every day. As I said it is of course all based on what you're looking. For a driver like my father, which drives in cities only for a small portion of his daily commuting, it wouldn't make sense, but if it was someone living in the city and using there the car, the difference would be quite noticeable.
Seemingly, when it comes to official figures, not only the cycle they use is debatable, but it wasn't designed when hybrids were a reality, and for the same reason there isn't something up to the task of measuring an EREV mileage.


As you say all this sophisticated tech sometimes doesn't really produce the results it should, at least at first. Fine tuning of known technologies is often a better way of improving efficiency.

That's why I personally wouldn't consider a Prius just yet. It still has to be improved to make sense objectively. Of course here you could argue that if at least someone didn't want to put with the downfalls that occur with every new development at first we would never move forward.

But in anycase, is the Prius really that much of a move forward? I think I'd argue against it. At least when after three generations the gains aren't all that evident, at least to me. Maybe the Insight is better in that aspect, I don't know.

Just considering that without mainly the Prius we wouldn't have start & stop tech and other devices/features on standard cars (or we wouldn't have so many of them or right now), it's enough to consider, in my opinion, the Prius and the other hybrids as a real step forward, more than FAP filters from PSA, of which I have quite a good opinion too.

I'm quite interested in the CR-Z as well. I'm sure it does have inconvenients and that it could be improved in many ways. But it sure looks like a way to continue enjoying cars in this day and age.

Then again you look at the Mini which manages to get similar homologated fuel consumption figures without all this hybrid malarkey, and you start to wonder if the complication is really worth it.

Again, I think what the CR-Z can offer is more easily attainable by drivers, considering both mileage and emissions, than on the Mini.
However, the CR-Z looses 10% of efficiency compared to the Insight because of:

- bodywork
- tires
- electric motor interface with two transmissions
- suspensions setup
- remapped ECU

That should make us wonder about what we could "save" on our cars with just a few updates. The answer are various "green" version on many cars.
Do we see them on the road? Marginally. I'd have been curious to see how many customers would have gone for EfficientDynamics pack when buying a BMW, if the company was to ask an additional price for it. Incidentally, Fiat's asked us if we wanted to remove the FAP filter from the Croma, getting a 500 € discount, as opposed to charging us 500 € to get it.
By that time you're already fine with spending xxxxxx money on your car, so you keep it.
That way you both get a more efficient line-up, a green image, and you manage to install these devices on more cars (what supposedly better for everyone).
So probably the answer is that buyers just don't care about efficiency and mileage as main factors when buying a car. Styling, equipment and performance all come first.

So you either choose a "standard" car or go for a "really" "green" car, like the Prius. Indeed I can't see many reasons to buy a standard car with too long gears, less performing tires, a sleepy engine/ECU and uglier wheels, if not for some characteristics only that car can offer me (can't remember of an estate hybrid in EU atm).

[Clivey]

I don't need MY lights to see other people, but for other people to see ME.

Sorry Pieter; I wasn't trying to suggest that you did - I was referring to "other" drivers / Joe Average etc.

And yes: This morning I was using lights to make myself visible rather than to help myself see others. I still maintain that DRLs are unnecessary in the UK (in fact, according to UK law, if you can prove that you only drive your vehicle during daylight hours, you may legally drive a vehicle that does not have main/dipped beam headlights). Here, if you can't judge, or be bothered to judge when to use lights, you shouldn't be driving at all.

The circumstances you just describe shout for mandatory daylights. Now those stupid people you talk about can hide behind the law. Even during bright daylight, but on tree bordered roads, lights are very useful.

Personally, I think it shows a desperate need for better driver education. - At present, if drivers have the option to rely on the car to do everything for them, they'll take the lazy option and put absolutely no thought into the standard of their driving. As it is, my journey to and from work every day takes longer than is necessary because of idiots dawdling around doing 20 mph below the speed limit for no good reason. That and failing to use any kind of forward planning, leading to increased congestion when they suddenly slam on the anchors upon realising that they can't get past a parked car or will have to merge in turn with other traffic.

One thing that I believe in strongly is that we should not have to suffer or legislate for idiots. They should either be made to drive properly, or not drive at all.

[Ferrer]

Over here the C4 with 140 bhp costs 22.000 €, so a 4.000 € difference. On the other hand, the C4 is an aging model about to be discontinued, which means it is carrying both some discounts or a lower price because of "older" features (and little sale success).

Well, you get my point don't you?

Which car are we talking about?
I believe hyibrds can rely on a smaller variations of mileage both when it comes to real world driving and among the various scenarios it would face every day. As I said it is of course all based on what you're looking. For a driver like my father, which drives in cities only for a small portion of his daily commuting, it wouldn't make sense, but if it was someone living in the city and using there the car, the difference would be quite noticeable.
Seemingly, when it comes to official figures, not only the cycle they use is debatable, but it wasn't designed when hybrids were a reality, and for the same reason there isn't something up to the task of measuring an EREV mileage.

As you say all this sophisticated tech sometimes doesn't really produce the results it should, at least at first. Fine tuning of known technologies is often a better way of improving efficiency.

The 520d Touring you mentioned earlier.

Of course, hybrids are highly dependent on what sort of driving you do. Thy make the most sense in the city. But then again why are hybrids like the Prius are so big? They are impractical for the city because the take bigger parking spaces for example.

But on the road they are easily outclased by the good diesels. Especially if you conduct a high speed, typically European drive. I don't know for me they still make little sense at least here.

Again, I think what the CR-Z can offer is more easily attainable by drivers, considering both mileage and emissions, than on the Mini.
However, the CR-Z looses 10% of efficiency compared to the Insight because of:

- bodywork
- tires
- electric motor interface with two transmissions
- suspensions setup
- remapped ECU

That should make us wonder about what we could "save" on our cars with just a few updates. The answer are various "green" version on many cars.
Do we see them on the road? Marginally. I'd have been curious to see how many customers would have gone for EfficientDynamics pack when buying a BMW, if the company was to ask an additional price for it. Incidentally, Fiat's asked us if we wanted to remove the FAP filter from the Croma, getting a 500 € discount, as opposed to charging us 500 € to get it.
By that time you're already fine with spending xxxxxx money on your car, so you keep it.
That way you both get a more efficient line-up, a green image, and you manage to install these devices on more cars (what supposedly better for everyone).
So probably the answer is that buyers just don't care about efficiency and mileage as main factors when buying a car. Styling, equipment and performance all come first.

So you either choose a "standard" car or go for a "really" "green" car, like the Prius. Indeed I can't see many reasons to buy a standard car with too long gears, less performing tires, a sleepy engine/ECU and uglier wheels, if not for some characteristics only that car can offer me (can't remember of an estate hybrid in EU atm).

Actually I see quite a lot of Ecomotive Seats here. Especially Leons and Alteas. I don't know maybe it is my romantic side, but there's still hope for the good car, even in the hands of Joe Average.

Cars are getting lighter and even so everything seems to be getting against the car, there are still so gems to be enjoyed out there.

And who knows, maybe, just maybe the CR-Z is one of those gems.

[LeonOfTheDead]

The 520d Touring you mentioned earlier.

It was the sedan actually, and already equipped with the EfficientDynamics devices, and against the second gen Prius which was not only quite less powerful but also equipped with a smaller ICE (1.5 liters VS 2.0) and a less powerful electric engine compared to the present gen, so the 460 miles of motorway were a bit of a problem for it. Yet the result wasn't so bad as it was marginally outpaced.
Also, considering it was driven by two different people and that the original article seemed (to me) a bit biased, the results may still be discussed.

Of course, hybrids are highly dependent on what sort of driving you do. Thy make the most sense in the city. But then again why are hybrids like the Prius are so big? They are impractical for the city because the take bigger parking spaces for example.

But on the road they are easily outclased by the good diesels. Especially if you conduct a high speed, typically European drive. I don't know for me they still make little sense at least here.

The Insight is considerably smaller than the Prius, yet people don't buy it because it is too small and spartan. Which is also what buyers complained about on the former Prius.
This sort of technology, talking about the Prius mainly, is quite expensive, and as such it has a relative importance on the overall cost of the car. Using it on a smaller car would demand an higher additional price compared to its competition. If, over here, the Prius is 3.000/4.000 € more expensive than the aforementioned diesel cars of its class, if it was Punto's competitior it would have possibly the same additional cost, but on a car about 25% less expensive.

And who knows, maybe, just maybe the CR-Z is one of those gems.

Seating in it, it was all nice and good, except front visibility was very poor. I didn't know where the nose was, completely. So was the rear, but you have some gizmos there. Couldn't drive it though.

[wwgkd]

I don't need MY lights to see other people, but for other people to see ME.
The circumstances you just describe shout for mandatory daylights. Now those stupid people you talk about can hide behind the law. Even during bright daylight, but on tree bordered roads, lights are very useful.

I don't get what you mean by hide behind the law.

Still, as I see it, stupid people are dangerous with or without headlights on. Those are probably the same people who text and drive, or any of the other stupid things that stupid people do behind the wheel.

[Ferrer]

I don't get what you mean by hide behind the law.

Still, as I see it, stupid people are dangerous with or without headlights on. Those are probably the same people who text and drive, or any of the other stupid things that stupid people do behind the wheel.

You see, we can't do that. We've got a lever between the seats to care about while we drive along.

[f6fhellcat13]

It is perfectly possible to text and drive in a manual.

[McReis]

Maybe the fact that the SLS looses speed when you take your foot of the gas was a disapointment for him.

Sorry: I thought you were around when that sensation spread across the forums...

...basically the Auto-X-Bonne thing was a bunch of forum members taking the piss out of, sorry, appreciating Rockefella's first car. the Pontiac Bonneville is the best trackday weapon ever. Don't argue, just accept it.

I was here then and I still dream of bringing a Bonneville to Europe and settle the definitive Nurburgring record.

[Ferrer]

It is perfectly possible to text and drive in a manual.

True (I have done it). But it is far more difficult.