It's not just automatics. It's the peaky engine. You can't get decent fuel economy doing 3500RPM on the highway, with any engine. So the peaky engine still does lower RPM at highway speed in top gear.
A lower revving engine, with 90% peak torque available at 1800RPM, is basically in it's power band in top gear at highway speed.
A peaky engine, that needs to hit 3500-4000 RPM before it produces decent torque, is over 1000RPM below its power band when driving at highway speed, unless it's already revving too high.
Synchronizing the transmission to engine speed when you have to drop down 2 gears at 60MPH to pass someone is a pain in the ass, whether it's an auto or manual.
What part of "But engines don't create horsepower. They create torque." didn't you understand?
It doesn't put out only 4/5ths the power. Horsepower output is not real power. Torque is.
I'm not saying this as an "ignorant fan of outdated American engines." Ask any physicist. Horsepower is not what engines create.
What you'll notice, though, is that most non-US car reviews don't include torque specs. Because if they did, then the "superior power output" of Japanese engines would evaporate. As a result, we can't compare the torque output of the 3.5 Chevrolet engine (216 lb.-ft.) to the Toyota engine (?? lb.-ft.).
What you're doing is basically the same as saying the Intel Pentium 4 with a clock speed of 3.2 GHz is a faster processor than the AMD Athlon at 2.8 GHz, because....well....it's faster. We all know that's bullshit, but somehow you're OK with doing it for cars.
(I'm guessing it's something to do with the American consumer demanding high torque at low revs and the engineers not daring to try and educate those consumers about how gasoline engines work. The result is jaw-droppingly inefficient gas guzzlers for no reason other than ignorance).
If you compare the torque output of an American engine to a non-US engine of the same displacement, you'll frequently find that they're equal, or the US engine is higher in some cases. This results in lower horsepower figures, sure. But engines don't create horsepower. They create torque. Horsepower figures are merely the result of a mathematical calculation based on torque and RPM.
Now lets compare your "jaw-droppingly inefficient" US sedan to a - presumably efficient - non-US sedan:
How about that? Same engine displacement, same fuel economy. And the Impala is the heavier car, which would account for the 1MPG difference between the two of them for city economy. I guess "jaw-droppingly inefficient" isn't really a good description then, is it?
When you're looking at performance, the area under the torque curve is much more important than the peak horsepower rating. All other things being equal, the higher the peak horsepower, the lower the area under the torque curve (usually).
This is also exacerbated by the fact that most Americans tend to want automatic transmissions. These, quite frankly, suck with high RPM engines. Trust me. I've tried them. I'd much rather have a manual myself, but even still, I'd want something that I can stab the accelerator, and not have to worry about my speed, gear, engine RPM, or whatever, if I need some quick acceleration. Any car with a peaky engine that I've driven - manual or automatic - has always had a moment (sometimes as long as 1.5 seconds) of "let's get everything synchronized" before you get decent power after you mash it. The lower revving engines are more like "I hope you were hanging on, because we're already going."
And if you're now going to go back on the cubic inches argument, which I haven't debated, don't. For every large American V8 engine, there's an equivalent from Toyota, BMW, or some other non-US manufacturer.
And whenever someone posts something pointing out the people you agree with do it too, just label them as a partisan "fanboi" and it makes it all okay.
I don't agree with any of them. They're all assholes.
Does that mean I have the right to call any political party supporter a fanboi? After all, I'm not being a hypocrite if I do.....
You can't have it both ways, Microsoft. You want GM liable for software piracy in China, then you should be liable for Windows 7 phone phantom data usage.
Have CD sales gone up at the same time as P2P downloads have gone down?
THAT would be the true measure of whether their lawsuits are working or not. I'm willing to be they're not, because otherwise the *AAs would be shouting from the rooftops that CD sales have gone up now that they've dealt a blow to piracy.
I'd be willing to bet - not much, mind you, but willing - that they did this not because of any technical glitch, or anything like that, but rather, for the humour and irony in delaying the game yet again, when it's actually finished.
After all, it's Duke Nukem Forever. It can't possibly be released without a delay, right?
I can't find my/. comment on it right now, as it was years ago, but everybody who responded said many checks had been put in place so that type of thing couldn't happen again.
Well, I told you so. The problem is, it only takes one legitimate CA to screw up, and it subverts the entire system for all CAs.
"Stanley Miller's 1952 experiment has been shown to be flawed by more modern views of early Earth. The collection of gases that Miller filled his apparatus with before electrifying it was not characteristic of Earth's early atmosphere. Repeating the experiment with the proper gas mixture as generally accepted by current thinking shows no amino acid generation at all."
And then they'll say something about the right handed amino acids generated, which will destroy life, rather than create it, and the other toxic compounds created during the same experiment, that would have destroyed any chance of the left-handed amino acids forming life, if the acids hadn't been filtered out by the intelligent design of the experiment by the scientist.
And after that, they'll probably question the gases used for this 1958 experiment, assuming that the same mistakes made in 1952 would probably be repeated in 1958.
But then, I'm just guessing, and they may all say "NANANANANOTLISTENING" after all.
It's had the answers at the bottom for as long as I can remember.
Although if I remember rightly, originally the site was free, and all content was available to everyone. But ever since they've done the pay thing, as long as I've visited directly from a Google link, the answers were at the bottom.
I just did a search for a Win2K3 server problem this morning, a couple of hours ago, and got an EE link in the results. Clicked it, and go the answers at the bottom of the page, as always.
Slashdot Mirror
i am michael kristopeit.
i think it's time you are told you are an ignorant hypocrite.
cower in my shadow some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
It's not just automatics. It's the peaky engine. You can't get decent fuel economy doing 3500RPM on the highway, with any engine. So the peaky engine still does lower RPM at highway speed in top gear.
A lower revving engine, with 90% peak torque available at 1800RPM, is basically in it's power band in top gear at highway speed.
A peaky engine, that needs to hit 3500-4000 RPM before it produces decent torque, is over 1000RPM below its power band when driving at highway speed, unless it's already revving too high.
Synchronizing the transmission to engine speed when you have to drop down 2 gears at 60MPH to pass someone is a pain in the ass, whether it's an auto or manual.
What part of "But engines don't create horsepower. They create torque." didn't you understand?
It doesn't put out only 4/5ths the power. Horsepower output is not real power. Torque is.
I'm not saying this as an "ignorant fan of outdated American engines." Ask any physicist. Horsepower is not what engines create.
What you'll notice, though, is that most non-US car reviews don't include torque specs. Because if they did, then the "superior power output" of Japanese engines would evaporate. As a result, we can't compare the torque output of the 3.5 Chevrolet engine (216 lb.-ft.) to the Toyota engine (?? lb.-ft.).
What you're doing is basically the same as saying the Intel Pentium 4 with a clock speed of 3.2 GHz is a faster processor than the AMD Athlon at 2.8 GHz, because....well....it's faster. We all know that's bullshit, but somehow you're OK with doing it for cars.
(I'm guessing it's something to do with the American consumer demanding high torque at low revs and the engineers not daring to try and educate those consumers about how gasoline engines work. The result is jaw-droppingly inefficient gas guzzlers for no reason other than ignorance).
If you compare the torque output of an American engine to a non-US engine of the same displacement, you'll frequently find that they're equal, or the US engine is higher in some cases.
This results in lower horsepower figures, sure. But engines don't create horsepower. They create torque. Horsepower figures are merely the result of a mathematical calculation based on torque and RPM.
Now lets compare your "jaw-droppingly inefficient" US sedan to a - presumably efficient - non-US sedan:
2011 Chevrolet Impala 3.5 V6 - 29MPG highway:
http://www.distrocar.com/2011-chevrolet-impala-3-5-l-v6-flexfuel-e85-bioethanol-capable
2011 Toyota Camry 3.5 V6 - 29MPG highway:
http://autos.yahoo.com/2011_toyota_camry/
How about that? Same engine displacement, same fuel economy. And the Impala is the heavier car, which would account for the 1MPG difference between the two of them for city economy.
I guess "jaw-droppingly inefficient" isn't really a good description then, is it?
When you're looking at performance, the area under the torque curve is much more important than the peak horsepower rating. All other things being equal, the higher the peak horsepower, the lower the area under the torque curve (usually).
This is also exacerbated by the fact that most Americans tend to want automatic transmissions. These, quite frankly, suck with high RPM engines. Trust me. I've tried them. I'd much rather have a manual myself, but even still, I'd want something that I can stab the accelerator, and not have to worry about my speed, gear, engine RPM, or whatever, if I need some quick acceleration. Any car with a peaky engine that I've driven - manual or automatic - has always had a moment (sometimes as long as 1.5 seconds) of "let's get everything synchronized" before you get decent power after you mash it.
The lower revving engines are more like "I hope you were hanging on, because we're already going."
And if you're now going to go back on the cubic inches argument, which I haven't debated, don't. For every large American V8 engine, there's an equivalent from Toyota, BMW, or some other non-US manufacturer.
And whenever someone posts something pointing out the people you agree with do it too, just label them as a partisan "fanboi" and it makes it all okay.
I don't agree with any of them. They're all assholes.
Does that mean I have the right to call any political party supporter a fanboi? After all, I'm not being a hypocrite if I do.....
pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym pseudonym
How exactly does this bot pick it's insults?
I think it's time to find out.
ur mum's face're an ignorant hypocrite.
cower behind your douche in my shadow of your feeb some more, chosen completely pathetic pseudonym.
See? It looks just like the bayesian filter text in image spam!
And BTW. You're still a douche.
And you're a douche. But I don't let that bother me.
With a web of trust, a user goes to somebody who they already trust (A root CA) to verify you are who you say you are.
Which, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, works really well. :-\
slashdot = stagnated.
It's only stagnated because there are over 400 Michael Kristopeits gumming up the works......
In that case, Microsoft should no longer be able to blame business partners, contractors, customers, or whatever for their own problems, either.
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/01/20/244979/Microsoft-blames-third-party-for-excessive-Windows-Phone-7-data.htm
http://theregoesdave.com/2009/10/15/microsoft-goes-schizo-starts-blaming-danger-for-lost-data/
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/70560,microsoft-blames-vista-insecurity-on-third-party-applications.aspx
You can't have it both ways, Microsoft. You want GM liable for software piracy in China, then you should be liable for Windows 7 phone phantom data usage.
The real question would be:
Have CD sales gone up at the same time as P2P downloads have gone down?
THAT would be the true measure of whether their lawsuits are working or not. I'm willing to be they're not, because otherwise the *AAs would be shouting from the rooftops that CD sales have gone up now that they've dealt a blow to piracy.
The silence is telling.
No, but the judge who ruled this exact way a few years back was.
I'd be willing to bet - not much, mind you, but willing - that they did this not because of any technical glitch, or anything like that, but rather, for the humour and irony in delaying the game yet again, when it's actually finished.
After all, it's Duke Nukem Forever. It can't possibly be released without a delay, right?
I said this wasn't over a few years after Verisign signed the fake Microsoft cert in 2001. http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html
I can't find my /. comment on it right now, as it was years ago, but everybody who responded said many checks had been put in place so that type of thing couldn't happen again.
Well, I told you so. The problem is, it only takes one legitimate CA to screw up, and it subverts the entire system for all CAs.
No. At least, not the knowledgeable ones.
They'll say something like:
"Stanley Miller's 1952 experiment has been shown to be flawed by more modern views of early Earth. The collection of gases that Miller filled his apparatus with before electrifying it was not characteristic of Earth's early atmosphere. Repeating the experiment with the proper gas mixture as generally accepted by current thinking shows no amino acid generation at all."
And then they'll say something about the right handed amino acids generated, which will destroy life, rather than create it, and the other toxic compounds created during the same experiment, that would have destroyed any chance of the left-handed amino acids forming life, if the acids hadn't been filtered out by the intelligent design of the experiment by the scientist.
And after that, they'll probably question the gases used for this 1958 experiment, assuming that the same mistakes made in 1952 would probably be repeated in 1958.
But then, I'm just guessing, and they may all say "NANANANANOTLISTENING" after all.
Hey, my four year old loves Scooby Doo. And I'm not talking about the new movie. I mean the old animated series from decades ago.
Natalie Portman + hot grits will come back in style eventually. Imagine a beowolf cluster of Natalie Grits.
I don't know...I think I'd rather a beowulf cluster of hot Portmans. :)
I'm pretty sure it makes you something along the lines of "grumpy old bastard."
I'll get off your lawn, now. :)
Exactly what I was thinking.
The hypocrisy is vomit-inducing.....
Wide Open Throttle?
What's that got to do with anything?
You're not going far enough down.
The blurred "Accepted Solution" with the subscribe button is above the massive link/navigation bar, which is above the displayed answers.
Literally...go to the bottom of the page, and work your way up.
No.
Drunk and trashing server rooms with a cowering picture of a hooker in the corner of the hard drive. :)
It's had the answers at the bottom for as long as I can remember.
Although if I remember rightly, originally the site was free, and all content was available to everyone. But ever since they've done the pay thing, as long as I've visited directly from a Google link, the answers were at the bottom.
It's been this way for years, for me.
Not true. At least, not everywhere.
I just did a search for a Win2K3 server problem this morning, a couple of hours ago, and got an EE link in the results. Clicked it, and go the answers at the bottom of the page, as always.