yeah i have a ford taurus ( no laughing) and it is about the same size with a lil bit less hp and is not what i would call quick (that could be the **** tranny ford insisted on useing until 2002)
I drive a Caravan... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Roomy in the back? How is this significant? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 06:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 06:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Roomy in the back? How is this significant? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Duh. Come on, I can carry a lot of cargo!
I figured you were talkin about massive subs back there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Har Har the Pirate Jun 4 2005+ 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Har Har the Pirate Jun 4 2005 @ 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yeah i have a ford taurus ( no laughing) and it is about the same size with a lil bit less hp and is not what i would call quick (that could be the **** tranny ford insisted on useing until 2002)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I recall, the Ford Taurus was the top selling vehicle in the U.S. at some point, outselling even the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
The Ford Tarrus by 1992, it was the country's best-selling car -- a title it held for five consecutive years (1992-1997). In this class, the big three are Ford Taurus, Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, with the new Chevrolet Lumina bidding for a higher place. In 1992 the Ford Taurus sold 409,751. Which was their best year. For the rest of the five years they stayed consecutively above 350,000 units, sometimes reaching nearly 400,000.
My dad has a Salsa Red Metallic Equinox LS here r some pictures of my dads car from the chevrolet website i lost the pictures of his car he sent me here some links:
Thanks Cyndane. In my car-haulin' days I hauled many a Taurus out of the plant in Hapeville, Ga. I may be mistaken, but <i>I think</i> the main reason their numbers were higher than Toyotas or Hondas was their corner on the rental car market for that size vehicle.
<b>FYI:</b> Little know fact but since this is the wheels thread, Orlando, Fla. is the rental car capital of the U.S. (world maybe?).
<!--QuoteBegin-pulsar Jun 5 2005+ 10:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pulsar Jun 5 2005 @ 10:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My dad has a Salsa Red Metallic Equinox LS here r some pictures of my dads car from the chevrolet website i lost the pictures of his car he sent me here some links:
According to my ford buddies, the main reason the taurus sold so well was because of the optional SHO package. It may not have been a big improvement (since it went from a 3.1V6 to a 3.4) but it was a DOHC instead of the SOHC.
The Equinox is the replacement for the Chevy Tracker -- a small, underpowered SUV based on the Suzuki Vitara and Grand Vitara. When the Tracker was last redesigned for 1999, brands like Ford, Jeep, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda and Nissan didn't have small SUV offerings, so the truck-based Tracker was one of a few viable alternatives.
Their competition is Saturn Vue, Honda CR-V, Jeep Liberty, Ford Escape, Kia Sorento. There are a few others from Toyota, but those are the big boys.
A single 3.4-liter V6 engine is standard on all Equinox models, whether front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive.
Ok, if I have time I'll try to research the Taurus sales and see if it's broken down or not. In all honesty, I have never seen that man SHO's on the road, although I know they were hot.
Alright, I have to amend some of my numbers as my ford fanboys really don't know what they are talking about. Which doesn't surprise me. That is why we call them fanboys. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The first restyle of Ford's bold and innovative 1986 Taurus had come and gone with a yawn. Introduced in 1992, it was promptly criticized. Too mild, the critics said. Too Boring, the enthusiast rags chimed in. Ford is losing it's edge, they all chorused. Never mind the fact that the boring restyle sold better than ever, even capturing the sales crown throughout it's four year run.
The criticism must've stung, for when Ford trotted out the newly redesigned Taurus for '96, there was no way anyone could claim that Ford had gotten timid again.
The new Taurus was everything the last version wasn't: fresh, bold, distinctive, and -- criticized for being a little bit too bold, distinctive and unorthodox. Sometimes you just can't beat those Monday morning quarterbacks. Regardless about how you feel about the styling, which after all is a subjective matter anyway, you've got to hand it to Ford for having the chutzpah to engineer such a radical change on the nation's best selling car.
That first year, 1996, was a continuation of the last, and the Taurus took the sales crown again. The public, however, never fully warmed to the redesign, and it was handicapped initially by Ford's attempt to increase standard equipment -- and price -- and move the model upmarket a bit. The sales crown was captured through the introduction of a slightly decontented and cheaper base model and some very healthy dealer and customer incentives. <b>The huge number of sales to rental fleets, including Ford's captive Hertz Rental Car, didn't hurt either. In 1997 Ford decided to stop the heavy subsidies, and the Taurus lost the sales race to the Toyota Camry. It hasn't reclaimed it since. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that is for the years of 1996, I would assume something similar along the lines for 1992-1995 however, I can not find any evidence to suggest for/against at the moment.
Taurus years and corresponding engines (first one at the top of the column is the standard the rest were optional) {SOHC = Single over head cam} {DOHC= Dual overhead cam} <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Production: 1986 — 1991 Body Styles: 4-door sedan 4-door wagon Engines: 2.5 L I4 [Standard] DOHC 3.0 L Vulcan V6 SOHC 3.8 L Essex V6 SOHC 3.0 L SHO V6 DOHC
Second Generation Production: 1992 — 1995 Body Styles: 4-door sedan 4-door wagon Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC 3.8 L Essex V6 SOHC 3.0 L SHO V6 DOHC 3.2 L SHO V6 DOHC
Third Generation Production: 1996 — 1999 Body Styles: 4-door sedan 4-door wagon Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC 3.0 L Duratec V6 DOHC 3.4 L SHO V8 SOHC
Fourth Generation Production: 2000 — 2004 Body Styles: 4-door sedan 4-door wagon Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC 3.0 L Duratec V6 DOHC
Fifth Generation Production: 2004 — 2006 (Last year for Taurus according to Ford as of today(06/05/05) Body Styles: 4-door sedan Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC 3.0 L Duratec V6 DOHC <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Bravo, most excellent. Thanks for saving me from digging that up.
The rental car thing ... it would be hard to comprehend the 100's of new cars that get shipped to RACs at/near the Orlando airport on a daily basis, everything from Eclipses to Town Cars and whatever fell in between. Hertz, Avis, Alamo, National, and Dollar rounded out the top 5 as I recall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Differences in an automatic and a manual, non technical.
There is no clutch pedal in an automatic transmission car There is no gear shift in an automatic transmission car There is no point in an automatic transmission car <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, the automatic does the shifting of the gears with a minor decrease in power and torque of said car/truck.
You can usually expect a manual to have 10-15% more horsepower and 5-10% more torque then an automatic(To the wheels, not to the fly wheel). Which means usually depending upon weight, that the mnaual will consume less gas, if it has enough power to push said automobile better.
Cyndane is correct. I however am now a BIG fan of the automatic. After shifting gears in my over 2,000,000 miles of professional driving I <b>HATE</b> manuals! <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On a similar note, if I'm not mistaken high school driver's ed programs have been using automatics for decades in their class cars. I find this change in trends interesting, because when I learned to drive it was mandatory everyone learned on a standard, whereas you could easily drive an automatic if trained on a standard, but not the other way around.
I'm sure it's like this because such a high percentage of automobiles now have automatics, unlike it was in the mid 60's. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited June 2005
It's the laziness factor. Any idiot can jump in an automatic, turn the key and hit the gas to go forward. I'm pretty sure you could train monkeys to do it within a week, if that.
The other problem with automatics is the transmission itself... given that the shifting is based on a pressure differential (in most), they have to hold higher internal pressures, rather than just the gear-climb self lubrication of a manual. This means that an automatic is more of a PITA to work on, parts are more expensive, and that they break more easily when driven by someone under sixty, or someone over sixty who has not succumbed to old-people-syndrome.
As an example, my little manual 1.5L SOHC Mirage, pushing 87hp, kicked the living crap out of three auto V6es, pushing at least double that. Some of it was weight... but more of it was being able to control my launch, and shift when the engine would stay inside its power band most effectively.
On another note, I managed to get myself accepted to a Willow Springs street performance event. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Now I have to find a helmet and get used to driving in it. :b
The automatic V6's could do that as well, if they knew how to race. I attribute your wins more to weight. Two times the power but two times the weight means the same speed. Especially with japanese cars.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
So you're saying that a Camry weighs in at 3600 pounds?
And I'm not sure if I'm going to be on the full Willow Raceway, or Streets of Willow. Both are street courses, but the latter is much, much, MUCH shorter and more technical. And my lack of power steering will make me sad, if that's the one I'd be on.
Well the lightest camry I can find weighs in at 3,086 lbs(that is with the 4 cylinder engine as well. V6 is 3296lbs). That is curb weight without any fluids. :-) I wouldn't be surprised to find it add another 600 or so with fluids and driver.
In addition the really weak transmisison in the camry and the messed up gears of it, also contributed. I'd also point to driver error, since he/she didn't know where the powerband starts/ends on said engine.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
No, the Camry was an automatic. One guy was trying to powershift his (and blew his tranny out a week later), but my little car still zipped ahead. 22.381 second half-mile, with a 97mph ET. Closest a V6 got was just under 24. The scary-**** manual V8 pulled it off in 16 though. A manual just affords far greater control to the driver... especially so in twisties, if you know how to heel-toe.
Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 5 2005, 11:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 5 2005, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, the Camry was an automatic. One guy was trying to powershift his (and blew his tranny out a week later), but my little car still zipped ahead. 22.381 second half-mile, with a 97mph ET. Closest a V6 got was just under 24. The scary-**** manual V8 pulled it off in 16 though. A manual just affords far greater control to the driver... especially so in twisties, if you know how to heel-toe.
Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Most stock autos are also tuned for fuel economy. I'd really like to see the difference between a manual and an auto that has less economical shift points.
<!--QuoteBegin-NumbersNotFound+Jun 5 2005, 11:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NumbersNotFound @ Jun 5 2005, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 5 2005, 11:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 5 2005, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, the Camry was an automatic. One guy was trying to powershift his (and blew his tranny out a week later), but my little car still zipped ahead. 22.381 second half-mile, with a 97mph ET. Closest a V6 got was just under 24. The scary-**** manual V8 pulled it off in 16 though. A manual just affords far greater control to the driver... especially so in twisties, if you know how to heel-toe.
Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most stock autos are also tuned for fuel economy. I'd really like to see the difference between a manual and an auto that has less economical shift points. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i always thought autos had like 2 settings for example if your light on the gas it shifts economecly but when you floor it it changes its shiftpoints.. but im probably realy dumb <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 6 2005, 12:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 6 2005, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A fairly accurate analogy Talesin. The <a href='http://www.bmracing.com/index.php?id=about&sid=3' target='_blank'>B&M Hydro Stick</a> is probably the best aftermarket automatic for racing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 5 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 5 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well the lightest camry I can find weighs in at 3,086 lbs(that is with the 4 cylinder engine as well. V6 is 3296lbs). That is curb weight without any fluids. :-) I wouldn't be surprised to find it add another 600 or so with fluids and driver.
In addition the really weak transmisison in the camry and the messed up gears of it, also contributed. I'd also point to driver error, since he/she didn't know where the powerband starts/ends on said engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't think your definition of curb weight sounded correct, so I looked it up. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Curb Weight </b> The weight of an empty vehicle, without cargo and driver and passengers, but including maximum amounts of fuel, oil, coolant and standard equipment, including the spare tire and tools. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The average weight for male adults in the United States is about 168 lbs to 182.6 lbs For female adults the average weight is 120 lbs to 140 lbs. So the max said Camry (4 cylinder) would weigh would be 3268 lbs. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
First off the analogy with macintosh isn't quite true. I'll let it slide though.
Secondly, since the curb weight includes the fluids and what not, excluding the driver, the camry you raced was around 3400lbs+.
*Edit, that is the lowest weight I have found, and it was on a brand new camry, apparently if you go back in the years they get heavier. Example: 2002 = 3,351 *
My point stands, the guy didn't know who to shift it properly to keep it in the power band. Anyone who has owned an automatic and has used it for racing knows if you wish to keep the car in the powerband, you need to reset the computer, then teach it where you wish it to shift, or you can buy a SuperAFC and manually tell it where to shift in each gear. He should have been shifting at around 5300 rpm that is his max horsepower peak. (V6 model, the 4-cylinders are around 5600rpm).
Which goes to show you the engine is not made for racing at all, nor is the transmission, I know they have really crappy gear boxes. Although I would say, he should have won, if he knew what he was doing.
Comments
Dubbilex, you dirty little boy. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Duh. Come on, I can carry a lot of cargo!
<!--QuoteBegin-Har Har the Pirate Jun 4 2005+ 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Har Har the Pirate Jun 4 2005 @ 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
yeah i have a ford taurus ( no laughing) and it is about the same size with a lil bit less hp and is not what i would call quick (that could be the **** tranny ford insisted on useing until 2002)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I recall, the Ford Taurus was the top selling vehicle in the U.S. at some point, outselling even the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
<a href='http://www.chevrolet.com/equinox/colors/' target='_blank'>http://www.chevrolet.com/equinox/colors/</a>
click on Equinox LS
then thats the clor of my dads car.
here r some pictures:
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery10.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery09.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery08.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery07.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery05.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery04.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery03.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery02.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pulsar132/ext_gallery01.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Pulsar
<b>FYI:</b> Little know fact but since this is the wheels thread, Orlando, Fla. is the rental car capital of the U.S. (world maybe?).
<!--QuoteBegin-pulsar Jun 5 2005+ 10:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pulsar Jun 5 2005 @ 10:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
My dad has a Salsa Red Metallic Equinox LS here r some pictures of my dads car from the chevrolet website i lost the pictures of his car he sent me here some links:
<a href='http://www.chevrolet.com/equinox/colors/' target='_blank'>http://www.chevrolet.com/equinox/colors/</a>
click on Equinox LS
then thats the clor of my dads car.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What did the Equinox replace? (soz, not a huge GM fan)
The Equinox is the replacement for the Chevy Tracker -- a small, underpowered SUV based on the Suzuki Vitara and Grand Vitara. When the Tracker was last redesigned for 1999, brands like Ford, Jeep, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda and Nissan didn't have small SUV offerings, so the truck-based Tracker was one of a few viable alternatives.
Their competition is Saturn Vue, Honda CR-V, Jeep Liberty, Ford Escape, Kia Sorento. There are a few others from Toyota, but those are the big boys.
A single 3.4-liter V6 engine is standard on all Equinox models, whether front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The first restyle of Ford's bold and innovative 1986 Taurus had come and gone with a yawn. Introduced in 1992, it was promptly criticized. Too mild, the critics said. Too Boring, the enthusiast rags chimed in. Ford is losing it's edge, they all chorused. Never mind the fact that the boring restyle sold better than ever, even capturing the sales crown throughout it's four year run.
The criticism must've stung, for when Ford trotted out the newly redesigned Taurus for '96, there was no way anyone could claim that Ford had gotten timid again.
The new Taurus was everything the last version wasn't: fresh, bold, distinctive, and -- criticized for being a little bit too bold, distinctive and unorthodox. Sometimes you just can't beat those Monday morning quarterbacks. Regardless about how you feel about the styling, which after all is a subjective matter anyway, you've got to hand it to Ford for having the chutzpah to engineer such a radical change on the nation's best selling car.
That first year, 1996, was a continuation of the last, and the Taurus took the sales crown again. The public, however, never fully warmed to the redesign, and it was handicapped initially by Ford's attempt to increase standard equipment -- and price -- and move the model upmarket a bit. The sales crown was captured through the introduction of a slightly decontented and cheaper base model and some very healthy dealer and customer incentives. <b>The huge number of sales to rental fleets, including Ford's captive Hertz Rental Car, didn't hurt either. In 1997 Ford decided to stop the heavy subsidies, and the Taurus lost the sales race to the Toyota Camry. It hasn't reclaimed it since. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that is for the years of 1996, I would assume something similar along the lines for 1992-1995 however, I can not find any evidence to suggest for/against at the moment.
Taurus years and corresponding engines (first one at the top of the column is the standard the rest were optional) {SOHC = Single over head cam} {DOHC= Dual overhead cam}
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
Production: 1986 — 1991
Body Styles: 4-door sedan
4-door wagon
Engines: 2.5 L I4 [Standard] DOHC
3.0 L Vulcan V6 SOHC
3.8 L Essex V6 SOHC
3.0 L SHO V6 DOHC
Second Generation
Production: 1992 — 1995
Body Styles: 4-door sedan
4-door wagon
Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC
3.8 L Essex V6 SOHC
3.0 L SHO V6 DOHC
3.2 L SHO V6 DOHC
Third Generation
Production: 1996 — 1999
Body Styles: 4-door sedan
4-door wagon
Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC
3.0 L Duratec V6 DOHC
3.4 L SHO V8 SOHC
Fourth Generation
Production: 2000 — 2004
Body Styles: 4-door sedan
4-door wagon
Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC
3.0 L Duratec V6 DOHC
Fifth Generation
Production: 2004 — 2006 (Last year for Taurus according to Ford as of today(06/05/05)
Body Styles: 4-door sedan
Engines: 3.0 L Vulcan V6 [Standard] SOHC
3.0 L Duratec V6 DOHC
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
The rental car thing ... it would be hard to comprehend the 100's of new cars that get shipped to RACs at/near the Orlando airport on a daily basis, everything from Eclipses to Town Cars and whatever fell in between. Hertz, Avis, Alamo, National, and Dollar rounded out the top 5 as I recall.
<a href='http://evo.gameover.com/sniper/photos/camaro.html' target='_blank'>Here's pics of my '95 Camaro V6.</a>
160 horsepower, baby. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cant that 160hp even move that heavy beast? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's with the "LOL Automatic <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->"
Since when does automatic mean bad?
Crazy kids and your "omg i have more control over my car!!!!111oneoneone" manuals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Differences in an automatic and a manual, non technical.
There is no clutch pedal in an automatic transmission car
There is no gear shift in an automatic transmission car
There is no point in an automatic transmission car
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, the automatic does the shifting of the gears with a minor decrease in power and torque of said car/truck.
You can usually expect a manual to have 10-15% more horsepower and 5-10% more torque then an automatic(To the wheels, not to the fly wheel). Which means usually depending upon weight, that the mnaual will consume less gas, if it has enough power to push said automobile better.
This isn't always the case, but you never know.
On a similar note, if I'm not mistaken high school driver's ed programs have been using automatics for decades in their class cars. I find this change in trends interesting, because when I learned to drive it was mandatory everyone learned on a standard, whereas you could easily drive an automatic if trained on a standard, but not the other way around.
I'm sure it's like this because such a high percentage of automobiles now have automatics, unlike it was in the mid 60's. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The other problem with automatics is the transmission itself... given that the shifting is based on a pressure differential (in most), they have to hold higher internal pressures, rather than just the gear-climb self lubrication of a manual. This means that an automatic is more of a PITA to work on, parts are more expensive, and that they break more easily when driven by someone under sixty, or someone over sixty who has not succumbed to old-people-syndrome.
As an example, my little manual 1.5L SOHC Mirage, pushing 87hp, kicked the living crap out of three auto V6es, pushing at least double that. Some of it was weight... but more of it was being able to control my launch, and shift when the engine would stay inside its power band most effectively.
On another note, I managed to get myself accepted to a Willow Springs street performance event. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Now I have to find a helmet and get used to driving in it. :b
Many a manual transmission I've dropped without a jack. Try doing that with an automatic. HA!
And I'm not sure if I'm going to be on the full Willow Raceway, or Streets of Willow. Both are street courses, but the latter is much, much, MUCH shorter and more technical. And my lack of power steering will make me sad, if that's the one I'd be on.
I wouldn't be surprised to find it add another 600 or so with fluids and driver.
In addition the really weak transmisison in the camry and the messed up gears of it, also contributed. I'd also point to driver error, since he/she didn't know where the powerband starts/ends on said engine.
Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience.
Oh god I wish I drove this...
Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most stock autos are also tuned for fuel economy. I'd really like to see the difference between a manual and an auto that has less economical shift points.
Actually, an automatic transmission is the automotive equivalent to a Macintosh. More expensive, breaks easier, is a pain in the butt to fix when it breaks, and costs more for repairs. But the operator doesn't have to know anything ABOUT it, and so pays the stupid-tax in favor of convenience. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most stock autos are also tuned for fuel economy. I'd really like to see the difference between a manual and an auto that has less economical shift points. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i always thought autos had like 2 settings for example if your light on the gas it shifts economecly but when you floor it it changes its shiftpoints.. but im probably realy dumb <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A fairly accurate analogy Talesin. The <a href='http://www.bmracing.com/index.php?id=about&sid=3' target='_blank'>B&M Hydro Stick</a> is probably the best aftermarket automatic for racing.
I wouldn't be surprised to find it add another 600 or so with fluids and driver.
In addition the really weak transmisison in the camry and the messed up gears of it, also contributed. I'd also point to driver error, since he/she didn't know where the powerband starts/ends on said engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't think your definition of curb weight sounded correct, so I looked it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Curb Weight </b>
The weight of an empty vehicle, without cargo and driver and passengers, but including maximum amounts of fuel, oil, coolant and standard equipment, including the spare tire and tools. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The average weight for male adults in the United States is about 168 lbs to 182.6 lbs For female adults the average weight is 120 lbs to 140 lbs. So the max said Camry (4 cylinder) would weigh would be 3268 lbs. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Secondly, since the curb weight includes the fluids and what not, excluding the driver, the camry you raced was around 3400lbs+.
*Edit, that is the lowest weight I have found, and it was on a brand new camry, apparently if you go back in the years they get heavier. Example: 2002 = 3,351 *
My point stands, the guy didn't know who to shift it properly to keep it in the power band. Anyone who has owned an automatic and has used it for racing knows if you wish to keep the car in the powerband, you need to reset the computer, then teach it where you wish it to shift, or you can buy a SuperAFC and manually tell it where to shift in each gear. He should have been shifting at around 5300 rpm that is his max horsepower peak. (V6 model, the 4-cylinders are around 5600rpm).
Which goes to show you the engine is not made for racing at all, nor is the transmission, I know they have really crappy gear boxes. Although I would say, he should have won, if he knew what he was doing.