it is interesting to think that they have turbo Charges in Europe, with what they pay for Gas
And there is 1 difference between us, we really aren't that bothered about the cost of petrol. At the end of the day it is still cheaper to run a car than it is to use public transport. Saves time too.
...At the end of the day it is still cheaper to run a car than it is to use public transport. Saves time too.
I'm not sure I understand how you qualify that statement. I think anywhere public transportation is available it's known to be cheaper than private transportation**otherwise who would use it?
Take a local case in point: in Salt Lake City you can ride Trax for $1.75 each way, $3.50 round trip or less than $60 for a month of unlimited use. A smart car, one of the most fuel-efficient on the road might barely be able to compete when comparing only the cost of fuel. Add in insurance, registration, maintenance and depreciation, and there's simply no way owning a car can be considered even competitive, let alone cheaper.
Some might argue the cost comparisons aren't fare because public transportation is often partially government-subsidized. Well, so is private transportation, and there are hidden costs we pay for private transportation as well. (For example, pollution abatement and mediation).
Here in Arlington, TX the only "public transportation" we have available is cab service. No local rail and/or train service. No local bus service. So it's either own a vehicle, borrow or rent a vehicle, ride a bicycle, walk or call a cab. From our house to DFW airport it's $50 round trip. 4 round trips in a month is $200. That doesn't include grocery shopping, traveling anywhere or everyday type errands. So here in Arlington, TX it is indeed cheaper to own a vehicle than try to find and pay for public transportation.
I'm not sure I understand how you qualify that statement.
Easily. I live in London, England.
$60 wouldn't get you a normal length train journey for a week.
Our basic train fare is about $8 and that is a 1 day return usually between 2 very close stations. The normal train fare from the outskirts of London into central London costs about $18 a day.
Easily. I live in London, England.
$60 wouldn't get you a normal length train journey for a week.
Our basic train fare is about $8 and that is a 1 day return usually between 2 very close stations. The normal train fare from the outskirts of London into central London costs about $18 a day.
Evilution - Quite a different case in the States. Take NYC, where a 60 mile each way train fare is approx. $280/month versus a Manhattan parking fee of $700/month, plus $100/month tolls (off peak) and gas and car upkeep. Even if you use your smart at 40 mpg., that $12/day for gas or another $240/month for gas. So, mass transit of $280/month versus driving at over $1,000 per month into NYC. Even if you include subway fares and a drive to the RR station, the most it would cost you is about $400/month. That's still alot of money, but far less than driving your car into the Big Apple. If you can find mass transit in America (I wonder why a state like Texas hasn't developed a sophisticated mass transit system?), take it. PS. Of course, if you have free parking at work, then the figures get closer, but it's still cheaper to take the train.
If you can find mass transit in America (I wonder why a state like Texas hasn't developed a sophisticated mass transit system?), take it.
I can't speak for all of Texas. I know that public transportation has been brought up on the ballot here in Arlington, TX and each time it has been defeated by a large margin. I know some other cities have public transportation like Dallas and many of the surrounding cities. DART for example covers Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett, & University Park with rail, bus, paratransit, HOV lane and ride-share services.
I know that's off the original topic but it is following the current flow.
Back on topic: I don't know anything about the turbo charged smarts. It would stand to reason though that more hp = less fuel efficiency.
As an example, within the same engine family, a 100 HP turbo charged engine usually has better fuel efficiency than a 100 HP normally aspirated engine. The reason is that a turbo charged engine can achieve the same HP out of a smaller displacement engine which means less reciprocating mass and less friction.
However, if we were to add a turbo charger to the existing engine, the boost pressure can be made adjustable. So if you want more power, just turn the boost pressure knob up. If you want better fuel efficiency, turn it down.
Last edited by torqueaholic; 05-12-2008 at 08:56 AM.
As an example, within the same engine family, a 100 HP turbo charged engine usually has better fuel efficiency than a 100 HP normally aspirated engine. The reason is that a turbo charged engine can achieve the same HP out of a smaller displacement engine which means less reciprocating mass and less friction.
However, if we were to add a turbo charger to the existing engine, the boost pressure can be made adjustable. So if you want more power, just turn the boost pressure knob up. If you want better fuel efficiency, turn it down.
This was perfectly stated, although you could add that retrofitting a turbocharger to a normally aspirated engine can also lead to engine failure by subjecting it to pressures outside of the engineered tolerances. But if it drives like a little rocket for a while, it might be worth the risk to some.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
PS. Of course, if you have free parking at work, then the figures get closer, but it's still cheaper to take the train.
Today
Linear Mode
