Of course they were gonna do it eventually, my only question is what the premise is - the U.S. is pretty stupid about it, either claiming fuel efficiency benefits or safety benefits. Of course, every car is different and has different maximum efficiency speeds, and most of the safety issues of speed go away once people are both used to that speed and have everyone going the same speed as them, but let's not focus on facts right now
They are the same reasons here the only thing is when talking about crashes they often use england as a example wich doesnt work since we in germany have way more flow through traffic than other european countries. And since most deadly traffic accidents usually involve a lorry it doesnt change that much. Also the fuel savings one is a bit dumb as well since you can drive much more fuel wasteful when going 130 than you do with 160 or so. Then they often say why do we need open autobahns when they are full all the time anyway this is imo the worst argument since if something never really happens then why do we need a law there in the first place.
Well, because your post about battery reminds me about overrating, sorry if my quote annoyed you. --- Post updated --- OT: Tesla has removed regenerative braking options on all newer models, RWD and AWD, which means reduced comfort and safety.(reddit discussion) IMO the regen adjustment option was good since people have different preferences, removing it always reduce vehicle handling. 1. Increased passenger discomfort, more reports about passenger motion sickness when the driver uses standard regen(or driver unable to turn down regen on newer Teslas). 2. Inconsistent regen strength due to climate, battery level, etc. 3. Reduced traction on slippery surfaces, ABS only regulate brake pressure and won't prevent the loss of traction due to excessive negative torque from the drivetrain. 4. Increased accident rate by pedal misapplication. In a car with conventional pedal mapping, when driving to an uncertain situation such as a blind turn of possible jaywalker, the driver puts the right foot on the brake pedal, reducing braking distance if emergency braking is required. In comparison, most moden EVs, HEVs and PHEVs use: Bind regen to the brake pedal's "dead zone"(range where brake lights on without engaging brake pads on their ICEV conterparts) Use paddle "shifters" to control regen Use retarder lever similar to those on commercial vehicles to control regen Use "B" or "L" "gear" to regen while emulate engine braking.
Maybe. It's a dodge product so expect everything to break. I would probably just give it fresh fluids, let it fly, and focus on fixing any drivability issues. Then hopefully sell before something breaks. Of course 5.7. Maybe this one fits the part better?
Hey, I know of a couple local departments who had 2.7's and 3.5's as prowlers, then 5.7's as cruisers.
The 2.7 is such a turd. I can't recall seeing it in a police cruiser, but I believe it was indeed a fleet-only option in the US. You wouldn't be catching anyone with that. The 3.5 has a lot more power but isn't much better reliability-wise. Both are known sludgers. The 3.6 is probly the most reliable engine put into the Charger and its still pretty fun to drive. I would consider one but only if I can get it cheap and do a quick flip for profit. I got to have a 5.7 at some point.
Nah, the 2.7 could be found in standard civi-bought cars as well. They are so awful. The 3.5 SOHC is a MUCH better design. The Pentastar is a great engine, though. I had a 105 crank horsepower Corolla that would vomit in a 2.7 Charger's face in terms of acceleration. They were such terrible engines. Best part is the 200HP variant found in FWD applications (like the mid-2000s Sebring) was STILL a turd. --- Post updated --- Yeah, Chrysler thought for some reason that putting a 180HP engine in the LX platform with a 4-speed transmission was a good idea. The end result was 0-60 measured in calendar days and fuel consumption not much better than the Hemi. They're all blown up by now thank Christ.
Anything fitted with the 2.7 is a turd by association. It is especially unfit for the LX. I cannot imagine who would have been interested besides rental fleets. Probably some poor fools with bad credit. According to wikipedia, mopar detuned the 2.7 as the years went on. In the 90s it made 200hp in LH cars, but by 2009MY it only had 178hp in the LX cars. Probably a fuel economy compromise? Yes, thankfully they're all blown up by now.
For what it's worth, I could see something like a Stratus being decently quick with it, but wasn't that the engine with the internal water pump too?
Yep. A whole host of problems. It was probably a lot better suited for the smaller fwd cars in which it was fitted, but still a bad engine. I'm curious to drive one now...
