I personally kind of hate them. They sound boring, have boring power delivery (and that's coming from someone who thinks a GM 3.1L V6 is a fun ride), they smell horrible (and that's coming from someone who sometimes finds the smell of gasoline exhaust enjoyable), they make the car nose-heavy (again, coming from someone who thinks a 3.1L Cavalier is a fun ride), and they are indirectly responsible for the new Supra having a -50HP particulate filter even in the US where it's not mandatory yet, which due to idiotic post-purchase emissions not-really-laws can never be removed even though it's not mandatory yet! Diesel is fine in medium and heavy trucks. Elsewhere, well, it's better than electric but that's really not saying much.
Why hybrid vehicles don't use diesel engines? They are better at low RPM and higher efficiency, high emission only occurs at high load (black smoke).
I have to somewhat agree on Diesel engines. I've only driven newer, bone stock 6.7l Powerstroke and Cummins diesels in 3/4 and 1 ton pickups. The power band and sound just don't do much for me. I prefer the big gas v8s in those trucks. I'm not doing any towing or hauling with them though, just joyriding.
Law of diminishing returns. With how low the hybrid fuel consumption is, making it just a little lower isn't really worth it when you factor in the cost of a diesel and its relative obscurity outside Europe. --- Post updated --- People are only allowed to like what you like?
Oh, you mean like I'm only allowed to like driving in the exact center of my lane just in case there's a bicycle hiding somewhere? You mean how I'm only allowed to like boring, luxury-bloated, efficient-to-a-fault eco-turbos because "that's what the majority wants"?
And you have to find a middle ground. Staying close to the center works fine. Also, should I remind you who does many times more damage to the roads than cyclists?
That's not a "middle ground" and it doesn't "work fine". That's demanding that everyone on the road design their entire driving style around your minuscule (but very loud and overrepresented on the internet) minority of road users, all the time, everywhere, forever, whether there's actually one around or not (since there's no reliable way to know) - to say nothing of the many perfectly legitimate non-speed-related reasons a normal driver might have to deviate from the center of their lane. And you think I'm the selfish one? But this isn't even the point. The point is, you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of - frequently, and not even consistently (if you're going to bash the Cavalier, then maybe you shouldn't do it right after calling the Mustang II "the right car for the time"). I complain about cars becoming too complicated or efficient to a fault, or imply that the Cavalier was not, in fact, The Worst Car Ever Made, and here you come, telling me that luxury and efficiency are what the majority wants so I'm objectively wrong and need to embrace the Shiny Happy Eco Turbo. I complain about cyclists and you're right there to tell me how evil and selfish I am because I don't enjoy constantly kowtowing to cyclists and pedestrians (who usually turn out to not actually be there) on narrow, unlit back roads. I say that your precious "majority" obviously don't kowtow to bicycles either given how quickly shoulder lines get scrubbed off, and suddenly "the majority" are all jerks and don't matter anymore. So if you want to accuse me of "people are only allowed to like what I like", well, that's rich coming from you.
If cyclists were takimg over entire roads, yo would have a point. But they don't. They take only two feet or so. Also, what do you plan to do to push your fringe minority ideas on the majority?
First, it's not just two feet, miss me with that BS. It's the entire shoulder, plus the half-foot of lane that a bicyclist physically occupies, plus any space between them and the shoulder line, plus a safety margin of a couple feet (which is still way too close IMO), now suddenly there's a quarter of the lane or more that has to be treated as a de facto unmarked bike lane/sidewalk - permanently, even if there are no cyclists within a 20 mile radius, because once again there's no way to know until you've already cleared the corner. But frankly, I don't even care to get involved in hair-splitting discussions about exactly how much space cyclists should get because that's not the point. The point is, regardless of how much physical space you occupy, you still think other people's driving styles should revolve around you. And there you go again, accusing me of "pushing fringe minority ideas on the majority" when that is exactly what you are doing in demanding people constantly watch themselves to make sure they aren't infringing on some unmarked, invisible "cyclist space". Once again, the majority matters when they want boring cars, but not when they don't want bicycles. And even then, how can you be sure that "the majority" wants boring cars when the regulators are doing everything in their power to keep anything else off the market? And about the boring modern cars - where's your middle ground on that, huh? I don't see much middle ground in your posts on the subject.
It's all about ability - drivers can avoid hitting a bicyclist once in a while (and it will happen unless bicycles are banned), but a car can only be designed one way. And there are few enthusiast cars because there are, and will always be, few car enthusiasts.
"Once in a while" - that's just the thing. It's not "once in a while". If darkness and blind corners did not exist, and it was always possible to know in advance where the non-drivers would be, then they would not be a problem assuming they did indeed leave space for passing. But darkness and blind corners do exist, which means you force people to drive as if avoiding a bicyclist constantly, and moreso at night. If I'm out in the middle of nowhere at 2 or 3 in the morning, I still have to drive on eggshells just in case that guy is hiding in the darkness somewhere. It's like having an oncoming lane on both sides of you (and the one to the right partially overlapping your lane), it's tedious, it's garbage, and it should have ceased to be the case several decades ago. As for there being few car enthusiasts - you're avoiding my question. There are few bicyclists too, yet you still demand a "middle ground" that places an onerous burden on every driver without their getting much of a choice in the matter. Where is your middle ground on boring, actively enthusiast-hostile car design?
Onerous burden of actual watchful driving? If that is an onerous burden in Alaska, I don't want to drive there. Also, the middle ground is building cars that the buyers want the most.
Its not just cyclists that could be around a blind bend at night, cut that crap, could just as easily be a broken down vehicle or a large animal, you ever seen what happens when a car hits a horse? You might survive, neither the horse nor your car will, which means following driver now has your stationary vehicle and a dead horse to avoid flogging. If you wish to drive like that, visit a track. The road system wasn't made for car enthusiasts, it was made for all people to utilise as a transport medium, hell, most of the network predates motor vehicles.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads Fun fact: cyclists were some of the first supporters of flat roads.
Add a tune and an exhaust and it's a totally different animal, the turbo lag can become almost nonexistent if you don't mind sacrificing a little fuel economy. Most newer vehicles sound lame when they're stock, unless it's something performance oriented. Diesel is quite common in North America too, just not as much in small cars.
It's not watchful driving, it's paranoid driving. Constantly dodging literal phantoms because of a tiny chance that one of them will eventually come up real. So then the middle ground in terms of road use would be to use the road in the way that makes life easiest for the greatest number of other road users - say, by only riding your bike during daylight hours and only on roads with good sightlines. What you're asking for in terms of roads - that everyone should just automatically leave bicycle space by default - is more like what I was asking for in terms of cars, that every car should have some minimum level of enthusiast- and tuner-friendliness. Once again - when the normies seem to want boring cars (hard to tell since there's precious little choice anymore), then their word is law and there should be no dissent, but when the normies think bicycles are annoying or dangerous, or just don't think about them at all, then they don't matter anymore and you can annoy them as much as you want (as long as you don't have an engine moving you along when you do so). It's getting to where I strongly suspect that most of the people on this forum just plain hate cars but don't want to admit it to themselves. Oh yes, the good ol' whatabout. "There are other obstacles on the road so bicycles don't matter." Honestly, I'm surprised it took this long to show up. But the problem is, none of that is relevant. If an animal shows up in the road, then your position in the lane is more a matter of luck than preparation since animals don't really see lanes or shoulders. And a broken down car, besides being easier to sweep for since, is an unintentional obstruction. No one leaves the house hoping their car will break down so they can park it in a dangerous spot. If you go out riding a bicycle on a narrow road when you have a choice not to, then that's deliberate. You're just going "Yeah, I could keep up with traffic and not be an artificial hazard, but nah, I think I'll demand special consideration from everyone else on the road because my exercise/money saving/environmental dogma/Having a Right trumps everyone else's ability to move about in peace." All I know is, it used to be a lot more possible than it is now - because cycling used to be a lot lest popular than it is now, at least in the US. But rather than be against this, it's like the modern car enthusiast fall to some sort of... paralysis of inevitability, or something, that compels them to switch sides and join the bicyclists instead while screaming "SELFISH RECKLESS GATEKEEPING SELFISH RECKLESS GATEKEEPING SELFISH RECKLESS GATEKEEPING YOU JUST WANNA GO 80 IN A SCHOOL ZONE I HAVE A RIGHT WE WERE HERE FIRST BICYCLE SPACE COMES FIRST SELFISH RECKLESS SELFISH RECKLESS" at anyone who doesn't applaud their change of sides. Furthermore, the track is a completely different environment with completely different values, a completely different character, and a completely different accessibility. But here's the thing - none of that is even relevant. I've never actually driven at 10/10ths on the street - and I still find that bicycles ask for too much consideration. You don't have to be driving as if on a track to be annoyed by bicycles and pedestrians. I just plain don't think it's reasonable at all to expect every other person on the road - upwards of 99%, in some places - to constantly design their every move around the tiny possibility that there might be a non-driver hiding somewhere. You say people are jerks for cutting shoulders without really thinking much about it. I say it's perfectly normal, especially in the winter when you can't even see the shoulder line half the time, and they shouldn't be forced to stop. But in former times, it was possible for car enthusiasts to ride the coattails of "all people" using it as a transport medium. Now, it's getting to where there are no coattails to ride, due to the outsized demands of a microscopic fraction of road users, who themselves frequently interfere with "all people" just because they can. I love it when car enthusiasts know nothing about and care nothing for the history of car culture, but they sure know every last factoid there is to know about bicycles and all the things they did a hundred years ago and how they ruled the roost before cars were around in any significant quantity and obviously that means they still should. Yes, cyclists were some of the first supporters of flat roads - over a century ago, when motorized vehicles themselves barely existed. Those who still preferred horses and bicycles during that time were also responsible for some of the first speed limits and speed traps. At the time, maybe, they had a point, since the motor vehicle was a relatively new thing and a million different modes of transportation were sharing the road on a regular basis. But guess what - time, just like the technology you love so much and expect everyone else to love too, moves on, and that hasn't been the case in many decades. Bicycles aren't the main event anymore. They're the eternal pain in the butt demanding permanent special consideration at everyone else's expense while swearing up and down that it's not special consideration and is no expense at all.
I guess you don't get the point. Roads are for any moderately large group. Cars are for specific buyer demographics, and if one isn't profitable, then there is no need to serve it.
