Find Reviews by Make:
Another car carrier incident, another hot Porsche and Chinese channel stuffing. Oh and the MINI Paceman is dead.
- A car carrier with roughly 1,400 MINI, Jaguar and Land Rover cars is stuck on a sand bar near the Isle of Wight.
- The internet is up in arms about the Mustang Ecoboost losing power on regular fuel – just like every other Ecoboost does.
- MINI is rationalizing its lineup, with the Coupe, Roadster and Paceman set to die.
- Porsche is prepping a Cayman GT4.
- Chinese auto dealers are unhappy about channel stuffing.
28 Comments on “While You Were Sleeping: January 6th, 2015...”
Read all comments
“MINI is rationalizing its lineup”, thereby cutting its possible combinations to less than three trillion
I saw a Mini CLUBSAUCE yesterday, was not impressed.
Since Mini has yet to release a pickup version they haven’t reach zenith yet. Thus I’m disappointed they are cutting back on models. It’s too soon for those of us that wanted a Mini El Camino. We can only gaze upon the Red Bull promotional ones and wonder why this was not available next door to our local BMW dealership along with the other 100 silly variations to the Mini.
Appreciate that the pict used is a “brown wagon”.
Slow news day, huh?
Jeez … just how car-unsavvy are people, anyway? Most newer cars can run a range of fuel, and even NA engines lose some power on lower octane fuel. My Mustang GT ‘loses’ about 10lb-ft of torque in the mid-range when running regular–which is fine by me ’cause I get free regular gas on my folks’ farm–and I can hardly tell the difference between running premium (there does seem to be slight hesitation when I punch it). I guess most people simply don’t understand internal combustion.
My 1985.5 SVO (old school eco boost) had a switch when you filled up with regular. Yea it too dialed back the power.
What did it say? “Less?”
No, “Ping”
Interesting on the Ford Ecoboost and good to know, we can’t buy 93 octane to get the optimal power if we wanted to in Puget Sound.
Why is this, state taxation or regulation on fuels? It’s not like 93 can’t be available everywhere. That’s not especially fair to consumers, especially with so many cars at high compression and requiring premium fuel these days.
I don’t think it’s a regulatory or tax issue because higher octane–e.g. 95 and 100 octane–is available at selected stations, often near water recreation sites so high-powered boats can fuel there.
Thanks, makes sense. I guess there’s no option to have an 87 and a 93 tank, and mix it 20/80 or something to come up with 89?
(Don’t hold me to my fractions, I hate that sort of math.)
Edited my previous post–removing comment about 87/91 blending–because it dawned on me you CAN blend from 87/93 (two tanks). In fact, I think I’ve seen pumps where you had 4 grades between 85 and 93, and they probably come from 2 tanks. My guess is the pumps capable of advanced fractional blending are more expensive and the demand for anything greater than 91 octane is probably not that high.
What’s screwy is when you have a car that recommends 91 octane but your choices at the pump are 87, 89 and 93. Do you go up a grade, or down? At the moment going up a grade isn’t a pain in the wallet; when prices go back up, that’s another story.
Here in the rural deep South I know of one station that still sells leaded gas. It’s rated at 110 Octane. Big warning label says “contains lead”, “may void warranty.” Ya think?
The people who buy that stuff are cut from the same cloth as the people who “Roll Coal” with their diesels.
Ah, but in the Rural Deep South there are people still driving ’50s and ’60s land yachts as daily drivers and those engines can’t run unleaded without a lead-replacement additive.
When it’s time for a valve job, and cars that old that are daily drivers have already had at least one, just replace with hardened valves and valve seats. I don’t think lead protected much of anything else, since it was an anti-knock/octane-boosting additive.
I don’t know about the Ecoboost engines in cars but in pickups Ford ratings are based on 87 octane. If you go with higher octane fuel the ECU adjusts and ups power. GM’s new 6.2 has its max power rated to run on premium. It looses power on regular. The manual even states that it may knock and cause engine damage on anything less. The Ram 5.7 is supposed to use midgrade and its power ratings are also affected.
I’d rather see ratings based on a lower grade of fuel with an uptick in power with premium.
I spent half an hour trying to explain what a Paceman was to our dealer group owner the other day. “Okay, so it’s like a Cooper, but bigger. But only two doors.”
Are there no pictures on your internet there?
He doesn’t believe in computers. Also there was one driving down the street, which prompted the conversation. The only one I’ve seen in the wild.
“He doesn’t believe in computers”
Well, put toothpicks under his eyelids to prop them open and force him to look at your smartphone
You have the greatest ideas.
I figured this was coming; too many companies were trying to take advantage of what could only be a short-term market flood.
Someone needs to trim down BMW’s lineup, too. The 8 iterations of the 3 series sized cars is getting out of control.
For markets like Canada this is especially rough: what are the odds that they’re going to have a 3 series sedan / wagon / GT in 320 / 328 / 335 / 335d spec with or without xDrive that a client wants, in the colour the client wants? Even at port or through other dealers it’s unlikely. Either factory order or forget about “building and pricing” your ideal 3 series.
“The internet is up in arms about the Mustang Ecoboost losing power on regular fuel – just like every other turbocharged engine by any manufacturer does.”
Fixed that for you.
And in other late-breaking news, turbocharged engines return poorer fuel economy when driven hard.
Those damn turbo engines…
They’ve gotta get that hull off sandbar soon.My guess they loaded the 1/3rd one area for quick on/off. Then engaged ballast to compensate. Something broke.