What's the deal here?

[R4v3n]

Is it just me, or does America really get screwed in the Automotive industry. I mean, Japan and Europe always get the cooler versions of all of our cars. Take for example. Japan. Anyone could list like 10 cars that are in Japan that we don't have. STi, Evolution, Skyline, and Type-R, all this is old news to them, and theirs are even cooler! Even in Europe, they get crazy hatchbacks from Alfa Romeo and beautiful cars from TVR. We get? Nothing. Not to mention it's easier to get Japan's greatest legalized. I've never left the US, but America doesn't sell crappy versions of our cars to the others, do they? They get the Turbocharged Ford Focus RS. We get a crappy SVT. So what really is the deal here?

[GEO]

Its cuased we got teh crappy Enviromentalists in this country who care about teh O-ZOne layers.. God I hate those people

[TachyonS14]

Well every car in the U.S. has to meet Cali. emission standards. So, I think that plays a major role.

[Checkered-Member]

Its cuased we got teh crappy Enviromentalists in this country who care about teh O-ZOne layers.. God I hate those people

I hate those fruits with a passion; If I want to stick a giant turbo on my car I should have the constructional right to do so, without going threw the 4 miles of red tape…:mad:

[UncleBen]

Think about it logically though. If we had kept the crazy fume spewing cars of the '60s and older, who knows where our environment would be. Dont get me wrong, I wish we could have the awesome cars the other countries have as well, but then again I would rather have the cars we *do* have and live in the cleanest, most beautiful country in the world...

[BuudWeizErr]

If I want to stick a giant turbo on my car I should have the constructional right to do so, without going threw the 4 miles of red tape…

shut up.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you are guaranteed the right to daily drive a car with a huge turbo. Either do it the shady way or don't do it all.

Those fruits are the same fruits that allow you to have generally clean air not polluted with millions of toxins from every factory on the planet. Yeah, they are a little too strict in the motor vehicle sector, but they do serve a good purpose.

Also, it's constitutional, not constructional. Is constructional a word?

[UncleBen]

It is now.

[BadMojo]

I don't think it's emissions problems that keep those cars from coming to the US, but rather the auto manufacturer's perception of the US market.

It took Mitsubishi and Subaru ages to decide to sell the Evo and STI here. Do you think the engineers working for Mitsubishi weren't bright enough to make changes to the Evo necessary to be in compliance with our emissions and safety laws? Of course they are. They could have sold those cars here any time they wanted to.

I'm not sure what sales numbers for the EVO and STI are like, but I'd imagine they're firmly in the territory of a "specialty vehicle". Based purely on anecdotal evidence, STI's and EVO's aren't exactly flying off the lot. I don't think the manufacturers are making OR selling these vehicles in large numbers.

Other than the "halo effect", I don't necessarily know if the STI or EVO are doing a lot for Subaru/Mitsubishi. I bet Mitsu will make a lot more money off of the much cheaper Ralliart Lancer than the EVO.

Personally, I don't think the average American consumer wants to pay $30,000 for what they perceive as a souped up economy car. I know my non-enthusiast friends and relatives would just stare at me if I told them that I'd pay close to $30,000 (just guessing on the price) for a Ford Focus, yet I'd gladly buy a Focus RS if it were available here.

Keep in mind that we, here at NICO, aren't the average consumer. Maybe it's a miscalculation on the part of the car manufacturers, but I think the absence of cars like the Type-R and Focus RS have nothing to do with emissions and everything to do with sales and cost.

Ford isn't even going to give us the next gen Focus...we're stuck with the old platform for quite a few more years. Why? Ford decided that the car will sell well enough using the current platform, and it's much cheaper to stick with what is already being produced. Not even an SVT Focus next model year, BTW.

Hmmmm...to sum up my rambling speculations....unfortunately, I don't think Dirty Hippies are to blame for this one.

[nametakennow]

I must bring up a response I got from Nissan of North America a few years ago regarding the Skyline, in particular the GT-R. Basically, I made the case that it would indeed sell here quite nicely, and that people are tired of importing. They told me that they do not condone use of gray market importation. They also stated that, for the cost of modifications to meet emissions, the car would not sell well enough to make a profit.

[R4v3n]

The last time I was at a Subaru dealer looking at a WRX with my friend we went to look at the STi they had there. It had a mark-up of like 6 grand or something like that and I asked the sales guy wut was up with that. He's like they are limited production, and we upped the price to meet demand. I said thats crazy who the hell would want to pay all that extra bread now instread of the sticker price when they could goto Mitsu and get an Evo 8? After making several remarks about Mitsu, he finally said besides, we haven't had a problem selling these, they fly off the lot.

Now, I haven't been to a Mitsubishi dealer, so I don't know if they are doing the same, but if that's true and these cars are really selling then why would profit be down? Does it really cost that much to convert these beasts to our emissions standards? If so, what has to be done to comply?

I do belive though, that it is a combination of these emission laws with the high costs of converting these cars to pass the laws that scares manufactures away. It's like BadMojo said, "Do you think the engineers working for Mitsubishi weren't bright enough to make changes to the Evo necessary to be in compliance with our emissions and safety laws? Of course they are. They could have sold those cars here any time they wanted to." Nicely put.

[IvoryJ30t]

shut up.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you are guaranteed the right to daily drive a car with a huge turbo. Either do it the shady way or don't do it all.

Those fruits are the same fruits that allow you to have generally clean air not polluted with millions of toxins from every factory on the planet. Yeah, they are a little too strict in the motor vehicle sector, but they do serve a good purpose.

Also, it's constitutional, not constructional. Is constructional a word?

:owned

[MasterMan]

man u wanna know what polluts (sp?), big desial trucks, u ever see the thick black smoke that spues from them.. that and big plants, like powerplants, i think the big factorys here pollut way more then our cars do, altho there are alot more cars then factorys but still, if a car it tuned alright the exhaust isn't that bad for the enviroment... what about dumps that burn garbage?( if they are even allowed to do that anymore) all im saying is, there are alot of things in this word that polluts worse then a few thousend skylines and such.. and the people that are worryed about the enviroment can get the hybread cars and help save the earth..

sorry for the spelling errors its 4 am and i cannot think any longer

[Onizuka]

Look at the history of american car buyers as opposed to other countries. In the 30's and 40's, there wasnt even such thing as an american sports car, they were all european and made up and incredibly small portion of the market, small enough that domestic manufacturers didnt bother making their own. The fact is, most americans want a torquey motor, mushy soft suspension and auto trans in their cup holder ridden, overweight cars. Look at the UK, everything has a performance trim over their and people buy them.

for example, not only do they have the lancer evo7 (evo8 in US), they have the lancer evo7 2003 FQ300 that lays down 305hp stock, with a $43,000 price tag. Yes, it does sell quite well there http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/411217

Basically, until stupid people stop pretending that their FWD v6 chevy monte carlos are the same as the tube chassie V8 RWD cars under the same name running around hick cirlces, the performance market here will stay smaller than it could be.

People in europe want cars that embody their racing counterpart, people in america want a car they can eat a cheese burger in and talk on the cellphone at the same time.

[Mr1der]

I wish my car had a cupholder:(

yeah, I agree we tend to get the short end of the stick, but we can put huge turbos on if we want, just not in CA:D

there are in fact some states that don't even have emissions testing, those are states you don't want to street race for money in...

[elwesso]

If only...

Indiana doesnt have emissions, so you can bet if my cats go, im not getting new ones!

I really wish you could get the nissan president here in the states.... Its the same car as the Q45, but it looks so much better, and more expensive...

And lets not even get started on the aftermarket that japan has for our cars!

[BuudWeizErr]

People like us have always, currently are and will always be the minority. And appeasing the majority is ALWAYS more profitable than attempting to make the minority happy.

Get over it.

[Nebraska240sx]

its also the fast that emissions does regulate the motors we get. and have. ever nitice the 3800 series v6 is in every thing that or 3100. its just that kinda of crap. they build one motor to pass emissions and then use it in every thing. (chevy buik olds cadillac pont. possible fords to) its about mass production. they can mass produce a skyline easy as hell. but wont bc we would get **** on by emissions. and end up with a diff engine. plus most ppl here want displacement.

i am very happy and extreamly gladd the nisan never brought as a skyline. b/c we respect it more. if they gave us a watered down skyline with a different motor. we would revolt and kill lots of people at nissan, wouldnt we?

and any ways research its not that hard to get a R32 imported. costs as much as a new car 25-30k? get that instead of that evo or rx8...

[AZhitman]

You guys (especially Ryan and Mojo) really have a good handle on what this topic is all about.

p.s. - The Siubie dealer is FOS. The STI is not selling well at all, and neither is the EVO. But check this out: There's a 6 month waiting list for the Mini Cooper S in Phoenix, and G35 Coupes are selling faster than we can offload the trucks. The dealer down the road from us has 12 EVO's in stock - bet he wishes HE had a "waiting list" for those!

Consider the fact that the current G coupe will be getting the 4.5 litre engine and AWD within the next year or so - And they'll sell for sticker - not a dime over. We'll see who's laughing then.

[Checkered-Member]

shut up.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you are guaranteed the right to daily drive a car with a huge turbo. Either do it the shady way or don't do it all.

Those fruits are the same fruits that allow you to have generally clean air not polluted with millions of toxins from every factory on the planet. Yeah, they are a little too strict in the motor vehicle sector, but they do serve a good purpose.

Also, it's constitutional, not constructional. Is constructional a word?

Did you know turbo cars produce fewer emotions because they recycle exhausts?

constitution? what are you smoking? I said Constructionaland yes it is a word...

Lets look at the definitions- and see what I meant by Constructional in BOLDQuote »1.a. The act or process of constructing. b. The art, trade, or work of building: an engineer trained in highway construction; worked in construction for seven years. 2. a. A structure, such as a building, framework, or model. b. Something fashioned or devised systematically: a nation that was glorious in its historical construction. c. An artistic composition using various materials; an assemblage or a collage. 3. The way in which something is built or put together: a shelter of simple construction. 4. The interpretation or explanation given to an expression or a statement: I was inclined to put a favorable construction on his reply. 5. Phrase.: a. Right, constructional right; to build or assemble something without external interference.6. Grammar.: a. The arrangement of words to form a meaningful Clause, or sentence. b. A group of words so arranged. [/quote]

[BuudWeizErr]

Did you know turbo cars produce fewer emotions because they recycle exhausts?

constitution? what are you smoking? I said Constructionaland yes it is a word...Lets look at the definitions- and see what I meant by Constructional in BOLD

Thanks, I'm aware you said constructional, and yes, it appears that it is a word, but I have never heard it spoken in daily language. You said you should have a "right." Where are your rights given to you? Oh yeah, that 300 year old piece of paper called the constitution, and nowhere on it's yellow pages does it says, ANYWHERE that you are guaranteed the right to cruise around with a huge, polluting turbo.

And I'd love to know what turbo you are running that recycles exhaust gasses. If you are running that turbo, I would avoid the company that makes it in the future.

The common misperception is that cars make generally the same amount of exhaust gasses and it's the % of crap in the exhaust that pollutes. What nobody realizes is that if the car eats more oxygen, which it does, it's going to create more exhaust gasses, but the percentage of crap in the exhaust will theoretically stay the same, but more cylinder pressure makes it harder for the ignition system to fire and if the ignition system is not maintained, you will create a higher percentage of pollutants in your exhaust stream.

So please, don't say that turbo cars will invariably create the same or less ppm than an N/A car when although the ppm could be the same or lower, but the amount of gasses will be higher.

[Checkered-Member]

My analogy was poor; let me try a different one.

Stock motor (any)You are traveling at a constant 65 mph, at final gear your rpm is at 3000, it takes that motor 3000rpm to keep the car at 65 mph. Or the power that is available at final gear at 3000rpm will accelerate the car to 65 mph.

Same motor as above but with a turbo and therefore more hp.You are traveling at a constant 65 mph, at final gear your rpm is at 2500, it takes that motor 2500rpm to keep the car at 65 mph. Or the power that is available at final gear at 2500rpm will accelerate the car to 65 mph

Since the second motor has more hp, same power is available at a lower rpm.

Since your rpm is lower, you are using less gas, more mpg, and there for pollute less.

If I’m totally wrong on this, that more hp will lower rpm at a certain speed…someone hit me upside the head.

[BuudWeizErr]

Wrong again.

Gearing dictates what engine RPM will be at a given speed. It doesn't take your engine 2500RPM to keep the wheels turning at 65mph, it takes x amount of throttle to keep the engine revving at 2500 which will keep the wheels spinning at 65mph. The only variant is the amount of throttle pressure and that will vary on road conditions such as degree of incline, oncoming wind, etc.

Got any other theories?

[Checkered-Member]

Sigh….last one....http://www.7thgencivic.com/for...ber=3

It’s the first post is made by "TrboDiscounters"

He works for this company that build turbo kits http://turbodiscounters.com/

[BuudWeizErr]

Do you understand how a turbo works? I mean really know how they work?

The spent exhaust gasses are never recirculated into the intake (unless it has an external EGR valve, but thats not turbo related). The only thing that is recycled is the (kinetic?) energy. And that has absolutely nothing to do with emissions.

I'd love to see this guy explain that statement. I want to see if he can prove it. Maybe he can, probably he can't.

[IvoryJ30t]

well, your theory works if we toss out the fact that rpm vs road speed is dictated by gearing, the more air you force into a motor, the greater volume of expelled pollutants, and the fact that your turbo isnt going to really have a great effect at 2000 rpm.

but hey, its only physics.

[Onizuka]

its also the fast that emissions does regulate the motors we get. and have. ever nitice the 3800 series v6 is in every thing that or 3100. its just that kinda of crap. they build one motor to pass emissions and then use it in every thing. (chevy buik olds cadillac pont. possible fords to) its about mass production. they can mass produce a skyline easy as hell. but wont bc we would get **** on by emissions. and end up with a diff engine. plus most ppl here want displacement.

im sorry but what you say about emmissions is complete and utter BS. If the dodge viper passes emmissions with a 8.3 liter OHV V10, what on earth makes you think nissan can make minor adjustments to the motor to make it pass? (The motor probably passes as it is anyways)

[Mr1der]

hell, a ported rotary can pass emissions, if that can, anything else should be able to.

it's all about the green man...

[IvoryJ30t]

its all about passing your friendly neighborhood emmisions inspector the right dead presidents.

[cls12vg30]

Actually, you do technically have a Constitutional right to modify your car any way you want without interference, at least from the federal government, because "all rights not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, or for the people"

The current federal govt. would like you to forget that the Constitution says this, as they have been seriously overstepping their bounds for the last 80 years.

But legally the state govt. can make laws regulating your turbo, unless the state constitution prohibits such laws. But I'm sorry, the environmental justification for such laws is a sham. Emissions regulation is strictly a large-scale problem, and has been effective in making cars cleaner overall by creating standards for the MANUFACTURERS. The <1% of owners who would go to the trouble of turboing or otherwise seriously modding their car are not going to have any significant effect on overall emissions.

Federal, state, and local government entities certainly have jurisdiction to influence how a corporation produces its products if such a regulation is passed properly. A company brings itself under this jurisdiction when it accepts the tax and liability benefits of becoming a corporation. Those same government entities have NO business telling an individual citizen how they can or cannot change their own legitimately-obtained property.