Uhh, I wouldn’t call it a special order. It was their extra decontented car to sell cars for as cheap as possible, you could even get one without a radio.

I really don’t get the fascination with high revs for something that’s going to be street-driven anyway.

They might be overthinking this a little. 178 hp is plenty to get an average car up and going. How many cars do you encounter every day only using a fraction of their power available merging onto the highway? Almost all of them, including older cars with far less power.

I think they’re also missing the point that fuel…

I just remember a lot of technicians complaining about how difficult some aspects of working on the Quad 4 were, such as the thermostat.

yeah, that’s the deceptive thing with diesel. When you ring them out and use all the revs, they are slower.

There are a number of items that are standardized, but there still are a couple different outfits that make the tube frames last I heard. Some of the parts that bolt to the frame are standardized, such as the live rear axle, but there still are going to be small differences between the frame makers.

The stability control can be set to not be as aggressive, I dont think he ever fully disabled it. We had fun in an abandoned, snowy parking lot with it. He’s got the AWD LR model, the power is definitely rear biased. So semi-aggressive throttle applications absolutely make it go a little sideways. The stability…

Been salivating over these things for more than a decade. The whole dang Falcon line, really.

Read Kristin Lee’s review of it in the last week or so, or at least the part about fuel economy. I’d disregard the part about acceleration, because this will absolutely shove you down the road with greater ease than the standard 2.0 NA gas engine... but anyway.

Real world driving, she beat the EPA numbers, which isn’t…

I suspect user error is the cause of the unintended acceleration, yet again.

As someone who used to poke at NASCAR for being so far behind the times as a way of justifying my fandom of other motorsports, there’s a reason NASCAR had stubbornly clung to its old ways for so long... and honestly, it probably was right to do so.

How are Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards really, I mean REALLY, going to curb global warming?

Not an engineer, just a technician whose job it is to try and wrap my head around the whole body of work of engineering in order to attempt to accurately diagnose and repair vehicles.

Going to add to my previous reply that the base model engine for the CX-5 is a 2.0L normally aspirated gas engine that makes a couple horsepower less than the diesel (162, vs the diesel’s 168) and WAY less torque (155 ft lbs vs. 280 ft lbs).

I’m an early millenial (early enough to have some late Gen X traits and experiences) and I don’t understand some of the shitty music today.

Price alone for sure will limit the number of takers on this one. But, as you found out, diesels often exceed their EPA rating in real world use where gas engines often times fall well short.

By modern standards, absolutely. Especially considering AWD.

The standards of what constituted “quick” were very different in the early 90s.

Yeah, the A8Ls of the last decade plus have been outclassing everyone for features and interior niceness... plus they’re AWD.

In the 90s, absolutely. But have you sat in a much more modern S class and compared it to a recent A8L?