RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Automotive woo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"Automotive woo" is such a weird name. Surely we can think of something better? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

It's weird, I suppose, but simple and discrete. Woo is well-defined here, and automotive is pretty straightforward. I am open to suggestions, of course, if anyone comes up with a title that has more goat. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd still be happy with another title. At first I thought "well, it's not really 'woo', that's for seances", but now I read many of the "fuel economy anecdotes" out there and I think "wooooooo".... But it is a clumsy phrase. "Car crap" is more succinct... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

manual transmission[edit]

Human, you removed edits that I and others made to this article advocating manual transmission, saying "uh, this "standard" tranny stuff is almost woo-like, it's getting out-of-date... and TCs "lock up" when running in gear". Have you compared EPA estimates for standard and automatic transmission versions of the same make and model car? According to the EPA, a lot of cars can go two miles further per gallon of gasoline with manual transmissions than with automatic transmissions (see?). I'm sure this number is a lot higher if the driver takes advantage of their control over the car's transmission to employ the techniques I described in my edit (full throttle acceleration with early shifting). And there is also idle cutoff during coasting, which cannot be implemented in automatic transmission vehicles. Finally, the "lock up" feature you described does nothing to keep the torque converter from bleeding energy when the car is accelerating, when that damned device is least efficient. Oh yeah, and there's maintenance costs. God I hate automatic transmission. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it is the source of all evil in the universe. --NoPetrol 02:39, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Automatics have long suffered two problems: Car fanatics hate them, and less "gears" than manuals. Oh, and you hate automatics, so rationality goes out the window. Automatics shift more efficiently and - nowadays - more intelligently than a human (non-expert) ever could. Modern autos have 5 or even 6 gear ratios, killing the long standing, obvious advantage manuals had. Of course, the best solution is the CVT, which is developing rapidly to handle the kind of horsepower/torque people want to use. Oh, and "idle cutoff during coasting, which cannot be implemented in automatic transmission vehicles" - really? Sounds like a simple technology to me. You say it "cannot" be done?
Keep in mind - most drivers are not "experts" - they shift when someone told them to (at 3000 rpms?). Autos shift faster and more smoothly than humans do. Also, "full throttle acceleration with early shifting" is not efficient. Light throttle acceleration with early shifting is.
Hence my edits. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:00, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Manual transmission is far superior. That is all. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 04:26, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Hahahaha. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:25, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
More control, greater acceleration. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 21:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
But neither of those claims makes the manual more efficient... Also, you gotta take your other hand off the wheel, and your left foot off the brake, to shift... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:47, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh No Human! poor wee tyke, how tiring for you. I tell you what, when you get the training wheels of your little trike I'll take you for Ice Cream! (now thats sarcasm!) Ace McWickedbitch and moan 22:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't own a trike, sadly. Just a bunch of tired old tractor engines, two in cars, one in a tractor. Oh, and a SBC 360. They all sucks at efficiency. Basically the ICE sucks at thermal efficiency. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:12, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Do they ever do fuel efficiency test with "your average driver" (if such a beast could be found) rather than professional drivers? I know all efficiency test show manual transmissions to be more effective but whole is actually changing the gears? - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 21:53, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
By the way NoPetrol your own citation points out that in certain models, there the Nissan Sentra is an example, that then automatic is more efficient. I think the difference is decreasing as autos improve. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Er, yeah, so I finally went to the link, and only the Mini Cooper is 2 mpg worse as an auto out of all of them. Quite a few were better as autos in either city or highway. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:18, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

The EPA tests are highly fictional, but they are trying to make them more like the real world. I'd guess Consumer Reports would be a good source, they drive real cars on real roads with real drivers to get their numbers. There might be some car mags that do it to, but they probably don't test enough vehicles. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:13, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Well manual transmission vehicles are more often more efficient than automatic ones, and I suspect that the only reason the automatics are ever better is because it's some "sports package" the manufacturer produces that they put the manual transmission into. Also remember that the EPA estimates probably don't take into account the fuel-saving techniques that can only be utilized when you have control over the transmission. A torque convertor must waste energy when the car is accelerating. That's how it works. And why do you think gentle acceleration is more efficient than full throttle acceleration with early shifting? Your way means that you will spend more time and travel a greater distance in the high-friction low gears. Please read this.
--NoPetrol 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You're just making up the "sport package" you assume is hurting the manuals. Not impressed by your link, particularly. - Full throttle runs the engine rich. Gentle acceleration is just as important as gentle braking - about half-pedal is right unless there's a semi bearing down on you. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To answer your deleted "why", assuming it related to your link - that page is all about one model of car, the Insight (a hybrid?). How to drive it for best economy does not generalize to all vehicles. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of the advice there does apply to other cars. Until now I hadn't thought about the gasoline mixture. I assumed that most cars just keep the mixture at whatever yields peak RPMs all the time. --NoPetrol 01:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Some might, but it's a specific, and still rather unusual car (hybrid). As far as mixture, all cars run pretty much at stoich to make the catalyst effective (and not burn it up), unless one floors the pedal, activating a switch that richens the mixture for maximum power. Now, if your Insight does not go rich when matted, that's a different issue - indeed, what it might do (ok, speculating) is kick in the electric motor as well, for "maximum power". Oh, and what on earth does "peak rpms" mean? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that's a good reason to accelerate your way. By "peak RPMs" I pretty meant maximum power. I thought the mixture is adjusted to produce maximum power all the time in most cars. --NoPetrol 06:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the way most/all cars are set up, with a narrow band OXS, they run at stoich almost all the time. This is mostly to protect the cat from destruction, sadly. Stoich is a compromise between lean (efficiency) and rich (power). When cold, they are usually run a bit richer to warm up, and at WOT, they usually run rich to obtain maximum power. I don't mean to get all argumentative over this car stuff, but I've had my arms in grease for a long, long time. See [1] for fun. I have a lift in my garage, and live next door to an independent auto shop where I get my brainz greased by hanging out and paying attention. Oh, yeah, and arguing. PS, one of the tech's BILs is a hypermiler, running HOH experiments, etc... crazy stuff to wrap your head around. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to talk physics, a manual is lighter than an automatic (and usually has more gears, although this is not so true in new cars which have crazy 190000 speed autos) which means that if driven the same, the manual will get better mileage. The thing is, the manual allows you more control. You can have maximum power if you want it, or you can have maximum mileage. It all depends on how you shift. Personally, though, I would sooner have someone kick me in the balls for 8 hours a day every day than drive an auto. UncleHo (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring your hate for slushboxes, modern automatic transmissions shift more efficiently than "most" people. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't care how many nanoseconds it takes to shift, it takes control out of my hands, weighs the car down and gives me a ticking timebomb with a $3000 price tag.UncleHo (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I am with the commie on this one. i9 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


I could elaborate on this a bit more based on what I know about it from firsthand experience. JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 22:02, 19 April 2009 (EDT) And why not, this is a lovely article, since it makes us argue amongst ourselves - which is what we do best! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

New car[edit]

There is something to be said for that, although in deleting it NoPetrol makes the good point that it creates demand for resources/energy to build the new car.

To an extent it depends on what you were driving, and what your used car options are. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:09, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I've been amazed by the developments in car technology of late. You just have to look at what BMW are doing for a start, e.g. their cars have auto-stop/start technology that stops the engine while you are stuck in traffic, or even closing the inlet grill when the engine needs less oxygen to improve aerodynamic efficiency. The diesel cars now get close to 60mpg combined, which would have been unheard of even 2 years ago. What's more is that the efficiencies work largely in urban areas, where the benefits of less pollution are obvious. It's just a shame that BMW drivers in the UK have such a negative stereotype, but other manufacturers will catch up soon. Bondurant 09:58, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Sadly, many of the tremendous advancements made in the 90s, stateside anyway, went towards giving cars 200-240 hp @ 25 mpg, instead of 40 mpg @ 120-150 hp. My "dream car" is fairly small, has AWD, and a 1200cc (or smaller) motor making about 120 hp, and gets about 60 mpg. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
That's just daft. The class leading European cars can manage ~175hp @ 50mpg+. What has the American car industry been doing all these years...? It sounds like their main aim is to make their engines sound sexy rather than improve performance. And it probably doesn't help that American cars are the size of a bungalow, and I assume they all run on petrol rather than diesel. Bondurant 12:15, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
Correct. US cars tend to be larger and heavier (weight from options like power everything, also from DOT bumpers etc.). Mostly petrol, yes, but we finally had the new "clean diesel" fuel mandated a year or two ago, so the sweet TDIs can come here and not get ruined by our fuel. And yes, it's daft. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
There have been no recent major advancements in fuel efficiency that apply to all vehicles for about a decade and a half. The Honda Insight, the most fuel efficient car sold in the United States (mine gets 70.0 miles per gallon on average), was first manufactured in 2000. The auto stop feature that BMW uses was used in the Insight back then, and that thing where it closes the inlet grill just sounds like a gimmick that probably wastes more energy than it saves. Also, 60 miles per gallon is not ground-breaking for a diesel car. Look up the Volkswagen Lupo, which could get 70 miles per gallon in 1998. The Honda Civic CRX HF was produced in the early 90s, and boasted a system very similar to modern VTEC engines, which put the car into a lean burn mode when a light load was put on the engine, increasing the air to fuel ratio to about 20:1. The Civic CRX HF could get about 60 miles per gallon with the right driver, which kicks the Prius's ass by the way. As long as you're not comparing some antique car to today's cars, I think bad advice to suggest to buy newer cars if fuel efficiency and the environment are what you care about. --NoPetrol 22:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Concern troll is so concerned! Glad you enjoy your Insight, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh?--NoPetrol 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fuel efficiency is not just measured in miles per gallon - it can also be measured in horsepower-hours per gallon. During the 90s such improvements in the American market were used to get more hp rather than more mpg - ie, what was once 150 hp @ 25 mpg became 250 @ 25 mpg rather than the possible 150 @ 40 mpg (numbers all made up for illustration). There has been incremental progress in this all along, gee, even in the last fifteen years. Btw, "closing inlet grills" can make a car more areodynamic. Most EPA tests are (were?) done with cars with sealed up grills, etc. - anything they could do to beat the test. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also in all this efficiency testicle swinging, we need to be sure to compare apples to apples - versions produced for different markets may or may not have weight-adding safety (and emissions) requirements that affect the result. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thing about comparing old VS new cars in terms of efficiency is most models tend to get larger as the years go on. Larger cars tend to be heavier, which uses more fuel. The old CRX HF weighed under 2000lbs, if I recall correctly, and was about the size of the current Honda Fit. It was also a total stripper that didn't sell very well. People want their AC. They want 6 speaker, 500 watt premium audio. They want cruise control, navigation and heated, power adjustable leather seats. All of these weigh a lot. Then we have the issue of safety. It is an inarguable fact that modern cars are MUCH safer than older ones, and while technology helps, in the end the way to make a car safer is by making it stronger. You make it stronger by making it heavier.

You can point out, for example, that a 2000 Toyota Corolla gets roughly equivalent mileage at about the same horsepower as a new Ford Fiesta, despite being larger. However, the Ford has more gadgets, 200 pounds more weight and is safer. Which is the better engineering feat?UncleHo (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Human, your "dream car" basically exists already, it's called the Subaru Loyale turbo. It doesn't get 60 MPG, though, and I seriously doubt you'll see an AWD car that does for a very long time.UncleHo (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
All good points. By the way, my Dad bought a new Honda Fit thing recently. I was whining at him that he needed to improve the economy by not putting off his planned auto replacement. The Fit is a very nice looking grocery-getter, judging by the few I have run off the road lately. The problem with AWD, of course, is the 2-300 pounds of added weight. And, perhaps, added driveline losses, although some think those are offset by other factors. One thing that is nice, is that if one doesn't corner or brake hard, tire rotation isn't necessary. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As a long time Subaru owner in the snow belt, I can confirm that AWD sucks down a lot of gas. My old work beater, a 99 Impreza, gets 25MPG average and makes around 150 HP. Even when this car was new, it had far more powerful 2WD competition that got much better mileage. The Toyota Camry, for example, was making 200HP then, and has about the same EPA ratings. Even big boats like the Buick LeSabre made more power (From a much larger motor, as well) and got better mileage. Still, the mileage is better than any 4WD pickup would do, and it drives and handles much better to boot.

Old car[edit]

However, it's also worth pointing out that my Subaru makes up the costs in one often overlooked way. You see, with a 2WD car I would need snow tires during the winter. If, say, I was to own a 30MPG average car of the same vintage, I'd save about $140 in fuel costs a year at current prices. When you consider that a set of snow tires is about $250 installed for your usual economy car sized wheels, and I'd need a new set every other year, it's pretty much a wash.
Also, the Fit is a nice little car. Had one for a rental for a while and it reminds me of old Hondas, before they turned them into dull, fat, boring cars with exploding transmissions. I'd rather have a Suzuki SX4, though. UncleHo (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never owned a car built after 1989, are they nice? My Audi 90 Quattro is a nice little tank. Handles very nicely with lowering springs and Bilsteins (a bit old mannish stock), but only squeezes out ~25 mpg from a 130/140 2.3 5 cylinder. Oh yeah, AWD also chews up a lot of interior room for the driveshaft and rear diff/axles. Anyway, I picked up a set of used Hakkas many years ago, and they were amazing. Most years I don't bother putting them on because I rarely "have to" drive in crappy conditions (that's what the 78 K20 is for). And the lockable rear diff is sweet, the only way to get stuck is to get high-centered. The car may be a tad out of date, but I've basically got two spare cars in (well marked) parts boxes, and I know the wiring inside out. Hard part is going to be moving all the nice stereo gear from the '89 I just abandoned into the '88 I bought this summer... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You have not one but TWO running Audi 90s? I think those should be in a museum.UncleHo (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running great, indeed. Hehe, I forgot to mention the '82 Coupe. Between the three they have around 850,000 miles on them. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of new cars, I want you to pray to Allah for the soul of my dearly departed Subaru. After 398,497 miles of trouble free service, I was hit by a young girl while I was going to pay my water bill yesterday. Got the check, and got a 95 Buick Roadmaster. Going from a 150hp, AWD, 4 cylinder Japanese compact to a, 300HP V8 powered RWD American barge is a difficult transition, but this thing has a massive cargo area, it gets decent MPG and the interior is top notch. Now, for some snow tires.UncleHo (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn, sorry to hear about your scoobie-doo getting killed before its time. I hope neither you nor the young leddy suffered injuries of the flesh. Are you sure that barge has 300hp? WP says the LT1 in it is detuned to 260 (ha! that can always be fixed...). Sounds like a fun ride, especially in snow for those who know how to drive in it. The SBC is a seriously reliable and workable motor. First thing, I'd blow $300 and put a locker in that diff. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

She got cut up by glass, nothing serious, and I had a bloody nose from the airbag, but other than that we were both fine. And yeah, GM says this LT1 only has 260HP, but it's identical to the 300HP versions. They did the same thing with the LS1 Camaro. Said it had 300HP to protect the Corvette, when it had the exact same motor. It's already got the 3.23 posi-trac rear, so I'm fine there, but I'm still going to need some snow tires if I want to keep my blood on the inside this winter. It is fun blowing away ricers in Grandpa's station wagon, tooUncleHo (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear casualties were minimal. Engine can be same, computer is different. You want to chip it ;) Speaking of your last, there is a serious fan club of people who love Audi 5000 turbo quattro wagons. They "look" like grocery-getters, but (especially the later 200t20v versions) are race goats. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
There are actually quite a lot of fans of the Roadmaster/Caprice, too. Many people consider them the last "real" American car in that they're big, RWD and V8 powered, which Detroit mostly abandoned after the b-body was killed in 1996. There's actually quite a bit I can do to this thing, even outside the motor. One of the common mods is swapping the suspension and brakes out for the police package models, which are a lot beefier. Police package also adds a lot of upgraded parts like an oil cooler, secondary trans cooler, bigger radiator and fan, uprated alternator and true dual exhaust. I'll probably do that when the winter ends, but I don't have a garage, so it's not going to be happening for 8 months or so.UncleHo (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Does it have rack and pinion steering, I hope? I wouldn't bother with the big alternator unless you add more electrical demands. Good exhaust, cooling, tighter suspension, all good of course. Surely Detroit still makes cop cars? We have at least one Dodge Hemi here in "my little town". On the good news side, I wrestled my alt belt tighter tonight and killed the embarrassing squeal. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The earlier b-bodies had R&P, but they switched to recirc ball after 92 because of durability. GM knew their market for this car was mostly cops and taxi drivers, and durability is the #1 issue for them. And yeah, Chrysler still makes the Charger as a cop car, but a lot of pedantic American car people don't think it's a real American car because it's based off an old Mercedes.UncleHo (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Not too sure about this one-the air intake part is sorta promotion, but I don't get what's really wrong with the rest of it. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 01:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

rollbacks jack[edit]

Jack, your edit is so full of mistakes and pointlessness it is really hard to copyedit it. I might try to copy it here though for improvements. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read most if it, since after a few lines it was embarrassing, but I paste it here to posterity:

"Performance (header)

- Another common form of automotive woo is performance woo. After the "The Fast and the Furious" craze swept the world, performance woo became more and more common.

- woo (lower header)

- Examples;


  • Giant spoilers


  • Tinted windows


  • Giant stereos


  • Giant body kits


  • Neons


  • Stickers


  • Giant stereos

(human says, all the above is just garbage)
Well, obviously you haven't read Import Tuner or something like that. A quick search on the net would show that many people do believe that those mods do improve performance, as stupid as it seems. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
People think "giant stereos" (x 2) improve performance? Stickers? Don't be a moron. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

- Techniques that work (sub header)

- No people, giant body kits does not help your car go faster. Here's some real advice.

(human says: that's not english)
Yeah, but I erased that one.
As did I. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)



  • Get new performance brakes/wheels. Modern brakes will greatly improve your handling from poor to good or from average/good to excellent, even if the car is a big-block muscle car (like a 1969 Dodge Charger). Also choose some tires with good grip if your car does not have them. Also, you can choose some rims just for show without decreasing performance (assuming that your tires are right.)
(Human says: this is where I got bored of reading this crappy edit)
I'll admit, it's not exactly well written, but it has been proven that it is impossible to get good performance without good brakes and tires. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Regularly maintain your car. That way you are guaranteed to not have a decrease in performance, at least.
(Human says, more crap writing, this is already in the article)


  • If your car is a older car (pre-80's), it is likely that your engine has a carburetor. Regularly maintain and clean it; also, if you want a real improvement, you can upgrade your car from a 2-barrel to a 4-barrel. Now you will need a new intake-but that does not cost much in reality.
(Human says: crap, who cares, not even useful)
Maybe not to you, but what if someone does want to increase the performance of their 30-year old car? Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I only own 30+ year old cars. What's your point? Only the truck has a barcurretor. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  • If your car is a newer car (post-80's), it is likely that your car has Electric Fuel Injection (aka EFI). Inside the engine, a electronic chip controls the EFI. You can switch the stock chip to a good aftermarket one, which will not only increase performance but fuel economy as well.
(Human says: shut up, moron)
Umm, this has also been proven in tests many times. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
But your writing is shit by this point. A "chip" can only do so much, unless we're talking turbocharged motors. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Converting your mechanical fuel pump to a electric one; great for increasing power, but beware that you may need to replace some other items as well, depending on your car.
(Human says, you're getting stupider by the moment)
Same as all of the above; all these items has been proven in road tests and published in reliable auto publications. And no, I'm not talking about Jalopnik or Autoblog, but important magazines like Hot Rod and Hemmings Muscle Machines. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Yes, people hopping up old cars, like my neighbors' beloved '69 AMX project, might do this, but this is hobbyist stuff, not "reality" for most car owners. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


  • An aftermarket air intake will greatly increase your power-and best of all, it pays for itself after you install it, due to the increase in fuel economy as well.


  • A good aftermarket exhaust system will get the exhaust out of of your car more efficiently (and reduce noise as well). Note; Check with your local laws first-you may need to spend some money on new catalytic converters. Of course, if your car is something that is 25 years old or older, most times the legal authorities won't care, except in California (that doesn't mean you shouldn't check tho).


  • Nitrous is great if you know how to use it properly (and not use it on public roads, assuming that nitro is legal where you live.) Be aware that too much NOS will blow your engine (and maybe cause a fire.)


  • Turbochargers and superchargers are great too, but beware that they cost money and superchargers are illegal in some states.


  • Carbon fiber parts; they will decrease weight, but make sure the part you are looking at is real carbon fiber and not just colored plastic.


  • Finally, know what you are dealing with. Civics are good cars for tuning, but realize that you may need to spend a lot more than you would tuning a sports car. Muscle cars are nice for drag racing, but their cornering and stopping abilities are poor (then again, you could upgrade the brakes and suspension). Sports cars are good performance cars, but they will cost a lot of money over time to maintain and most do get really poor fuel economy(there are exceptions-do your research.).
(Human says: since my last comment, every pasted in text is totally irrelevant to this article, and mostly wrong anyway.) ħumanUser talk:Human 04:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Umm, ok, let's look at the meaning of automotive woo; Automotive woo is the promotion of certain goods and services that ostensibly improve one's driving experience but are not founded in science. Though this fact rarely ever stops the petrol heads from trying it anyway. Well, it's just like what I said above. As stupid as some of the above examples of woo seem, they are claims made by many hobbyists and companies. As for the publications mentioned, Hot Rod does have a bit of a bias against any non-custom car, but they are experts in the field. HMM is a hobbyist magazine, but it's pretty well balanced out (note the magazine is different from the Hemmings blog.) There were also a lot of other magazines too and some blogs, but from what I heard these mods do actually work. However since the focus here seem to be on fuel economy, I'll just leave it here. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
My advice would be to add your jewels one at a time. Adding a new giant section to an old article (which covers a lot of what you added already) is bound to rub a hidebound wiki like this one - or a cranky old bastid like this one - the wrong way. Much of what you added was just lame, in context, to be honest. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


I think you mean 'wing', not 'spoiler' Spoilers decrease lift, rather than create downforce by spoiling airflow. It's wings that create downforce, as they're upside down wings.

Best automotive woo ever[edit]

Why is it that men all follow the woo of "kicking the tires" and "wiggling some chords and things" then standing back and staring. Together. In a collective. Not saying anything. Till one of them moves something else again. And stands back. and stares. It's woo at it's finest! --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Manual Transmission (Different discussion)[edit]

I read what we have here and I think I could expand a bit on the why, but it's about a paragraph of what I need to say. Anyone think it's appropriate? Zero (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Common oils[edit]

Does grease come under this article's jurisdiction? I've been told of how pouring vegetable oil or fat/grease from a deep fat frier will function as a cost-effective alternative to diesel.-- (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not, if you can cite someone claiming it. Aldon (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Vegetable oil and deep fat frier waste can be used as a fuel alternative in a diesel engines, following proper modifications of course. Nothing woo about it. Pouring bacon grease into an unmodified diesel engine on the other hand is sure to ruin it, but I don't think anyone advocates that. --Marlow (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Learn something new everyday. :) Aldon (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)