Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Gardner, Kansas, USA
Model: 96 SE
While all the tech stuff is great, I feel it should stay to a minimum. Afterall, we go ride to "get away from it all", don't we?
Electric windshield add weight, cost and requires more space for the motors. I'm fine with "adjust and forget". Don't really see it as being necessary to enjoy the ride.
More power by more displacement has the same effect. While more power is always welcome, I feel a 3 valve set-up with the current 1800cc would be ideal. A single cam could still be used to limit cylinder head size and weight increases that a DOHC 4 valve would bring, while still increasing available power should it be needed/wanted.
It would be nice if they spent the extra $50-100 and just made the suspension great from the get go instead of making it virtually necessary to spend over $500 to make it right after the fact.
Stylish LED's would be a nice addition, but don't cheap out and make the alternator less capable because of the decreased load. Maintain the alternators current capability.
Taller final gear ratio would be nice for fuel economy reason. And yes, it would help. Most likely it would not be measurable due to the amount of varied driving we do while emptying the fuel tank. Which brings a story to mind as proof. On a car I still have, and was used as the family car for quite some time, I changed the tire size because the speedo was reading a chunk faster than actual. I had new wheels and using the "plus 1"sizing method I should have went from a 205/65/15 to a 215/55/16. So to alter the speed "down" to correct speed I went with a 215/60/16. This car made many trips to my parents 400 miles away prior to this change. I had the opportunity to check mileage markers over a long distance to see how far off it was. I also had 2 stations I filled up at every time. One leaving KC and the other in Walcott, IA. By the time I got to Walcott I was getting close to fumes....everytime. After the tire change I would end up somewhere between 1/8-1/4 tank. This is only due to the lower rpms required to move the exact same distance on the same roads. Measuring mileage mathematically cannot "see" this change because the recorded mileage by the car cannot see the tire change. However, same point A to point B destinations proved less fuel was used over the same stretch of road time after time afterwards.
And I also got the mile markers spot on with the larger diameter. Over 140 miles, it only deviated between 1-2 tenths of a mile.