http://theamericancritic.com/categories/rss/Science__TechnologyLatest Articles Posted on The American Critic Filed Under Science & TechnologyLatest Articles Posted on The American Critic Filed Under Science & Technology

I'm sure ratings went through the roof, but eh, humbug.

Let's instead let the human contestants, presuming they can type 90+ wpm, have Google Instant at their finger tips. I'd then be more interested.

While computer intelligence of Watson's level, reliably harnessed, would save humans many steps in any thought process, computer-assisted human intelligence poses a more equitable baseline for evaluating computer intelligence than the Jeopardy-staged computer intelligence vs. human intelligence competition.]]>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:27:04 PST1297916824www.Urban Legends
“A picture began circulating in November. It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "Picture of the Decade." It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the paper, you probably will never see it. The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner.

The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. During the surgery on little Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed, hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger.

The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life."

Little Samuel's mother said they "wept for days" when they saw the picture.

She said, "The photo reminds us my pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person" "The Hand" of the fetus. You can see the actual picture, and it is awesome...incredible.

Pass it on.. The world needs to see this one.”

www.Urban Legends
“This amazing photo, taken by Michael Clancy and originally published in USA Today and The Tennessean on September 7, 1999, is authentic. It began circulating via email within weeks of its first appearance in newspapers.

The accompanying text is basically accurate, as well. The photo was taken during a surgery performed by Dr. Joseph Bruner and Dr. Noel Tulipan at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville on August 19, 1999 to treat a 21-week-old fetus for spina bifida. The operation was a success, and three months later a healthy Samuel Alexander Armas was delivered by C-section.

Doubts have been raised about the assertion that the fetus actually reached out of the opening in the womb to grasp the surgeon's finger, inasmuch as there are at least three different accounts of precisely what happened at that moment, two of them from eyewitnesses:

Email text: "During the surgery on little Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed, hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger."

Photographer Michael Clancy: "Samuel came out from under anesthesia too soon and thrust his clenched fist out of the surgical opening to his mother's womb. In my opinion, Samuel was in pain. Dr. Joseph Bruner reached over and gently lifted Samuel's hand, and Samuel reacted by squeezing the doctor's finger."

Surgeon Joseph Bruner: "Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did."
Perhaps it all boils down to semantics. Dr. Bruner has stated elsewhere that Samuel's hand "appeared" in the uterine opening before he reached out and lifted it, lending credence to photographer Clancy's version of events. In any case, although it appears the email does exaggerate when it says the fetus "reached ... through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger," something akin to that really did happen.

Such quibbles don't lessen the impact of the photograph itself, which Dr. Bruner has described as "powerful" and Michael Clancy calls "miraculous." It should come as no surprise that both the image and Samuel Armas' success story have figured prominently in the abortion debate ever since.”]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:36:59 PDT1244079419
Here is the answer. I hope it helps you.
It sure opened my eyes.

Gun Laws Around The World: Do They Work? By Don B. Kates

Peaceful societies do not need general gun bans,
and violent societies do not benefit from them.
Take a look at the facts the gun-grabbers
don`t want you to know.

Americans have been gravely misled about foreign gun ownership and the severity and effectiveness of foreign gun bans. It simply is not true to state that "the U.S. has more gun availability and far less restriction than any other modern industrial nation."
That honor goes to Israel where, nevertheless, murder "rates are much lower than in the United States despite ... [Israel’s] greater availability of guns to law-abiding civilians," writes Israeli judge Abraham Tennenbaum (formerly an official with the Israeli National Police and then a professor of criminology).

Europe

Equally erroneous is the impression that Europe is uniformly anti-gun. Laws vary. Luxembourg totally bans all guns from civilian ownership. France, Belgium and Germany allow citizens to own handguns but these countries are more restrictive than most U.S. states. In Austria, every law-abiding citizen has a legal right to buy handguns, and roughly ten per cent of Austrians have done so (compared to 16 per cent of U.S. citizens).

Switzerland

And then there is Switzerland, where the laws are similar to those in Israel and gun availability is comparable to that in the U.S. In Switzerland, handgun licenses are available to any law-abiding applicant. In half the Swiss cantons (similar to U.S. states), licensees are free to carry their personal handguns concealed. Beyond this freedom of ownership, every law-abiding military-age Swiss male is issued a firearm and he must keep it at home to perform his mandatory militia obligation.

Switzerland`s enlisted men are required to keep at home the STGW 90 assault rifle ("Sturmgewehr"), which fires both full- or semi-auto. Retired militiamen may buy their issued firearms. Below: The Walther P-38, one of several pistols that the Israeli government furnishes to its citizens, including teenagers.

For the 263,000 officers and non-commissioned officers, the issued firearm is a 9 mm Parabellum semi-automatic pistol, either the SIG-Sauer P210 or its successor, the SIG-Sauer P220. For the millions of enlisted men, the issued firearm is an assault rifle: the STGW 90. The STGW 90 is a version of the SIG-Sauer 550 semi-automatic rifle that is select-fire, meaning it may be fired in either full- or semi-auto mode. When he retires, any Swiss militiaman who wishes to buy his issued firearm may do so.

Homicides in Europe

Homicide rates are quite low in all the nations mentioned above. However, the homicide rate in handgun-banning Luxembourg is much higher than in the others: 2.1 per 100,000 population, versus 1.2 and 1.1 per 100,000 for "handgun-ridden" Israel and Switzerland--which have the lowest homicide rates of all. (The accompanying table provides the references for homicide and suicide rate comparisons discussed in this article.)

Western Europe, in fact, has always had very low homicide rates as compared to the U.S. This is not something caused by strict anti-gun laws, because this low homicide rate existed before such laws were adopted, and the low rate occurs also in Switzerland and Austria which have no such strict anti-gun laws.

European anti-gun laws only arrived after World War I, and they were not passed in order to curb crime. They were passed in response to the political violence of that tumultuous era (1918-1939) between the two World Wars.

Whatever their purpose, European anti-gun laws have miserably failed. They have not prevented assassination, terrorism, and other political violence--problems occurring throughout Europe on a fairly regular basis, but not so in the U.S. Neither have these anti-gun laws stopped non-political crime, which has steadily increased throughout Europe since World War II.

To this issue, the further question has been asked, "Why has Europe had so much less non-political violent crime than the U.S.?" Yale University`s preeminent historian, Dr. C. Vann Woodward, suggests an answer. He writes, "The impact upon Europe of the emigration [to the U.S.] of 35,000,000 Europeans in the Century between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I remains to be acknowledged. The importance of the West as a safety valve for American society has undoubtedly been exaggerated. But the significance of America as a safety valve for Europe and the effect of the closing of that safety valve after World War I remain to be fully assessed." 1

Suicides in Europe

Nor, finally, have these anti-gun laws stopped suicide, something which has always been a much greater problem in Europe than in the U.S. In this respect, one can note a curious (but invariable) omission when anti-gun articles compare the U.S. to Europe.2

Anti-gun propaganda emphasizes suicide as well as homicide. U.S. suicide rates have risen over the past quarter century (while U.S. homicide rates have declined). However, anti-gun advocates recently have taken to combining suicide and homicide figures in the U.S. This allows them to conceal the decline in U.S. homicide rates (and to exaggerate the so-called "societal costs" of gun ownership). They have done this more particularly in the last few years while the U.S. homicide rate has been declining (despite a 100 per cent increase in handgun ownership since the 1970s).

But then, inconsistently, when comparing the U.S. to Europe, they only compare the homicide rates. They never use the combined homicide-suicide figure--because it would refute their entire argument; it shows that Europe`s homicide-suicide combined rates are higher than that of the U.S.

INTERNATIONAL SUICIDE/HOMICIDE TABLE*

(*Ranked according to highest combined suicide-murder rate; nations ranked higher than the U.S. in either suicide or murder rates are in bold face)

Country Year Suicide Murder Combined

ESTONIA 1995 39.99 22.11 62.1
RUSSIA 1992 26.6 15.3 41.9
LATVIA 1990 26. 9.2 35.2
LITHUANIA 1990 26. 7.5 33.5
FINLAND 1994-5 27.3 3.3 30.6
UKRAINE 1990 20.6 8.0 28.6
DENMARK 1991 22. 5.0 27.0
AUSTRIA 1991 22.3 1.5 23.8
SWITZERLAND* 1994-5 20.8 1.1 21.9
FRANCE 1990 20.2 1.1 21.3
BELGIUM 1987 19.3 1.4 20.7
United States* 1995-6 11.5 7.3 18.8
SWEDEN 1990 17.2 1.3 18.5
GERMANY 1995 15.8 1.8 17.6
LUXEMBOURG 1991 15.1 2.1 17.2
NEW ZEALAND 1989 13.9 1.9 15.8
CANADA 1995 12.9 2.0 14.9
ISRAEL 1989 7.3 1.2 8.5

*All information in this table dated before 1993 comes from the U.N. Demographic Yearbooks for 1993 and 1992. All information dated 1993 and thereafter comes from a draft study prepared for the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice`s Vienna Session 28 April-9 May, 1997, except: a) the U.S. homicide figure comes from FBI preliminary data for 1996, and b) the Swiss homicide and suicide rates come from the Swiss national police.

Combined Homicide-Suicide

Look to the accompanying table for the result obtained when the anti-gun forces` combined homicide-suicide approach is applied to the international figures: The U.S. combined homicide-suicide rate falls in the middle of the nations, and is lower than eight European nations. Even compared to the nations with lower combined rates, the U.S. rate is only slightly higher.

Of the 18 nations shown in the table, the U.S. ranks in the middle as to murder and suicide combined. The lowest rate of all is for Israel, the nation where guns are the most available and supplied to citizens, including teenagers.

My point is not that gun availability reduces suicide, or even murder. Statistics show that the relatively crime-free nations don`t appear to need or benefit from severe anti-gun laws.

Western Europe

The table clearly shows that, regardless of their gun laws, Western European nations have roughly comparable rates of both murder and suicide. This cannot plausibly be attributed to severe handgun restrictions because the highest murder rates among these nations are in the nations with the most restrictive gun laws (Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany). In those restrictive nations, the average murder rate of 2.73 per 100,000 population is over twice as high as the 1.26 average rate of Switzerland, Israel and Austria, where gun laws are least restrictive).

Russia and the Baltic Countries

Even less do gun control laws benefit high crime nations like Russia and its former possessions, the countries of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Ukraine. When these and other countries were under the control of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the central Soviet government totally banned civilian handgun ownership.

The Soviet government uniquely implemented the ban by creating after World War II a unique caliber cartridge for Soviet handguns (9 x 18 mm). This cartridge is too short to interchange with handguns using the familiar European standard 9 x 19 cartridge (9 mm Parabellum, or 9 mm Luger, as Americans commonly call it); it`s too long to interchange with handguns shooting the .380 cartridge. This meant that anyone smuggling foreign handguns into the USSR (for example, soldiers returning from foreign wars) would find ammunition unavailable.3 Nevertheless, though exact statistics were never released, analysis clearly indicates that Soviet homicide rates far exceeded those in the U.S. 4

With the USSR no longer in existence, the homicide rates in the former Soviet republics and Russia continue to exceed those in the U.S., as shown in the accompanying table. Under the Soviet regime, with strict gun control, the weapons used for homicides were largely knives, clubs, and other non firearms. Today, though handguns remain virtually unavailable to ordinary Russian citizens, homicide rates remain high, being committed by those criminals in Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc., who seem to have no difficulty acquiring both Russian and foreign-made handguns and suitable ammunition.

Violence in Any Society

Such international statistics show the pointlessness of gun bans. In any society, truly violent people are only a small minority. We know that law abiding citizens do not commit violent crimes. We also know that criminals will neither obey gun bans nor refrain from turning other deadly instruments to their nefarious purposes.

It is obvious and well-proven that the amount of violence in any particular society is determined not by the mere availability of any particular form of weapon, but by cultural, socio-economic and institutional factors that produce people willing to engage in extreme violence.5

How much violence occurs in any given society will depend on the proportionate size of truly violent people.

In sum, peaceful societies do not need general gun bans and violent societies do not benefit from them.

Don B. Kates is a San Francisco-based criminologist, professor, and constitutional lawyer. Among his many published works is, The Great American Gun Debate: Essays in Firearms and Violence (Pacific Research Institute, 1997), by Don B. Kates and Professor Gary Kleck of the Florida State School of Criminology (available for $17 plus $3 for postage and handling, and 8.5% tax for California residents, from the Pacific Research Institute, 755 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94111; telephone (415) 989-0833).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article first appeared in The American Guardian, October, 1997.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted: 6/11/2001 12:00:00 AM
]]>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:56:40 PDT1240783000Original article published by FOXNews.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html


According to Al Gore and the mainstream media, global warming is here and will be here for years to come. And unless we do something, it will wipe out the planet.

I do not jive well with Al's theory. His movie An Inconvenient Truth, is full of fallacy's and inaccuracies, which were purposely included in the movie to spread fear about a false claim of Global Warming. Many of the Arctic scenes where the ice sheets are crumbling are actually unused computer generate clips from the movie The Day After Tomorrow.

Al Gore and associates earned an estimated 100+ million dollars in revenue based on his lie of "global warming". Clearly he is in it for the money. Why else would he be keeping the money, and not using it to fund research to an end of global warming? Simple. Because it is a lie.

I felt compelled to clear the air about a lie which is believed as true by millions, if not billions of people.

Back to the article.

According to Professor Chapman, we as a planet, will face a long-overdue ice age. If I am remembering correctly, we are 400,000+ years pastdue for an ice age.

I watched many a series of online videos posted on various websites. Maybe I am biased as I have never believed a single word that Al Gore or the MainStream Media (MSM) has falsely told us about global warming.

If you're interested, here is a link to a series of videos on the Global Warming subject, which instead of lies and fear mongering, use facts to disprove global warning. Be forewarned, it is a long series, and is addicting, you won't want to stop watching.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/27/best-statistical-scientific-talk-on-global-warming/ ]]>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:19:17 PDT1208981957Creationism VS Atheism: Which view do you subscribe to (and why)?

This is an issue that tends to polarize a great deal of people. People can be friends and agree on a multitude of issues and still hold different beliefs on the origins of the universe. I'll do my best to present both sides of the issue and hopefully open the window for the expression of new ideas on both sides. If theres anything important I missed (which will be 100% guaranteed), please add it in your comments below. But I'd like to hear not just what you believe, but why as well.



Creationism

Creationists can vary widely in their beliefs but most share some fundamental views. They believe that God created the earth as well as the universe. One of their main arguments is that of first cause. They argue that everything as we know it had an original cause, and that if you trace everything back to it's original cause, the big bang (yes, some creationists believe in the big bang), the big bang itself had to be caused by a first cause. Since nothing can cause the first cause, this first cause is God.

Another argument is the perfection of our world and the unlikelihood of all of the conditions that make life possible to be found together in the exact amounts necessary. For example, water: without it, life would not be possible. It has the unique ability of having a high boiling point and a low freezing point. It is perfect for its job of regulating the internal temperature of organisms, and is the reason it comprises the largest percentage of matter in an organism.

If our solar system had more than one sun, the mass of our sun, its distance from the center of our galaxy, or the earth's distance from the sun were any different, life would not be possible. If the sun were too far away, earth would be buried under ice. If it were too close, it would be far too hot to sustain life. In addition, if the earth's gravity, magnetic field, and amount of hydrogen in our atmosphere varied greatly, life would not be possible. There are more factors, and they all have to be right for life to be sustainable. Obviously, the likelihood of ALL of these factors coexisting independently, and in the right amounts is ridiculously unlikely.

Another argument is the complexity of our brains. Why would evolution select for such a complicated brain? No other organism comes close to the intelligence we possess. What purpose does it serve? We are capable of inventing rocket science and nuclear fission, why would a hominid roaming the plains of Africa need such a luxurious brain?

Yet another creationist argument is the religious experience. Some people claim to have experienced the presence of God beyond the shadow of doubt. Obviously, this claim isn't falsifiable, and therefore unscientific, but should we not consider anecdotal evidence simply because it doesn't fit the stringent criteria of science?

There are more arguments, and I will leave the argument of faith out of this discussion, but these are some of the more compelling arguments for creationism.


Atheism

Atheism isn't technically a set of beliefs, it's defined as the absence of belief. Like creationists, they vary considerably on what they hold to be true, but most atheists accept the theory of evolution. A quick note here. Belief in evolution, be it macro or micro does not mean you have a disbelief in creationism. That being said, a quick note about science and theories. Science does not answer a yes or no to the question of God. Science only deals with theories that are falsifiable. God cannot be falsified (proven to not exist). Theories, in scientific terms are ideas that are widely accepted to be true and have a great deal of evidence backing them up. A scientific theory does not have the same meaning as a theory in the general sense. They are much closer to 'fact' than they are to the common definition of the word 'theory', which is why scientists use the term the 'fact of evolution'. By and large, the scientific community overwhelmingly believes in evolution, but that is not part of the argument itself.

So what is? Evolution has not been falsified. All the scientific evidence of the last 150 years has corroborated the theory of evolution. One of the strongest arguments for it are fossil records. A succession of animals can be seen by looking at fossils, and dating them to their respective time period. This is done by radiocarbon dating, which is beyond the scope of this article. A progression of complexity (and in few cases a digression) can be seen from earlier to later fossils. For some organisms, the record is incomplete, for others (such as whales, and, arguably, apes) there are a great amount.

Another argument for evolution is that of genetic records. Comparison of the DNA sequences of organisms allows them to be grouped by the similarity of their sequences (how genetically related they are). Humans and chimpanzees are 99% identical genetically. This grouping from sequencing places humans as a successor of common ancestors that included other forms of apes. In other words, the sequences show humans gradually evolved from ape-like animals (who in turn evolved from other ape-like animals). This "branch" on the genetic "tree" can be traced all the way back to single-celled bacteria.

A much clearer example of this is that of chromosome #2. We have two fewer chromosomes than the great apes; we have 46 and they all have 48. We get 23 each parent, adding up to 23 pairs in total. Apes have 24 from each parent, totaling 24 pairs. So, if humans and the other apes evolved from the same common ancestor, all humans are "missing" one pair of chromosomes. What happened to it? If the whole chromosome (which comprises a whopping 8% of our total DNA) were lost, the humans body (the remaining 92%) could not possibly function, let alone sustain life. So if humans share a common ancestor, it either had 48 chromosomes or 46. If it had 48 pairs, one pair had to have gotten fused. If that's the case, we should be able to examine our genome and see evidence for one of our chromosomes resulting from the fusion of two primate chromosomes.

Centromeres are markers in DNA sequences used to separate them. They have telomeres on the end of them. Fusion would place telomeres in center of chromosome (where they aren't found). The resulting fused chromosome should have two centromeres. Upon examination of chromosome two, we find two centromeres that are the result of fusion between two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates.

There are literally dozens of other pieces of evidence for evolution, including continental distribution, comparative anatomy, etc. Evolution has also been observed in the form of resistance to antibiotics, resistance to disease, and the chemical spraying of crops becoming ineffective due to pest mutation and resistance. All of this evidence is independently testable and falsifiable and has never been proven wrong. The overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution is why most scientists and virtually all scientists involved in the biological sciences refer to the theory of evolution as a fact, and why atheists do not believe in the existence of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope I have presented both sides fairly, objectively, and accurately. I'd like to hear from some of the members here what side they are on and why. If it seems like I am favoring one side over another, I'm not. As for my own beliefs, I'll say what I personally believe after this has gotten a few responses. I look forward to your opinions.

]]>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:26:56 PST1196314016 Out With the Old in With the New
Ever since Toyota announced that in 2009 the current 9th generation Toyota Corolla XRS will be redesigned gossip has been afloat. Numerous questions go unanswered including the most popular question What power plant will the new 10th generation Toyota Corolla XRS have to get it go? Months pass by as the 2007 SEMA Auto Show in Las Vegas approaches while the hype continues to grow bigger. Car enthusiasts everywhere begin to flock to Las Vegas or to their computer screens to get the first sneak peak. Never before has the redesigned Corolla XRS been shown to the general population. October 30, 2007 is opening day, and the SEMA Auto Show in Las Vegas opens its doors. There are many ohs as well as many ahs. Although soon all the various rumors are set to fact or fiction. To many the new unveiled 2009 Toyota Corolla XRS is an improvement over its predecessor, but to others it is a new disappointment in their book by Toyota.
The new look of the 10th generation Toyota Corolla XRS is certainly more appealing to the eye than its older brother. There have been tons of upgrades done in this department which I feel help give the car an aggressive look. To up this aggressive appeal Toyota molded the front grill with the front bumper, added a body kit all around and dropped on a rear spoiler. The new XRS sits only 5.3 inches off the ground also which is a decent improvement in lowered ride stance. Toyota decided to upgrade the rims to 17 inches from 16 inches on the previous XRS as well to add to the 2009 Corolla XRS aggressive side. The 2009 XRS rides on a different suspension platform. Therefore the 2009 Corolla body has been lengthened by .4 inches and widened by 2.5 inches; this widening gives the new XRS a more substantial look to it. The interior is an upgrade as well, I prefer the 2009 interior over my XRS interior. You now have leather-trimmed seats, a six disc CD changer than can play MP3/WMA formats, and an auxiliary audio input jack. The new body style allows for more room in the interior as well. A few other additions were added to improve the interior overall. Such as a variety of use able, easy-to-reach storage spaces that add convenience and usability. Also map lights that illuminate independently are supplied for both driver and front passenger. And aid in entering and exiting, retractable handgrips are supplied above each door opening. Another improvement is the 60/40 split folding rear seats. It is a pain not have those rear folding seats in my XRS (Carter).
When it comes to safety the 2009 Toyota Corolla XRS is definitely a step up. New safety features include front seat-mounted side airbags and two-row side curtain airbags. Although the most improved safety feature that has been added is the Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) with Traction Control (TRAC). These both will help keep the tires planted to the ground while accelerating maneuvering. My 9th generation XRS tends to get wheels spin from a stop and lose traction when cornering decently fast, these new programs will help prevent and/or stop this from happening. Toyota even through in the option of being able to turn these off by the click of a button. These two systems are entirely new to the XRS and were not even an option on the 9th generation Corolla XRS. Another interesting new feature is that the front seats employ active headrests as standard equipment. When the vehicle is struck from the rear, a cable-actuated mechanism in the active headrest moves the headrest upward and forward to limit the movement of the seat occupant�s head. The feature should definitely help keep you safe in the event of a car crash and definitely adds a +1 to the safety in my book (Carter).
Although the new 10th generation Toyota Corolla XRS has been an overall improvement, it has one major downfall. Since the XRS is the performance model of the Corolla you would expect it to perform better than its predecessor right? Nope, this is where the disappointment lies to people hoping the power plant would be an upgrade. The old XRS went from 0-60 in just 7.1 seconds while Toyota claims the new 2009 XRS goes from 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. That is almost a second slower and will definitely contribute to a slower quarter mile time as well. The old XRS had a 6-speed transmission and could rev up to its 8200RPM limiter with ease; the new XRS has a rev limiter at just a tad over 6,000RPMs and only comes with a 5-speed manual or 5-speed automatic. Ah you guessed it, the 9th generation XRS has more horsepower also, at 164hp, while the 2009 Corolla XRS has 158hp. The 2009 XRS does have one upside, which is that it has about 40 more foot pounds of torque. Although the 2009 Corolla XRS has just about 400 more pounds to lug around, this in turn helps to cancel out some if its horsepower as well as some of its extra torque. I myself and other performance buyers were shocked when we saw the specs of the new 2.4L motor also used in the Scion TC and late model Toyota Camry. We were all hopeful that the new XRS would push out around 200hp to compete with rivals such as the 2007 Civic Si and 2007 Nissan Sentra Spec-V. It seems our hopes were too high; we are trying to remember Toyota back in the day when they actually came out with true performance models such as the infamous Supra (Carter). I am a performance minded individual; and going from my 9th generation Corolla XRS to the new 10th generation Corolla XRS would feel like a downgrade performance wise; which it is.
So there you have it, the new 10th generation Toyota Corolla XRS unveiled. The outside is designed more aggressively, the inside definitely improved, and the safety stepped up a notch. But, the Corolla XRS model is about performance right? Do not get me wrong the 2009 XRS still has performance, but it does not live up to every ones hopes and dreams. Heck, it would get beaten pretty badly buy the 9th generation Toyota Corolla XRS, but that is Toyota for ya.


Works Cited
Carter Mark. Saturday, November 3, 2007. 2009 Toyota Corolla Unveiled! Is it Still to Boring? 31 Oct. 2007. <http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/10/2009_toyota_corolla_unveiled.html>





]]>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:17:49 PST1196306269