|
PeterWeller posted:It might be a weight thing. I'm pretty sure the hatches are heavier than the sedans. Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs Focus SE Hatch 2920 lbs Eh by like 13 pounds. It's probably more of a volume thing. Sales volume, that is. There's already four other trim levels for the sedan and three for the hatch. No need for more variants to make things more complicated.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Hmm, figured it'd be more than that. You're probably right then, and it all comes down to volume. The fuel miser civic is also only available in an automatic sedan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs This kinda makes sense, if it weren't for the Fiesta offering the SFE regardless of bodystyle. Honestly, I don't get it at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
They might be projecting a much more even split between the body styles with the Fiesta than with the Focus. The Fiesta is being marketed as a hip small car, whereas the Focus is targeted at a more mainstream segment, and in America, mainstream means sedans. Honestly, I think the only reason why we're getting a Focus hatch is because all the work has already been done for the European market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
I'm actually very impressed that the new Impreza weighs the same as the Focus but adds AWD and a few inches in length. Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs 2012 Impreza Sedan 2910 lbs Chevy Cruze Sedan 3102 lbs OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Left Ventricle posted:This gets me every time I see it. My old '89 Celebrity wagon had seating for eight (if everyone was chummy), an iron block V6, and an enormous four speed automatic, and curb weight was listed as 2888. My '92 Century sedan had an all-iron Buick V6 and sat six (again, friendly) and was 2910. Yes, I know, luxury and safety, but goddamn cars are bloated these days. My minivan weighs less than a base model Charger, ffs. Yeah I can understand the safety luxury stuff too, mostly. But lately some of the "safety" is just retarded - I point specifically to the IIHS's roof strength requirements for cars. http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rollover.html quote:Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, establishes a minimum requirement for roof strength to "reduce deaths and injuries due to the crushing of the roof into the occupant compartment in rollover crashes." In this test, a rigid plate is pushed into one side of the roof at a constant speed. The roof must be strong enough to prevent the plate from moving 5 inches when pushed at a force equal to 1½ times the weight of the vehicle. The test went into effect in 1973 and remained essentially unchanged until an updated rule was announced in 2009. Let's add weight to the top of the car! That won't increase the chance of rollovers at all. quote:Vehicles roll over in less than 3 percent of all crashes, but these crashes account for more than a third of passenger vehicle occupant deaths. In 2009, 23,437 passenger vehicle occupants died in crashes of all kinds. Of those, 8,296 died in crashes where their vehicle rolled over. In other words, SUVs roll over and kill people, therefore we must increase roof strength requirements for cars. And I'm willing to bet that in the fatal rollovers for cars only, a decent percentage of those fatal rollovers took place because of the excessive speed or violence of the crash (i.e. so much energy involved that the car rolled and thrashed around like a race car crash) and thus would receive less benefit from a strong roof. It doesn't help that a lot of these safety standards come in the form of a mandated engineering feature and not as a total reduction in risk. Everything in design is a balance. For example, if you can reduce the chance of rollovers sufficient to counteract a proportionate decrease in roof strength, then you have the same health outcomes with reduced weight. Also, I'm getting a little paranoid regarding the Impreza weight numbers. Hopefully they didn't save weight by dropping their symmetrical AWD system for some sort of lighter yet inferior system. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also, I'm getting a little paranoid regarding the Impreza weight numbers. Hopefully they didn't save weight by dropping their symmetrical AWD system for some sort of lighter yet inferior system. It doesn't get much lighter than the Subaru system. If they change it it'll be for fuel economy reasons rather than weight savings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
Well according to their press release they've lightened the interior materials and a few other small things like switch to electric power steering, but I think the big weight saving is the switch to CVT from the old 4AT. The CVT/4AT AWD is already "reactive" or "part time", which is why the CVT equipped Legacy gets similar if not better fuel economy than equivalent FWD cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Too bad that hp/lb is going down for the next generation. Why, oh why, couldn't the next-generation engine have been a direct-inject 2.5L engine instead of a non-DI 2.0? (Yes, I know. Cost. Don't care.) VVVVVVVVVV For both manual and the CVT, or is the CVT just better than the (truly terrible) automatic that it replaces? tetrapyloctomy fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Power went down, but it's actually quicker. The roof crush test shouldn't add much weight to the actual roof itself, it's all in the pillars. For reference, the new Impreza can do 4 times its own weight. Also, since the test is based on the weight of the car, they have incentive to cut down weight as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Wait, I thought the next-gen subaru boxers were going to have DI? Or is that just the toyobaru?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
Man I wish it was September already, so I could get my hands on a 2012 Cruze with the color touchscreen and pushbutton start both standard on upper trims. Shoulda had them in the first place, GM. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
No, pushbutton start is the devil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:No, pushbutton start is the devil. Out of curiosity, why? I don't have it in my car, but it's always seemed pretty cool whenever I've seen it (in my parents' cars for example) and I've never seen any problems with it personally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:
I'm not too sure on that. Crustashio posted:Wait, I thought the next-gen subaru boxers were going to have DI? Or is that just the toyobaru? The new engine is designed with eventual DI in mind, but they are going for a slow evolution of this engine. That's why the WRX and STI are going to remain untouched for the next model year, they want more time before they turbo it. First, complete redesign and then work out the bugs. Then they'll start adding stuff to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Out of curiosity, why? I don't have it in my car, but it's always seemed pretty cool whenever I've seen it (in my parents' cars for example) and I've never seen any problems with it personally. Yeah, I mean it's not a big deal but personally I dislike it for personal reasons. The first is the key issue. If the system still uses a key, then you have to insert the key and turn anyway and then press the button. How unnecessary. Either that or you have to switch to a keyless system, which I've used before in its Lexus/Toyota incarnations but I'm not a huge fan of it and I worry a little about possible security issues as well. I just feel like it's a needless complication. Hell, Nissan's old pushbutton start/keyless system on the Rogue or whatever actually had a little plastic switch located where the ignition lock cylinder was that you had to turn anyway. I bet adding that keyless system costs at least a couple hundred bucks to do properly, and majorly jacks up key replacement costs. I'd rather they spend that money on something like suspension components or better interior materials. Secondly, it's an issue of interface design, or more specifically how the effects of interface design are amplified unpleasantly. The start button itself is usually a software button, which inevitably means that the interface programming will be weird. I prefer a hard mechanical connection to as many controls as possible, first of all. Press button to start, that I can understand. But what if the engine fails to turn over? How is recranking, for instance, handled? What if I want to only do accessory power? Do I press, release, press again while tapping the brake pedal? Hold for three seconds until the light turns orange? I know they'll have a solution, but the problem is that it will be different for every manufacturer (at least for a while) and it's just pointlessly frustrating compared to "insert key, turn to desired setting". And the big one, of course, is shutting off the car. One reason you had the runaway Lexus thing is that to turn off the engine, you can't just press the button but you have to actually hold it for like three seconds. It's just another stupid interface thing that you have to learn and remember and hope you can remember under high stress. And since we're all used to buttons that do only one thing and react more or less instantly, having one software button with variable behavior to manipulate multiple controls is kind of lame. Especially when you have to build in safeguards because it's easy to accidentally hit the huge button in the dash versus simultaneously pressing and turning a key tucked into the steering column. Why bother? The current key system is perfectly satisfactory unless you are moving entirely to keyless start. It's just another pointless feature aping race cars/exotics but without any real benefits much of the time. The key ignition used in most modern cars is a relatively elegant solution to the interface problem, and I'm ok with it (SAAB's critique that they smash kneecaps notwithstanding). Dunno, if I've missed something, i'd be happy to change my opinion, too. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Press button to start, that I can understand. But what if the engine fails to turn over? How is recranking, for instance, handled? What if I want to only do accessory power? The digital key on my C300 is the same system as my sister's boyfriend's Cherokee, I think it's shared between Benz and Mopar. Keyless entry is just a bolt-on addition to that system, so you can optionally start it with the key as well, which allows you to crank the car indefinitely if it doesn't want to start. There's also a little mechanical key that you can pull out of the main key to unlock the doors if the battery is dead. There was a class action lawsuit over the apparent need to gut most the computer system if the smart key was lost on older Benzes, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah, I mean it's not a big deal but personally I dislike it for personal reasons. None of this is of any concern unless you're literally mentally retarded or have that Memento condition and can't remember simple things like a two-step sequence of button presses. And which "safeguards" do you have to build in to avoid hitting a button on the dash? I mean, I have yet to accidentally hit any button on my dashboard in god knows how many years of driving. Sorry, but I just get this image of someone drooling on himself and screaming incoherently as he windmills his arms around every time he gets in a car. The point of a keyless system, by the way, is not to ape race cars but to remove the annoyance of manually locking/unlocking your car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Scabrous Teat posted:The point of a keyless system, by the way, is not to ape race cars but to remove the annoyance of manually locking/unlocking your car. Which is great, but plenty of cars don't have true keyless entry. You gotta get the fob out and press unlock, and then put it back in your pocket and push the start button. I think that's sheer stupidity and gimmickry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
The Nissan Altima Hybrid I had you just pushed a button on the door to unlock. That's cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:The Nissan Altima Hybrid I had you just pushed a button on the door to unlock. That's cool. The neat thing is that if you killed the battery, you could still start it by removing the spring-loaded hidden key inside the keyfob to open the door, and then holding your keyfob against some part of the dashboard while pushing Start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Out of curiosity, why? I don't have it in my car, but it's always seemed pretty cool whenever I've seen it (in my parents' cars for example) and I've never seen any problems with it personally. I think Clarkson covered this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Scabrous Teat posted:None of this is of any concern unless you're literally mentally retarded or have that Memento condition and can't remember simple things like a two-step sequence of button presses. I was talking about push-button start, not keyless entry. Pushbutton start as a feature without keyless entry has no real reason to exist except to ape race cars since you have to have somewhere to insert the key anyway. With keyless entry, you can justify it since there has to be a way to start your car. There are already safeguards in most button start systems, which is why you have to hold the button down for x seconds before it turns the car off instead of having it turn the car of instantly when pressed. The safety system's in there primarily for liability reasons. Quick, how do you turn the engine off and then switch to accessory power? I bet it's a different sequence for your car than on another maker's car. It's a minor, trivial annoyance but an annoyance nonetheless. In regards to the separate issue of keyless entry systems, I would rather have the money it takes to have a secure keyless entry system and smart key fobs spent on something else since I don't see a real problem with mechanical keys on commuter cars. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Quick, how do you turn the engine off and then switch to accessory power? I bet it's a different sequence for your car than on another maker's car. It's a minor, trivial annoyance but an annoyance nonetheless. Its the same for all cars. Step 1 Hit button once to turn off car. Step 2 Hit Button once to turn on Accessory mode. Step 3 Doesn't exist To start the car you push down on the brake and hold the button for a second. Doesn't matter what the make Ford, VW, GM, BMW, Chrysler, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, JagLR, whatever. Physical keys are actually LESS reliable. Step one a complex series of tumblers, springs and pins slide up and down inside the key cylinder. Two a wireless signal is sent to the keys transponder to send cryptographic ID codes. Three turn the tumbler which slowly wears out the wires through the friction of the turning cylinder. Four a mechanical position sensor detects the tumblers position and starts the car. Keyless? Step 1 Push a capacitive-based push button , Two the car asks for the key to send valid cryptography keys for the car. That's it. Hilariously, keyless start is actually CHEAPER to implement then key based, but for marketing reasons they charge more for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 06:45
|
|
|
Wankie posted:Physical keys are actually LESS reliable. You have to steal the physical key, instead of snooping the keyless entry code out of the air, as has already been demonstrated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:You have to steal the physical key, instead of snooping the keyless entry code out of the air, as has already been demonstrated. You still have to steal the keyless entry fob. Its called public key cryptography. The car sends a message seeded with random number using a public key that ONLY fob can decrypt based on extremely large prime numbers. The fob using it's private key decrypts it sends back the correct answer. Sniffing keys wirelessly doesn't do poo poo, the codes needed change every single time the car asks for authentication.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
Wankie posted:You still have to steal the keyless entry fob. http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/27037/page1/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I was talking about push-button start, not keyless entry. Pushbutton start as a feature without keyless entry has no real reason to exist except to ape race cars since you have to have somewhere to insert the key anyway. With keyless entry, you can justify it since there has to be a way to start your car. Oh I agree, the setups where you have to insert a keyfob into the dashboard (like on A4 I think) are retarded. But come on, it will take you what, two minutes to learn how your button start works? It's not confusing at all. Yes, the sequence will be different in different cars, and it's also completely irrelevant unless you're Scrooge McDuck and own like 300 different cars with button start. There are also many different ways to operate the AC, wipers, stereo, and cruise control that all vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. It's just not a valid complaint in my opinion. There's no real problem with mechanical keys, but that's also a somewhat silly complaint - it's just gradual introduction of a new convenience feature. It has no drawbacks and some pretty good benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:You only have to be near it and repeat its signal over to the guy waiting by the car. Which is far easier than pickpocketing. You need to read more carefully: quote:The researchers tested a few scenarios. An attacker could watch a parking lot and have an accomplice watch as car owners as entered a nearby store. The accomplice would only need to be within eight meters of the targeted owner's key fob, making it easy to avoid arousing suspicion. In another scenario, a car owner might leave a car key on a table near a window. An antenna placed outside the house was able to communicate with the key, allowing the researchers then to start the car parked out front and drive away. This "attack" is retarded. Their connecting by CABLE two wireless receivers one held by someone near the person with key fob and other inside the car in question. If you see a person with a long rear end cable standing next to your car with their hand on the door sensor with a cable connected to another person with an antenna trying to get very close to your pockets/purse be very weary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
Wankie posted:This "attack" is retarded. Their connecting by CABLE two wireless receivers one held by someone near the person with key fob and other inside the car in question. If you see a person with a long rear end cable standing next to your car with their hand on the door sensor with a cable connected to another person with an antenna trying to get very close to your pockets/purse be very weary. Do you really think that'd be the end of it? Also from the article: "Francillon says that the materials ... for the wireless attack cost between $100 and $1,000, depending on the electronic components used." Obviously the cable version was the fastest thing they could rig up to prove it could work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Do you really think that'd be the end of it? Also from the article: Note the word "microseconds" capturing the wireless key fob signal, transferring it via wireless then using a transmitter to rebroadcast the signal was too slow (the system expects the correct response instantly) Literally, the attack by the laws of physics can NEVER work wirelessly, its too slow. They get around this keeping the signal analog and using a cable to transfer signal. Not to mention most cars keep checking the that key is in range by sending NEW signals which the attackers CAN'T fake. All you need is a small firmware upgrade to shorten the time window even further, or put the car theft mode if a correct signal is not received every minute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 07:26
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Do you really think that'd be the end of it? Also from the article: You can also break a window and connect the wires or whatever and drive away. There are always ways to bypass any security system, but modern keyless entry systems combined with modern security features are pretty good at deterring most car thieves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
Wankie posted:Note the word "microseconds" capturing the wireless key fob signal, transferring it via wireless then using a transmitter to rebroadcast the signal was too slow (the system expects the correct response instantly) Literally, the attack by the laws of physics can NEVER work wirelessly, its too slow. They get around this keeping the signal analog and using a cable to transfer signal. Not to mention most cars keep checking the that key is in range by sending NEW signals which the attackers CAN'T fake. All you need is a small firmware upgrade to shorten the time window even further, or put the car theft mode if a correct signal is not received every minute. You'd need some heavy duty gear to have the latency you'd need, but it'd certainly be possible. I'm sure the security can be tightened up, too, but these are the same companies that nickel and dime everything to death. I don't think it'd ever be worth it or possible to jack someone's Civic using a war cart made from commodity parts. But I could see someone's Ferrari disappearing from between where they parked it at the gate of their mansion if someone got lazy about wireless security implementation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Quick, how do you turn the engine off and then switch to accessory power? I bet it's a different sequence for your car than on another maker's car. It's a minor, trivial annoyance but an annoyance nonetheless. Quick, how do you do it in a traditional key+ignition cylinder system? Rotate towards you? Away? Push and rotate? Is power available at the first detent or the second? I've driven cars with at least this many different ways of doing it. I've never driven a car with pushbutton start, but I can't imagine it would be more complicated than a key system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 09:48
|
|
|
 http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/28/zagato-unveils-new-tz3-stradale-with-the-heart-of-a-viper-and-th/ Production version of the Zagato TZ3 (Zagato CF Body on a Viper ACR chassis) Not sure what went wrong there, but I think it looks terrible, like something from the early 80s. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
It's like an Alfa 8C gone wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
It is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 12:59
|
|
|
I see nothing wrong with that - it's just a modern Pantera. Pretty Italian body with a big bloody engine. It even has sweet part windows like all good supercars. Like the SVX. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
eames posted:
gently caress I love the front but it looks like they ran out of money before they got to designing the rear end...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 16:28
|
|