|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:Holy mother of gently caress that's a lot of Souls. It makes sense, though - at that price point for a stylish city run-about and stuff hauler it's a no-brainer. Surprisingly they're actually great cars as well. They drive nice and the interior is laid out quite well.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
angryhampster posted:Surprisingly they're actually great cars as well. They drive nice and the interior is laid out quite well. Nice username. I rented one once, and it was pretty nice. Certainly a hell of a lot better than the HHR that was the alternative. Also, the price ranges from $14-20k, which is probably the best part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah that's definitely fat as gently caress, but it does have 6 liter engine and pushrod or not that's gonna be heavy. The new redesigned 2012 Charger is listed at 3961 lbs for the base V6, which isn't that horrible. We're comparing base engines, after all. The new V6 in the Charger puts out a bit less than 300 hp, so not too bad. That is horrible though! I can't imagine why that car needs to be that heavy aside from just cutting corners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Surprisingly they're actually great cars as well. They drive nice and the interior is laid out quite well. Other than the ad campaign they are fantastic. I hope to get the girlfriend into one next fall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah that's definitely fat as gently caress, but it does have 6 liter engine and pushrod or not that's gonna be heavy. The new redesigned 2012 Charger is listed at 3961 lbs for the base V6, which isn't that horrible. We're comparing base engines, after all. The new V6 in the Charger puts out a bit less than 300 hp, so not too bad. Where did you find the specs? i can't seem to dig through chryslers piece of poo poo of a site. I would love to know what an AWD R/T weighs in at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Powershift posted:The dodge charger wishes it was 4000lbs. Motor trend weighed the SRT8 in at 4271 lbs I read estimated curb weight for the new Impala at like 3800 lbs for the V6. Inline may be a few hundred pounds lighter, but who knows. It's also enormous at like 200+ inches long http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Apr/0404_impala
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Where did you find the specs? i can't seem to dig through chryslers piece of poo poo of a site. I would love to know what an AWD R/T weighs in at. I usually just hit up google. http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Dodge_Charger/2012/specs/Dodge-4dr-Sdn-RT-AWD-335653/ It looks like the 2012 Charger R/T AWD is 4450 lbs. I also went and confirmed it on their official website (I used the compare cars feature). Hoooly poo poo that's huuuge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:New Aussie falcon 4cyl ecoboost in on sale as of today I find it a bid odd they're still going to call the luxury models the G6/G6E.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I usually just hit up google. drat. I wonder if it's anything like the last gen AWD chargers with their 64/36 weight distro. edit: yahoo says 55/45, i guess they added that 200lbs to the rear end end. Also, the ford taurus with the 2.0T is listed by ford at 3990lbs, so if you aussies need something to worry about, it should be the US taurus becoming your next falcon. Powershift fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Jeez, and I thought my GTO at 3800lbs was the fattest of the fat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It's about 3 inches longer at 195.1 inches long vs the Fusion's 192" and Camry's 189", though it is an older design (2008 i think). It's never coming here but it sounds like it would be pretty competitive if it did. Its a weird design though - big on the outside but actually has less space than a modern Mondeo (which is a frigging massive car these days). Remember too that 1650kg curb weight is going to be the stripped out taxi spec model, a decent spec car is going to be at least 1700
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
davebo posted:That is horrible though! I can't imagine why that car needs to be that heavy aside from just cutting corners. You sound like a Republican going on about taxes, that is, really tiresome.  Oh no, my huge RWD car is only 500lbs lighter than other huge RWD cars that cost twice as much, and almost the same as GM's midsize RWD car!  If the car is too heavy for you, maybe huge RWD luxury cars just aren't your thing? Go buy the the 4 cyl FWD Impala, it's lighter so it's better! Am I the only one who is really tired of the following posts: - "Hah this <new car> totally looks like <old car> because it has a trunk and 4 wheels!  "- "This <HD diesel pickup truck> weighs how much? that's awful! Why can't it be as light as my NA Miata?  "- "That's a pretty cool midsize family sedan I guess, if they made it a hatchback version with a turbo engine, manual transmission, AWD, blue paint, gold wheels and priced it $4k cheaper than a WRX I would totally buy one, LOL DUMBESTICS WHY CAN'T YOU BUILD CARS PEOPLE WANT TO BUY?." Post that poo poo in the Autoblog comments section.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:"That's a pretty cool ________________ I guess, if they made it with a turbo engine, manual transmission, AWD, blue paint, gold wheels and priced it $4k cheaper than a WRX I would totally buy one..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Edited to cover any thread in AI, period. The Toyobaru discussion had those clowns coming out of woodwork in droves. Well, to be fair, that was largely before the price was released and the rumours turned out to be way higher than reality anyway. Minus the turbo discussion, of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
This is the thread about new car announcements. There's going to be disagreement over designs or comparisons to current/past models that people love/hate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
And a lot of it is frustration that other markets get options/variants that one's home market does not, even when there are good reasons for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
I guess I just didn't consider the Dodge Charger a luxury sedan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
davebo posted:I guess I just didn't consider the Dodge Charger a luxury sedan. How about you find a sedan that's the same size of the Dodge Charger which you consider to be of acceptable weight, so we know what you're aiming for here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:I find it a bid odd they're still going to call the luxury models the G6/G6E. Originally they thought they could charge more than the I6 falcons for the ecoboost. But it looks like common sense has prevailed and it's aimed at the bottom spec market, ie fleets and taxis that need better fuel economy. If they manage to sell them better than the XT I6 (wouldn't be hard, no one is buying them), they'll probably withdraw the I6 option from the lower end completely, and tell people if the want the I6 they have to buy a xr6 turbo or a GE6 edit: I mean G6, G6E, or G6E turbo). Then of course the I6 will die, the falcon will die and they will only sell FWD family cars and no one will care, because the RWD falcon, or for that matter a large 4dr family car RWD sedan, is an orphan and it's days are numbered. And then ford will die in Australia because everything else from ford is imported and who gives a crap, may as well buy the mazda version of whatever they sell. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Given the price, it's easy to forget that a Charger/300 is actually close to the size of a 7 series or nearly a SWB S-class. Still, compared to something like the AWD version of new Mercedes E, the AWD version of the Charger is still 500 pounds heavier, which is pretty significant. 4500 pounds is still pretty drat heavy even allowing for the increased weight of AWD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
I've driven large 5 seat family sedans that weigh 2800lbs, they were poo poo when they were manufactured in the 70s & they're just frightening on the roads now when a ford ka would plough through one in a 40mph crash. Some things are going to weigh a lot more than others & until nanobots start weaving carbon fibre cars reinforced with forcefields a large 5 seat car that can comfortably carry your rear end along at 100mph all day & not kill you in every crash over 30mph is going to weigh 4000lbs minimum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I usually just hit up google. Just for perspective, my regular cab 2wd Ram weighs 4900 lbs. Chargers are loving bloated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:How about you find a sedan that's the same size of the Dodge Charger which you consider to be of acceptable weight, so we know what you're aiming for here? Well the whole conversation started while talking about next year's Ford Falcon. I can't seem to find weights for that but the current one is 4 inches shorter than a Charger, 150lbs lighter and the new one will be a turbo 4cyl instead of I6. I think any way you slice it it's a heavy car, and it isn't because it's full of exotic wood trimmings. I did read recently that Ford was making a push to mass produce carbon fiber body panels in the future, which hopefully will help bring down prices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
dissss posted:Its a weird design though - big on the outside but actually has less space than a modern Mondeo (which is a frigging massive car these days). Yeah well a Mondeo is FWD. All that jazz in the 80s about FWD wasn't all bull and needing a tunnel for the driveshaft is going to cut into your passenger room a bit. 1700 kg is still 3750 lbs, which honestly still isn't that much. Pretty similar to a BMW 5-series or Cadillac CTS, and while obviously those might be better cars, the Falcon is probably cheaper (although who knows with your crazy Australian moon money and car pricing). Also, I read recently that the new Cadillac ATS is supposed to weight less than 3400 lbs (about 1500 kg) and have a perfect 50/50 weight balance, which is outstanding. A hundred pounds and more lighter than the 3 series or the Infiniti G25/G37. Apparently Lutz prioritized weight savings as a top development goal. http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1071678_2013-cadillac-ats-why-its-lighter-than-the-bmw-3-series quote:“We started on this product five-plus years ago—all-new architecture, started from scratch,” explained Masch. “We benchmarked every one of our competitors—the BMWs, the C-Class, the A4, Lexus—and then we actually spent time with owners of the competitive cars, in their cars and in their homes, to find out what they liked and didn't like about their cars as well.” I think the styling is a little boring but otherwise sounds great. I may think about one in the future when I get older (assuming GM hasn't gone to poo poo by then). OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Just for perspective, my regular cab 2wd Ram weighs 4900 lbs. Chargers are loving bloated. perspective of what, a two seater with nothing but air behind the seats? No rear crash structure? Only 10 inches longer? I'm not surprised it weighs less than a Charger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Linedance posted:perspective of what, a two seater with nothing but air behind the seats? No rear crash structure? Only 10 inches longer? I'm not surprised it weighs less than a Charger. What are you talking about? A Charger weighs 4000-4500 lbs. He's saying his truck still weighs more, but that anything over two tons is a big-rear end car even compared to a big-rear end truck that's way larger and more solidly built since it can carry like 2000 pounds of payload and has a GVWR in the five figure range. Considering a Charger is a sedan with an MSRP starting at like $25k, people naturally start comparing it with other 25-30k sedans instead of stuff like the Lexus LS and Mercedes S-class, which apparently it's actually closer in size to than anything else. Especially since everyone likes to repeat about how the LX is based on the old W211 E series. Seriously, until someone posted those dimensions earlier the comparison never even entered my mind. I assumed it was like 5-series big and not the size of a personal limosine luxobarge. Then again, it's still smaller and lighter than the original 2-door Charger, so there is that, too. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Linedance posted:perspective of what, a two seater with nothing but air behind the seats? No rear crash structure? Only 10 inches longer? I'm not surprised it weighs less than a Charger. Perspective in that a unibody stamped metal car is just barely lighter than a conventional frame vehicle, which is not really ideal. It's poor design, and there's no way they aren't able to shave some pounds from it. I'm saying this as a Dodge guy, I'm not just ripping on the Charger/300 for nothing. If they could get the curb weight of a Charger down, it would be a fairly good car in the segment. If they could do the same with the Challenger, it would go from boulevard cruiser into an actual pony car. How Chrysler can make trucks as good as they do and cars that are terrible is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Perspective in that a unibody stamped metal car is just barely lighter than a conventional frame vehicle, which is not really ideal. It's poor design, and there's no way they aren't able to shave some pounds from it. I'm saying this as a Dodge guy, I'm not just ripping on the Charger/300 for nothing. Yeah I was in this camp for a while, but I have to say that I'm getting swayed the other way now. The new Taurus is 4000 lbs, too, as is the E-class. The GM competitors - CTS/G8/Commodore/Caprice all also weigh in the 3700-4000 range. Hell, the much smaller and industry standard BMW 5 series is 3800-4000. I really can't think of many cars that are significantly lighter without also being way more expensive. Not to mention the fact that the new Charger was refreshed under some serious cost constraints and uses a pretty old platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
poo poo, a Fusion is like 3600. It's crazy how heavy the cars in the US are. loving crash standards!  I'd kill for a 3600lbs Charger. Two door too, please!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:If they could get the curb weight of a Charger down, it would be a fairly good car in the segment. If they could do the same with the Challenger, it would go from boulevard cruiser into an actual pony car. How Chrysler can make trucks as good as they do and cars that are terrible is beyond me. I agree, I'd have really liked to own one. I just wish there was more of a segment for it to be in though. In terms of RWD sedans under 30k in America, pickings are pretty slim to begin with, and I can't imagine there'll be any amazing cars with no competition. Edit: vv because it isn't necessary. If you can trim weight out then you'll get better mileage and speed with the same power, or you can have less power and get even better mileage and retain the same speed. There's just no benefit to bloat. If we don't demand weight reduction then there'll be no desire from the car companies to move that direction. I'm a consumer so the most I can do is vote with my wallet, so that's what I'll do. davebo fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Why do you care about weight so much? From the way some enthusiasts talk, you'd think every car was just x pounds away from winning a race, the reward for which is 70 virgins and a billion dollars. It's particularly irrelevant for four-door sedans, which spend 99.9% of their time driving around in entirely mundane traffic. Yea, if someone is going to market a sporting car in the segment than I probably would expect it to be light. But the Charger is literally a four-door muscle car - and you're surprised when its a bit heavy? That's why the base engine is a V6 with nearly 300 horsepower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
davebo posted:I agree, I'd have really liked to own one. I just wish there was more of a segment for it to be in though. In terms of RWD sedans under 30k in America, pickings are pretty slim to begin with, and I can't imagine there'll be any amazing cars with no competition. That's how I even got my truck in the first place. I went to the Dodge dealer the first week the Charger came out. They had a stripped black R/T for 30k, it was perfect. I saw my truck there, but a special edition hemi Ram was prolly big bucks, so I didn't look at it. Got the Charger, put my money down, told to pick it up the next day. Well I get there, see it tagged and detailed, it was so sweet. My first new car! "VikingSkull, we have a problem. Chrysler needs more money down than what you did, the cars are very hot right now...." Long story short I tell him I work at the big auction here, and I know dealerships don't tag and detail a car unless it's sold. He offers to show me some Jeeps (  ), I tell him not interested, looking for a RWD V8, was going to the rival Ford dealership for a Mustang. He shows me the truck, it listed for 35k, I ended up getting it for $23500. Honestly, I was hooked when I took it for a test drive. It's utterly useless, but it's a lifesized hot wheels car so I'm ok with it. Dodge is really good at that recently, their cars are absolute caricatures of the era. I'm really interested in how the Fiat influence is going to effect the look.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:It's particularly irrelevant for four-door sedans, which spend 99.9% of their time driving around in entirely mundane traffic. There's you answer. Fuel economy. Getting extra weight moving take more fuel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:poo poo, a Fusion is like 3600. It's crazy how heavy the cars in the US are. loving crash standards! Closest thing to that is a Cadillac ATS or CTS for four doors or a Mustang, if you want two doors. Or, size-wise, a Pontiac GTO / G8 if you can find one. Unfortunately, there's just no way in hell you can make a modern car the size of the Charger without it weighing 3800-4000 lbs unless you go nuts with the exotic materials, which adds cost. Or else just ignore safety standards, which is illegal and also probably not fun when you get rear-ended by some idiot. If you make it smaller you could hit that weight, but then you're competing in the ultra competitive midsize car market against FWD platforms that will be cheaper and offer more room at the same cost and weight. FWD is pretty much superior to conventional front-engine RWD except in the areas of driving dynamics, putting down big power, and moving a lot of weight. Big power meaning like 300+ hp, which most people are not going to pay for in the first place. Most volume customers will sacrifice dynamics for efficiency and cost. Which is why everyone buys Camrys and Accords. The only way to get more fun with RWD and big power is to pay for it and get a small luxury car. For those people, the best option is to buy a lightly used or off-lease luxury sedan since depreciation hits them like rocks, and then learn to do your own maintenance or just budget and eat the costs of ownership. Or else buy a Prius/Camry/Fusion and use that saved money to buy a Miata or a motorcycle or something. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:What are you talking about? A Charger weighs 4000-4500 lbs. He's saying his truck still weighs more, but that anything over two tons is a big-rear end car even compared to a big-rear end truck that's way larger and more solidly built since it can carry like 2000 pounds of payload and has a GVWR in the five figure range. wow holy poo poo I hosed up there... I got myself very confused looking at different vehicle weights compared to their dimensions, and that Chrysler 300 spec Throatwarbler posted (I assumed the Charger weighed roughly the same, and missed the point it was 500lbs more than that whole group). Didn't help that I looked up Bentley Flying Spurs and Rolls Royce Ghosts just for a laugh... you want to talk heavy... So yeah, the Charger is lighter than a Ram, and heavier than porkers like a 7 series. And a 2 door RWD Ram is lighter than a Bentley and a Rolls. This concludes my research. Changing the subject, even though it's old news, I read about this the other day. It is a new, old car that I like a lot: the Alvis 4.3  Basically it's a continued production from 1937, made from new old stock and new parts all made from the original technical drawings. Now if only they made it in AWD with blue paint and gold rims for £150000 less I'd buy it in a second. An article: http://www.newcarnet.tv/Alvis%204.3%20Litre_roadtest.html?id=1747&pt=2
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Motronic posted:There's you answer. Fuel economy. Getting extra weight moving take more fuel. If you look at fuel economy numbers you see little difference. A full-size sedan is a few MPG less efficient than compact which is a few MPG less efficient than a sub-compact. For the average driver we're talking about a difference that adds up to only a few hundred dollars per year. Which is all-but-irrelevant. It does matter more outside of the United States, where gas is more expensive. And - surprise! - in such countries you see diesels and you see small, light cars that never catch on here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:If you look at fuel economy numbers you see little difference. A full-size sedan is a few MPG less efficient than compact which is a few MPG less efficient than a sub-compact. For the average driver we're talking about a difference that adds up to only a few hundred dollars per year. Which is all-but-irrelevant. Dunno, assuming 15,000 miles annually and 45% of those highway, the difference between a subcompact getting 33 mpg combined and a giant car like the Charger that gets 21 mpg combined is like $1000 a year and you're using like 30% less gas. More if you drive more miles or drive in the city more. And that's not including the disparity in purchase price, insurance, parts, maintenance, or consumables, all of which favors the smaller, lighter car. Big weight needs a bigger engine, beefier parts, more expensive tires, etc. It's pretty undeniable that it makes a difference to people. Which is why small, light cars are selling quite well. Overall, though, you're right since of the top 10 best selling vehicles in the US 2011, which makes up like 25% of all sales, the only one under 3000 lbs was the Toyota Corolla and even then a decent chunk of those sales were fleet sales. Also, if you're an enthusiast, lighter cars tend to be more fun in relation to cost and power, especially at lower speeds. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Here are your options as an OEM for meeting crash standards: 1. Increase weight 2. Increase cost
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
So are modern small cars such as the Honda Fit and Ford Fiesta deathtraps since they weigh under 1.5 tons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
CornHolio posted:So are modern small cars such as the Honda Fit and Ford Fiesta deathtraps since they weigh under 1.5 tons? No, but that's because they're small cars. Not everyone wants a small car, though. Some people want a larger car. The larger car will be heavier!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 00:03
|
|