|
KozmoNaut posted:...the Mazda 2 and 3 are among some of the best-handling cars you can get for reasonable money. Definitely. I got a 3 after my '99 Civic Si was stolen. Honestly, I don't miss the Civic now, I love the 3 that much. I've read that the 2's handling is like throwing a 4th generation Civic Si around, if that's true, I'd consider it my next car. It might be in the same class as the Civic and the Corolla, but the 3 is heaps more fun to drive and (in my opinion) quite a bit more refined. Speaking of which, anyone know how well the 3s with the SKYACTIV holds up to the ones with the 2.3/2.5L engines? I know they won't have as much pickup, but are they still fun?
|
# ? Jun 15, 2012 21:05 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 21:05 |
|
BabyMauler posted:Was specing out a Sonic and stumbled onto this video of the new Impala. Handsome rear end car it is. I like how every time they show the driver he's more fixated on the the nav screen than on the road.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2012 22:01 |
|
Pseudonym posted:Definitely. I got a 3 after my '99 Civic Si was stolen. Honestly, I don't miss the Civic now, I love the 3 that much. I've read that the 2's handling is like throwing a 4th generation Civic Si around, if that's true, I'd consider it my next car. Yeah... my sister has a 3 and it's fun as hell to drive. I call it the "Zippy Car."
|
# ? Jun 15, 2012 22:26 |
|
Pseudonym posted:It might be in the same class as the Civic and the Corolla, but the 3 is heaps more fun to drive and (in my opinion) quite a bit more refined. Speaking of which, anyone know how well the 3s with the SKYACTIV holds up to the ones with the 2.3/2.5L engines? I know they won't have as much pickup, but are they still fun? I have a Skyactiv 3 and I'd describe its acceleration as "incredibly adequate". The throttle response in the auto transmission can be a big laggy since it's designed for fuel efficiency, but I'll bet the manual transmission would qualify as "fun".
|
# ? Jun 15, 2012 23:39 |
|
Tacier posted:I have a Skyactiv 3 and I'd describe its acceleration as "incredibly adequate". The throttle response in the auto transmission can be a big laggy since it's designed for fuel efficiency, but I'll bet the manual transmission would qualify as "fun". Uh, the 2.5L 3 was never very peppy. The Skyactive 3 and old 2.5L 3 have very similar power and torque figures.
|
# ? Jun 16, 2012 01:12 |
|
Sigma X posted:Uh, the 2.5L 3 was never very peppy. The Skyactive 3 and old 2.5L 3 have very similar power and torque figures. The 2.5 is still quite a lot quicker - although it produces peak torque later it still has more early on in the rev range than the 2l
|
# ? Jun 16, 2012 01:16 |
|
Argenteus posted:I like how every time they show the driver he's more fixated on the the nav screen than on the road. Yeah it all looks good except for the enormously intrusive looking center console. I'm assuming it's that giant and bulky purely so that the touchscreen is easier to reach, right? gently caress touchscreens forever.
|
# ? Jun 16, 2012 01:33 |
|
From the mustang thread: http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/camaro/2012/2012-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-vs-2013-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-comparison-test.html This seems to match from GM that the ZL1 would be faster "around the track."
|
# ? Jun 16, 2012 15:53 |
|
They didn't drive it around a track? The one timed test they did the Mustang was faster. They just said that the Camero's suspension is more compliant which is you would expect. Live axles do pretty well on tracks, where there are no bumps or potholes, and the Mustang is lighter and more powerful.
|
# ? Jun 16, 2012 16:05 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:on tracks, where there are no bumps or potholes Why, that's a mighty big caveat that you're holding there
|
# ? Jun 16, 2012 19:40 |
|
I bet a very skilled driver like Randy Pobst will be able get faster times out of the GT500, but bit sure about regular auto journos. Can't wait for more comparisons to roll in.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 06:05 |
|
Admirable Gusto posted:Why, that's a mighty big caveat that you're holding there Don't drink the Ford kool-aid. The clearly superior GM would win in all oth-*shits pants*
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 06:40 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:I've never read a review that lists lack of IRS on the Cruze as a negative. It drives just as well or better as a Civic or Focus. If that's what's holding you back then you probably were never going to buy a Cruze anyway. Maybe the new Dodge Dart, which can be had with a 1.4t(with more power than the Cruze), manual, and IRS is more your thing. Most Cruze do have IRS, though. 1.8 + any trans: IRS 1.4t + auto: IRS 1.4t + manual: Torsion Beam As far as why it was important to me: ride comfort, weight distribution, and the goddamnit WHY factor. edit: Well, it's only on the LT and LTZ models for the 1.8 apparently. Tan Dumplord fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jun 17, 2012 |
# ? Jun 17, 2012 14:21 |
|
I doubt that if you put someone in two identical Cruze, one with IRS and one with a torsion beam, that you'd be able to tell the difference.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 15:27 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I doubt that if you put someone in two identical Cruze, one with IRS and one with a torsion beam, that you'd be able to tell the difference. Especially if they're a Cruze buyer (it's an upmarket Corolla, not a downmarket GTI.)
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 15:50 |
|
I noticed, but I went out of my way to pick a test drive route that had rough surfaces. Even then it was likely confirmation bias. I'm sure that every car with IRS is purely for marketing purposes, and it had no technical merits. Anyhow the gripe was about silly packaging. Like how you can't get a gen coupe with an lsd, but without a sunroof.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 16:49 |
|
I'm always willing to stick up for torsion beams. They're simple, light, and a well-designed one is like having trailing arm IRS with an integrated anti-roll bar. You can't automatically say IRS is better. It has the potential to be better if it's well designed, but it's not a guarantee or anything.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 16:59 |
|
Right, it's not automatically better, but it's also not guaranteed to be completely identical to the point where nobody could tell the difference.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2012 17:03 |
|
New Opel Astra (Buick Verano). 1.4l turbo engine now has "overboost" feature. 2.0l turbo engine with 280hp and 2.0l sequential twin turbo diesel availible. quote:The new Opel Astra line-up: More variety, engines and high-tech features
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 09:51 |
|
I like the Civic liftbacks in the background
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 09:59 |
|
Give me the tl;dr version. Is that wagon version coming to America? I will be pissed either way. Edit: vv someday my prince will come. davebo fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jun 19, 2012 |
# ? Jun 19, 2012 16:28 |
|
davebo posted:Give me the tl;dr version. Is that wagon version coming to America? I will be pissed either way. You're so cute when you're being naïve like that :bigtran:
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 16:50 |
|
Is the Astra not an astonishingly boring econobox anymore?
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 18:08 |
|
Didn't see this mentioned here, but the Veloster Turbo configurator has been released. $22,725 (includes a $750 destination charge) with the only optional extra being a sunroof/nav package for 2,500. (Extra for the matte grey or white exterior) Fully loaded you're looking at 25,000-26,000. Getting into GTI territory there. I'm not sure how I feel about the design, but I'll definitely look at it along with its other hot hatch brethren. Whip Slagcheek fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jun 19, 2012 |
# ? Jun 19, 2012 19:53 |
|
sanchez posted:Is the Astra not an astonishingly boring econobox anymore? I've only heard good stuff about the Astra J.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 19:55 |
|
Whip Slagcheek posted:Didn't see this mentioned here, but the Veloster Turbo configurator has been released. $22,725 (includes a $750 destination charge) with the only optional extra being a sunroof/nav package for 2,500. (Extra for the matte grey or white exterior) If it looks like the regular Veloster, then it's not my cup of tea. I always thought they looked alright in pictures and video until I actually saw one in person. Talk about ugly.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 20:15 |
|
PT6A posted:If it looks like the regular Veloster, then it's not my cup of tea. I always thought they looked alright in pictures and video until I actually saw one in person. Talk about ugly. There's a bunch of pictures of it on the Hyundai website, but its essentially the same with a new "more aggressive" grille and a dual exhaust.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 20:19 |
|
Yeah, really not sure why you don't shell out the roughly 2,000 bucks for the GTI 2 door. I guess that's like 9% of total acquisition but at the same time, the GTI is a lot nicer inside and is a little more "adult" edit: them wheels I applaud the bold attempt at styling but drat yo that thing is uggo. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 19, 2012 |
# ? Jun 19, 2012 23:03 |
|
Some people like tiny cars, and the GTI isn't really tiny any more.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2012 23:27 |
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:Some people like tiny cars, and the GTI isn't really tiny any more. They're almost exactly the same OAL, with the Veloster actually being six tenths longer. edit: I saw a Veloster in Montreal recently and was astonished at how loving large the car was. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 20, 2012 |
# ? Jun 20, 2012 00:09 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:They're almost exactly the same OAL, with the Veloster actually being six tenths longer. Yeah, I see a couple of them rolling around the DC area and they're hardly small. That third door weirds me out though. I don't know. I'm pretty much cross-shopping it just to see if Hyundai has improved as much as been reported. I'll probably end up in a C30 R-design.
|
# ? Jun 20, 2012 00:41 |
|
Have you driven one with the Polestar tweaks?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2012 14:36 |
|
Bovril Delight posted:Have you driven one with the Polestar tweaks? I haven't, but its my understanding that its just an ECU flash? I tested an R two weeks ago and loved it. Felt very responsive and had good handling. It felt a bit sluggish compared to the GTI, but I liked the interior and lay out a lot more. If I do go with the C30, I'll definitely be getting the polestar flash. Keeping the manufacturer warranty is a big plus. Whip Slagcheek fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jun 20, 2012 |
# ? Jun 20, 2012 14:40 |
|
Not sure how news worth this is. This trailer showed up on Autoblog and really sparked something inside me. I love station wagons. http://vimeo.com/35220096
|
# ? Jun 21, 2012 20:17 |
|
Whip Slagcheek posted:Didn't see this mentioned here, but the Veloster Turbo configurator has been released. $22,725 (includes a $750 destination charge) with the only optional extra being a sunroof/nav package for 2,500. (Extra for the matte grey or white exterior) Isn't "GTI Territory" exactly the market segment that Hyundai is trying to break into? The only turbo-4 hatches at that price point are the GTI and MCS. Both those cars are perfectly good and capable in their own way, but there isn't really much competition considering that type of vehicle seems to be more "in" these days than say, 10 years ago. That said, I don't think the Velostar Turbo is appallingly ugly, just dramatic and aggressive-looking in a way that sets it apart from most other new cars. It's polarizing. They could've just as easily stayed in the mild design language of their mainstays, the Sonatas and Genesises, but I like that they went for something more likely to catch your eye on the street. I saw a yellow Velostar out the other day, and by comparison the MkV GTI looks fairly unassuming and generic.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2012 20:47 |
|
So the new Dodge Dart started rolling out to dealerships yesterday. I'm pretty opposed to the car in general, as it's your run-of-the-mill "car by manufacturer" relying on a legacy of a famous name. And it can come in Laguna Blue.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2012 23:04 |
|
Devyl posted:So the new Dodge Dart started rolling out to dealerships yesterday. I'm pretty opposed to the car in general, as it's your run-of-the-mill "car by manufacturer" relying on a legacy of a famous name. And it can come in Laguna Blue. It really ought to be a hatchback, demographics and market preferences be damned.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2012 23:26 |
|
The Dart seems like a respectable sub-20k offering. It is at least a significant improvement from Dodge's recent attempts in the segment. I think it can get a tad bit expensive with options, but other than that, I can't seem to find any other faults with it. The dealership that I drive past to from work has one on their lots, maybe I'll stop by and see what it is like. Edit: I thought hatches were exceedingly popular in this segment; nearly every offering in it is available as one. oRenj9 fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 21, 2012 |
# ? Jun 21, 2012 23:34 |
|
It would be nice if all these sporty cheap little economy cars were actually sporty. Instead of throwing a body kit on an elentra and calling it a day. Is the new Dart a neon with a body kit, or is there more to it?
|
# ? Jun 21, 2012 23:41 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 21:05 |
|
Devyl posted:So the new Dodge Dart started rolling out to dealerships yesterday. I'm pretty opposed to the car in general, as it's your run-of-the-mill "car by manufacturer" relying on a legacy of a famous name. And it can come in Laguna Blue. When it saw it at the Chicago Auto Show a few months ago I was surprised at how lovely it was in regards to build quality, especially when the other american manufacturers (Ford especially) seem to have upped their quality quite a bit. The insides of this thing felt really plastic-y and seemed as if they would fall apart if you looked at them wrong. For a domestic car in this segment a Fiesta or Focus seems like a much better way to go; the build quality isn't even comparable to this poo poo heap. Also they come in hatchback form.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2012 23:43 |