|
Q_res posted:I think the Spark is going to be a good litmus test for whether or not "normal" city cars can work in the US now. It's base price is only $1,620 lower than the base price of a Sonic hatch. Though it does come with some nice features not available on the base trim level Sonic. GM's posted estimated numbers are 6 mpg better in the city and 3 mpg better on the highway compared to the Sonic. I'm really interested to see how sales shake out for this thing. I think the sales last month weren't terrible, especially for a car that's had zero advertising and I doubt many people have even heard of.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:It didn't 2 years ago, the GBP has collapsed in value in the last few years. Jaguar/Land Rover continues to make terrible cars but now they are one of the most profitable car makers in the world because the way to become a successful car maker is to get your government to manipulate the currency. It's almost as if state intervention helps businesses.....
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
At some point in the future Americans are going to have to suck it up and accept a city car, given most never go more then 60 miles from home on any given day. I mean the Hyundai Accent last model hatchback moved a ton of metal. The Spark may still cost too much, but the time is coming when a city car will show up cheap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Linedance posted:just for perspective, here's a typical two-way suburban street in west London at Google-Car o'clock when it isn't particularly busy. Jesus gently caress that makes me claustrophobic just looking at it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:At some point in the future Americans are going to have to suck it up and accept a city car, given most never go more then 60 miles from home on any given day. You could easily get a last gen accent hatchback here for about 10 grand even. That made it about $3,000 cheaper than the next cheapest new car. I would expect the nissan versa, as terrible as it is, to take it's place, simply because it starts at $10,999. Not because it's good and not because it's small, but because it's the cheapest new car you can buy. Looking at "city cars" in the US right now. the smart car is $1,500 more and completely impractical, the fiat 500 is $4,500 more, the scion iq is a full $5,000 more,
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Linedance posted:just for perspective, here's a typical two-way suburban street in west London at Google-Car o'clock when it isn't particularly busy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Powershift posted:You could easily get a last gen accent hatchback here for about 10 grand even. That made it about $3,000 cheaper than the next cheapest new car. I would expect the nissan versa, as terrible as it is, to take it's place, simply because it starts at $10,999. Not because it's good and not because it's small, but because it's the cheapest new car you can buy. Yeah, right now I have a base automatic Kia Rio at my dealership and the sticker is still $15,615. This is for a car with manual locks and windows People who can't afford decent new cars buy used cars, not cheap new cars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Get ready for even thinker pillars and higher belt-lines: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr081412.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Enough about citycars, it's time to talk about new practical hybrid-electric vehicles, like the Porsche 918, of which a new very-near-production prototype just surfaced on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cm4cfoltmI
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Get ready for even thinker pillars and higher belt-lines: To be fair, some of those results look pretty bad, what with the heads missing airbags and braining themselves on the dashboard, and the thing they're testing for is a fairly reasonable and realistic crash scenario. Judging from some of the responses already put out by manufacturers, it seems like a lot of the worst stuff could be fixed more with simple tweaks than with massive re-engineering. Besides, everyone knows that the (questionably effective) euro pedestrian safety standards are the biggest ruiner of car designs right now. Unless you like sports cars with giant blunt and bulbous front ends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
The Volvo did it just fine. If a Chinese car can do it what's stopping BMW and MB?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The Volvo did it just fine. If a Chinese car can do it what's stopping BMW and MB? Volvos are hardly Chinese cars, even if their parent company is now Chinese. One of the other issues for the two german brands, other than the wrong airbags thing where the right combination of side/front airbags didn't deploy correctly because of the way they were calibrated that wasn't optimized for this type of offset impact, was due to specific details on how the seatbelt pretensioner and tension control mechanisms reacted to that particular angle of impact, which allowed for excessive movement that led to stuff being hit harder than it should. The manufacturers claim that it's likely these could be fixed with relatively minor programming and hardware tweaks. Which underscores how these tests can be useful. quote:Engineers at some manufacturers have indicated that they are adjusting airbag algorithms to deploy side airbags in small overlap frontal crashes. Mercedes, for example, plans changes for the current C-Class. Lexus's terrible scores were apparently due in part to deficiencies in their crash structure and A pillars which led to serious injuries to the legs due to crushing and trapping.  They gave this photo to show the difference between Lexus (left) and Volvo (right). Apparently the door was actually completely sheared off of the VW CC in its test, while the door was flung open for Audi, both of which are automatic downgrades due to the dangers inherent in doors being flung open due to fairly low speed collisions. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Aug 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
The Lexuses are the oldest models, they are both from 2005-6. The 2013 ES is moving to an entire new platform not shared with the Camry, I think. The Audi an the C class are both older too. The Volvo is brand new.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
You can't really fault IIHS. Every single time they invent a test, 10 years later all cars score perfect on it so they have to make something new to justify their existence. It really is making all these cars safer on the road in the long run. We are probably at the point of diminishing returns now, but their frontal offset crash tests REALLY pushed automakers to build their cars better starting in the early 2000's. It was good progress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
grover posted:Enough about citycars, it's time to talk about new practical hybrid-electric vehicles, like the Porsche 918, of which a new very-near-production prototype just surfaced on youtube: Not naming sources... The level of insanity going on around that car makes me worried. So far 80 some odd people have ordered one. Now, to order one, you need to put down half of the $800k price tag. Mind you, for that deposit you do also get a 918 Edition 911 Turbo. Aka, a Turbo with a giant green stripe on it to get you to stop asking where you $400k went. Good news is, the car is coming! So soon in fact that the prototype is going on a tour so owners can sit in it and be driven around in one. That's right they get to sit in it, not drive it. Then you have to get out and go back to waiting. It really makes me think they're hiding something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Because if there was ever a company that was going to take $400k deposits on a vaporware car to rip off/piss off their customers, it's Porsche.
2ndclasscitizen fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Aug 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
kill me now posted:Yeah, right now I have a base automatic Kia Rio at my dealership and the sticker is still $15,615. This is for a car with manual locks and windows "People with more sense than money buy used cars". I have bought exactly one brand-new car in my life. Never again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:You can't really fault IIHS. Every single time they invent a test, 10 years later all cars score perfect on it so they have to make something new to justify their existence. Meanwhile the NHTSA keeps ramming cars at a perfect 90 degree angle into a perfectly flat wall at 35mph. That said, I've always heard (and have probably posted something like this before) that the IIHS tests are designed to test the vehicle's safety structure, while the NHTSA tests are designed to make sure the restraints are up to federal code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
Ineptus Mechanicus posted:I like A and B-segment cars for their maneuverability more than their footprint in a parking space. Being able to easily see your corners and effortlessly slot the car into a space that might require a few more maneuvers in a C/D-segment is a big plus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:The iQ has a sixteen foot turning radius. That means you can easily do a u-turn inside your average two car garage with room to spare. I would like to see one on sticky tires do this at speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
sanchez posted:I would like to see one on sticky tires do this at speed. If the tires were somehow sticky enough, it'd probably get about 15 degrees into the turn and just flip over like a stunt car with a telephone pole cannon on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Boaz MacPhereson posted:If the tires were somehow sticky enough, it'd probably get about 15 degrees into the turn and just flip over like a stunt car with a telephone pole cannon on it. Mount a wheelie bar on the passenger door.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Meanwhile the NHTSA keeps ramming cars at a perfect 90 degree angle into a perfectly flat wall at 35mph. NHTSA tests are mandatory for getting cars approved to operate in the US. Drastic changes in their operation require literal acts of Congress, and Congress doesn't necessarily act in the consumer's favor. If cars don't pass the NHTSA tests, they can't be sold, and the senators from Illinois and Michigan get lovely about it. IIHS tests are used to decide how much the buyer pays for insurance. It's funded by insurance companies, and their goal is to make cars safer so insurance companies can pay out less money. If cars don't pass IIHS tests, they can still be sold, but insurers are free to charge higher rates for the higher risk of expensive injury claims during crashes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Get ready for even thinker pillars and higher belt-lines: My favorite is the Lincoln. The Airbag deploys then cleverly steps out of the way right before the head touches it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Powershift posted:You could easily get a last gen accent hatchback here for about 10 grand even. That made it about $3,000 cheaper than the next cheapest new car. I would expect the nissan versa, as terrible as it is, to take it's place, simply because it starts at $10,999. Not because it's good and not because it's small, but because it's the cheapest new car you can buy. You have clearly never drive a Nissan Verse, which while a boring drive may be the best small car you can buy today. It's insanely roomy in the inside, a fairly decent place to be a passenger and gets decent gas mileage. It's honestly better then my shitbox impala or my wife's Equinox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Get ready for even thinker pillars and higher belt-lines: Beltlines don't make any difference in an impact of this type.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Beltlines don't make any difference in an impact of this type. I bet A pillars do, though. But I would still prefer the slightly reduced visibility and ugliness of a fat A pillar to losing my feet in a 40 mph car crash where I just barely clip a corner of the car on the wrong side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I bet A pillars do, though. But I would still prefer the slightly reduced visibility and ugliness of a fat A pillar to losing my feet in a 40 mph car crash where I just barely clip a corner of the car on the wrong side. That's not really an accurate description of the test, though. It's hitting a stationary object at 40mph where the entire force of the crash is absorbed by one vehicle. This doesn't happen with "barely clipping a corner of a car" But yes, I agree with you regarding safety. This is a good test because these types of accidents happen a lot, and cars that we would consider pretty drat safe do a terrible job protecting occupants in these types of crashes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Well, I said "barely clipping a corner of the car," not "a car." I originally had "... on a guardrail or something" but I cut that bit for being too wordy. I believe the original scenario for the test was hitting a telephone pole or something like that, which I think is fairly common, after all. Wait, doesn't Euro NCAP or someone do a pole test? How does that work? Do they actually drive straight into a pole? And I repeat my assertion that those Euro pedestrian hood gap requirements have a far worse effect on car designs than crash safety stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:
Solution: all new cars mid-engined Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Safety crashes or fuel economy are SOOO last year. Chevy's new COPO Camaro has officially rolled out: Shopping list of standard parts. With a quarter-mile time of 8.88 @ 142.9, it definitely smacks the Ford Mustang Cobra Jet around some.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Yep, that sounds like "550 horsepower" to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Safety crashes or fuel economy are SOOO last year. Chevy's new COPO Camaro has officially rolled out:  bleugh
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Safety crashes or fuel economy are SOOO last year. Chevy's new COPO Camaro has officially rolled out:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
grover posted:3175lbs? Goddamn, that's light for a late model Camaro, especially one with so much power. And that's with a cage, too. That's a great weight. Just take that weight, put the rear seats, radio and air conditioning back in, and try releasing the car again. I'm assuming the COPO doesn't already have that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
davebo posted:That's a great weight. Just take that weight, put the rear seats, radio and air conditioning back in, and try releasing the car again. I'm assuming the COPO doesn't already have that stuff. Lowclock fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Aug 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
And without the sway bar up front, I wouldn't be doing any slalom courses anytime soon. I just wish they would've dropped the compression ratio a bit from 13:1 to something lower like 10.5:1 on the LS7 and thrown on Whipple's 5.0 twin-screw. Now THAT would be impressive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Safety crashes or fuel economy are SOOO last year. Chevy's new COPO Camaro has officially rolled out: Ha, with the low resolution of that picture, on the rear quarter panel below the bowtie, I did a double-take because I thought that it said "FORD" rather than "COPO".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Devyl posted:And without the sway bar up front, I wouldn't be doing any slalom courses anytime soon. I just wish they would've dropped the compression ratio a bit from 13:1 to something lower like 10.5:1 on the LS7 and thrown on Whipple's 5.0 twin-screw. Now THAT would be impressive. They're building these strictly for NHRA drag strip use and classifications. Turns are only taken while being pulled through the staging lanes or after a run, and the brakes are only there to slow down after the traps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
It was a joke about the weight reduction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 18:21
|
|