|
Saw a Fisker Karma on the road a few days ago and it was gorgeous. It might be the best looking four door I've ever seen. According to this article, the acceleration isn't quite what you'd expect from a $100,000 car but it's amazing nonetheless. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-fisker-karma-review?redirect=no
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
counter point: I've seen a couple Fisker Karmas driving around and I think they look cheap for a ~100k car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:This would fall into anti-trust legislation, correct? The Magnusson-Moss Warranty act would have some sort of say with it, but I'm not sure exactly what. Magnusson moss prevents dealerships from voiding your warranty for taking the vehicle to a non approved shop for repair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:Magnusson moss prevents dealerships from voiding your warranty for taking the vehicle to a non approved shop for repair. Yeah that's what I was thinking. I'm not sure how Tesla's rules are going to fly with Magnusson Moss in play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Yeah that's what I was thinking. I'm not sure how Tesla's rules are going to fly with Magnusson Moss in play. I know nothing about anything but could Tesla's lease or purchase contract included a service clause that you had to explicitly agree to in order to buy or lease the car, and by violating that clause it frees Tesla of obligations to repair the car? And if you decline that clause, they don't sell you the car? Sort of like and End User License Agreement?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
Sure, but that doesn't make it legally enforceable within the realm of Magnusson-Moss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I know nothing about anything but could Tesla's lease or purchase contract included a service clause that you had to explicitly agree to in order to buy or lease the car, and by violating that clause it frees Tesla of obligations to repair the car? And if you decline that clause, they don't sell you the car? Sort of like and End User License Agreement? Contracts don't let you get around the law, regardless if both parties signed it. You'd be surprised at how many EULAs have verbiage in them that would never stand up in court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Hashal posted:Contracts don't let you get around the law, regardless if both parties signed it. You'd be surprised at how many EULAs have verbiage in them that would never stand up in court. Which is why they all have severability clauses, so that the presence of illegal clauses doesn't impact the rest of the contract.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Hashal posted:Contracts don't let you get around the law, regardless if both parties signed it. You'd be surprised at how many EULAs have verbiage in them that would never stand up in court. Waivers telling you that you are signing away your right to sue are my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:counter point: I've seen a couple Fisker Karmas driving around and I think they look cheap for a ~100k car. Counter-Counter Point: Having had a chance to poke my head around the car parked, it's absolutely gorgeous from every angle just sitting. And today I saw one driving on 405, and drat does it have a presence. Kind of looks like a better Ferrari FF. And honestly, that whirr it makes when it's just putting around is unique enough to match any engine rumble. The car just looks like a future car done right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
my primary problem is those diamond vent things on the bumpers that look like a poorly made body kit and the grill that looks like it came off a 2001 lancer. If they dropped those things or made them fit the body shape and did something to class up the grill, I'd give it good marks. The sheet metal is very nice It also looks kind of chunky but thats almost every car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
I've seen one in person as well. The front end is atrociously gaudy. The grille is reminiscent of a 1960's Joker From the TV show Batman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
I've seen a few of them in Orange County, and I agree with those who say they're hideous. Much prefer the Model S.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
 Gen I LT-1: 255-370hp, 1970-1972  GenII LT1: 260-305hp, 1992-1997  GenV LT1: 450+hp, 2014-  Direct injection, reversed intake/exhaust valve placement (compared to GenIII/IV), AFM even on the LT1 itself, and a variable flow/pressure oil pump. Autoblog posted the presentation here. Oh, and it looks like they're finally getting rid of the A/C-only secondary accessory belt, if the accessory setup in that photo is at all accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:GenV LT1: 450+hp, 2014- I love seeing Chevy show how high-tech they can make a 2-valve pushrod V8. Are they still doing any live rear axles or is that just Ford?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
What went on with the LT1 between 1973 and 1992?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:I love seeing Chevy show how high-tech they can make a 2-valve pushrod V8. Are they still doing any live rear axles or is that just Ford? Corvette has never been saddled with the burden of it. SLA went away with the 4th gen Camaros/Firebirds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:What went on with the LT1 between 1973 and 1992? Emissions and the change from gross to net HP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:What went on with the LT1 between 1973 and 1992? GM smoked a lot of weed and that part of its life is a little hazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Corvette has never been saddled with the burden of it. SLA went away with the 4th gen Camaros/Firebirds. I am pretty sure the first generation Corvette had a solid rear axle, but it didn't have a V8 on launch either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Eh, the current Chrysler 6.4l beats it on power without direct injection. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:I am pretty sure the first generation Corvette had a solid rear axle, but it didn't have a V8 on launch either. Yep, the C1 had a live axle throughout its run, and didn't get a V8 until 1955. Faerunner posted:What went on with the LT1 between 1973 and 1992? It didn't exist. You had scores of other smallblocks with other RPO codes but none by the name of LT1. GM does like to recycle them now and again, and when it can it's chosen the RPO codes of old hot engines for new hot engines (LS6 springs to mind). Of course, LS9 was the RPO code of the ~250hp SAE Gross 350 in my GMC, so sometimes they just grab whatever hasn't been used for a while 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:counter point: I've seen a couple Fisker Karmas driving around and I think they look cheap for a ~100k car. The first couple I saw turned my head. All the rest look really silly and showy and I judge the person behind the wheel. But I live in LA where a car's in vogue period is accelerated because we see so many of them everyday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Interesting new water pump location on the LT1? And no hydraulic power steering pump? Or maybe its just not fitted to this particular display engine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
I've always liked the look of the LS series V8s. They look like the business while maintaining an edge of sporty hi-tech styling. Another engine I'd like to see is the rumored Pentastar-based V8, as the 3.6 already makes good hp and torque with two less cylinders, and I think it would be a great option for their performance lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Could be electric power steering for the C7? But if that's the case, I can't figure out why they stuck all of the accessories on the passenger side only, unless they either needed the driver's side clearance for steering or if they plan on the supercharged version being a front-mount Vortech-style unit rather than the blower sitting on the valley like they do now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Since everyone loves cutaways:  The funny thing about this is according to GM, they went out and polled a bunch of people and asked if they'd prefer a twin turbo V6 or a N/A V8 for the next Corvette and (according to GM) everyone said they wanted a V8. Another feature of the motor is an 11.5:1 comp ratio and an estimated 26 mpg! Not too shabby for a Corvette. Devyl fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Could be electric power steering for the C7? But if that's the case, I can't figure out why they stuck all of the accessories on the passenger side only, unless they either needed the driver's side clearance for steering Maybe their EPS retrofit is bulky in that area? It couldn't possibly be much worse for steering feel than what's in the C6. Devyl posted:The funny thing about this is according to GM, they went out and polled a bunch of people and asked if they'd prefer a twin turbo V6 or a N/A V8 for the next Corvette and (according to GM) everyone said they wanted a V8. I'm not surprised that people are fine with the traditional V8. I bet GM went after purists, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Honestly if someone from GM came to me and asked me that question, I'd say V8. I'm a turbo guy, but the Corvette V8 is an institution (except for the part where it wasn't, before the weird I don't want to be held responsible for destroying an American icon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Since everyone loves cutaways: The current corvette gets 26mpg highway, they said the new one will be even higher.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Mmm what's that twin turbo v8. Yes please
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:Mmm what's that twin turbo v8. Yes please Packaging will be tricky, but I'm sure it'd be doable, since it happens all the time in the aftermarket. The engine mounts and subframe must happen right under those shorty headers, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Packaging will be tricky, but I'm sure it'd be doable, since it happens all the time in the aftermarket. Yeah, that's right about where the mounts are. This is the main reason many aftermarket turbo kits for modern GM V8s are remote-mount. Also, is that belt grooved on both sides?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Since everyone loves cutaways: It's a neat engine, but with all that tech inside, I'm surprised GM is being so conservative with its performance numbers. You'd think with the higher CR, direct injection and VVT that they could do a bit better than 450HP/450 TQ; or, at very least realise even a moderate improvement in fuel economy over the LS3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted:It's a neat engine, but with all that tech inside, I'm surprised GM is being so conservative with its performance numbers. You'd think with the higher CR, direct injection and VVT that they could do a bit better than 450HP/450 TQ; or, at very least realise even a moderate improvement in fuel economy over the LS3. I'm thinking GM might be being a bit conservative with those power/fuel economy numbers. I'd like to see an EPA 30mpg highway, maybe with the auto and a gas-saver rear end gear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
They always leave wiggle room on new engines for future versions, this way after a year or two they can fiddle with them and advertise a few extra horsepower as a feature of the new models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Why is it still a pushrod engine? or perhaps I should ask, what benefit does pushrod offer over OHC systems? I always thought OHC was more efficient/adjustable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Because America, that's why. What are you, a Communist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Why is it still a pushrod engine? They're drastically more compact than OHC motors which help in packaging, and if you don't want a motor that revs to the stratosphere, pushrods and rockers work fine. Still, they get labeled as old school tech and archaic, even now with variable cam timing and direct injection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Yeah space. Someone post that pic of the ford 302 next to the dohc one out of the Lincoln. Im on my phone right now and cant seem to find it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 01:03
|
|