|
The Midniter posted:This may be a dumb question but I stumbled upon some WTCC racing on Speed a couple weeks ago, and the commentators (who were British, by the way) were stumbling over each other and gushing praise on the Cruze chassis being easily the best out of all the cars in the lineup. Is a WTCC-spec chassis different from what is available for a retail customer? I would expect more race-ready bits on the WTCC car, but the chassis itself would be the same as the car in your corner Chevy dealership, no? If so, where is that disparity coming from? I'm definitely not an expert, but I went to the WTCC race last year at Sonoma, and took a few photos from the pit: http://imgur.com/a/9zs0U Unfortunately not many of the Cruze, but that might give some idea of what modifications are done to those cars from stock (and yeah, the Cruze dominated the race)
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 21:13 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 13:38 |
|
IOwnCalculus posted:
This is probably true. Around 170HP seems to be the power level that the typical American consumer finds acceptable (in a 3400lb vehicle).
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 21:15 |
|
Bob NewSCART posted:I don't think it's reasonable to think that manufacturers will just do a complete 180, and start trimming power rather than adding it. Horsepower has been steadily rising for quite a bit of time, I mean hell you can get a hyundai with over 400 horsepower nowadays. I'm sure everyone will continue to have flagship vehicles with a lot of power but most cars will probably slowly creep down in horsepower as manufacturers engineer sweet spots for fuel efficieny vs. highest possible 0-60 times and things like that. Does anyone know if the turbo 4cyl Mustang will actually have equal/more power than the current V6?
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 21:19 |
|
Gee it's almost as if car makers will cater to lots of different market segments with different vehicles, power plants & economies. Just like now.
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 21:50 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:Who is saying this? Weird. Now I've heard great and terrible things about it. quote:Our long-term 2013 Dodge Dart is equipped with the optional automated manual transmission. Chrysler calls it DDCT (Dual Dry Clutch Transmission). It is the sole gearbox available with the 1.4-liter turbo engine other than the row-it-yourself manual. And it is...how do you say...not good. http://youtu.be/KAfCknkU4uc?t=4m49s
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 22:09 |
|
davebo posted:I'm sure everyone will continue to have flagship vehicles with a lot of power but most cars will probably slowly creep down in horsepower as manufacturers engineer sweet spots for fuel efficieny vs. highest possible 0-60 times and things like that. Does anyone know if the turbo 4cyl Mustang will actually have equal/more power than the current V6? I heard that the V6 is still going to be the base model, and the EcoBoost 4cyl is going to be an upgrade, so I would assume it's planned to produce more power. I'll be very interested to see how it works out.
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 22:57 |
|
The Midniter posted:This may be a dumb question but I stumbled upon some WTCC racing on Speed a couple weeks ago, and the commentators (who were British, by the way) were stumbling over each other and gushing praise on the Cruze chassis being easily the best out of all the cars in the lineup. Is a WTCC-spec chassis different from what is available for a retail customer? I would expect more race-ready bits on the WTCC car, but the chassis itself would be the same as the car in your corner Chevy dealership, no? If so, where is that disparity coming from? There's is almost nothing left of a stock Cruze for WTCC - the entire front and rear subframes are tossed and a highly purpose built space subframe put back in. So no, the chassis is not anything like the road car.
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 22:59 |
|
Front and rear subframes do not mean its not a stock chassis, but neither does a seam-welded souble-skinned body in white.
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 23:14 |
|
DJ Commie posted:Front and rear subframes do not mean its not a stock chassis, but neither does a seam-welded souble-skinned body in white. Ummmm..... no. Tossing the front and rear for purpose built replacements is fundamentally changing the chassis to something a hell of a lot different.
|
# ? Mar 13, 2013 23:41 |
|
Bob NewSCART posted:I don't think it's reasonable to think that manufacturers will just do a complete 180, and start trimming power rather than adding it. Horsepower has been steadily rising for quite a bit of time, I mean hell you can get a hyundai with over 400 horsepower nowadays. Once cars get robotized, I think hp will top out. Cars accelerating as fast as they can with the minimal safety margin possible will get people moving through traffic at a pace that won't require 300 or 400 hp. In the same way that acceleration is determined by area under the dyno curve, how fast you get moving depends on how soon you start and how late you get off the throttle.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 00:38 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:IN other new GM car news, The W body Impala will continue production into MY2014. travisray2004 posted:Hasn't this been Chevy's basic model for the past decade or so? Use the excess parts on popular outgoing models for fleet-only versions.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 02:50 |
|
oRenj9 posted:This is probably true. Around 170HP seems to be the power level that the typical American consumer finds acceptable (in a 3400lb vehicle). Interesting you say that - as my old 2004 Audi A4 - sat around 170HP. Once you got past the turbolag of that poor 1.8T, it moved quite nicely - even with the quattro weight penalty. With zippy 8-speed transmissions/DCTs, and improvements in forced induction (I'm looking at you, BMW), I'd be curious to see where the automakers, and subsequently customers, will turn. I also purchased the poster-child of the engine downsizing trend: A 2011 Audi S4. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a 'typical American consumer' purchase -- but I'd like to see how supercharging or 'turbolag-less' turbocharging hits the market. I remember my Thermo professor was an engine guy -- and he gave us a primer on his research involving ever-more efficient ways to burn fuel and extract work from smaller and lighter engines. I also recall him mentioning that the Materials Science guys working with him would have weekly aneurysms. From a broader standpoint, we're limited by Carnot -- but I wonder what new materials are going to make their way into the market, and buck the trend of "either strength or ductility, but not both."
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 05:02 |
|
Even if the average american has 170hp, they're only going to use maybe the first 40 or 50 of them because they're afraid of rpms. I'm honestly not sure how to fix this. Maybe hybrid technology that quietly boosts horsepower during acceleration and largely hides scary engine sounds?
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 12:04 |
|
grover posted:Even if the average american has 170hp, they're only going to use maybe the first 40 or 50 of them because they're afraid of rpms. I'm honestly not sure how to fix this. Maybe hybrid technology that quietly boosts horsepower during acceleration and largely hides scary engine sounds? Diesels, but with 7-8000rpm tachometers. That way, they can drive below 3000rpm, still have decent power and not feel like they're doing something dangerous.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 12:06 |
|
New range rover spied, no camo http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/13/are-you-the-2014-range-rover-sport You can probably already guess what it looks like.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 13:18 |
|
AdmiralViscen posted:New range rover spied, no camo
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 16:00 |
|
KozmoNaut posted:Diesels, but with 7-8000rpm tachometers. That way, they can drive below 3000rpm, still have decent power and not feel like they're doing something dangerous. That would mean a majority of American's would have to learn how to drive a manual.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 16:10 |
|
grover posted:Why do manufacturers bother with camo on cars like this in the first place? Seems like enthusiast feedback on early designs would be a good thing, not a bad one. Yeah, because focus groups are always right on the money. By the time a vehicle is at this stage, its styling is finished, and no amount of consumer feedback is going to change it. See the new Cherokee, for example. And manufacturers camouflage their pre-production cars so other manufacturers don't steal their design cues and rush them to market first. Mitsubishi: "Hey Land Rover, nice headlights!" YOINK. Honda: "Hey BMW, nice window line and body lines!" China: "Hey Ford ... " DropShadow fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 14, 2013 |
# ? Mar 14, 2013 16:41 |
|
DropShadow posted:
You have to admit, while the headlights are a bit of a carbon copy of the Mitsu, that the Land Rover's look much nicer the way the hood line is flush with the entire expanse of the lens rather than flowing down right into the middle of it.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 18:32 |
|
G-Mach posted:That would mean a majority of American's would have to learn how to drive a manual. Nah, a lazy slushbox will be good enough. Unless they really floor it, a diesel will never even hit 3500rpm.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 18:40 |
|
The Midniter posted:You have to admit, while the headlights are a bit of a carbon copy of the Mitsu, that the Land Rover's look much nicer the way the hood line is flush with the entire expanse of the lens rather than flowing down right into the middle of it. That Mitsubishi looks a lot more like the old Focus.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2013 18:44 |
|
I went to the Calgary Auto Show yesterday, and I have to say it was pretty uninspiring. I was impressed with the strides Cadillac has made in terms of making desirable cars, but everything else was pretty boring. I sat in the beautiful-looking Ford Fusion, and soon discovered that a lot of what makes it so attractive makes it awful on the inside. I had absolutely no visibility of where the front of the car ended, and the dash seems to go on forever. I'm also angry with Ford because the amazing seats in the Focus ST are not available as an option on the Mustang, which they should be because they're excellent.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 17:55 |
|
PT6A posted:I went to the Calgary Auto Show yesterday, and I have to say it was pretty uninspiring. I was impressed with the strides Cadillac has made in terms of making desirable cars, but everything else was pretty boring. I sat in the beautiful-looking Ford Fusion, and soon discovered that a lot of what makes it so attractive makes it awful on the inside. I had absolutely no visibility of where the front of the car ended, and the dash seems to go on forever. I'm also angry with Ford because the amazing seats in the Focus ST are not available as an option on the Mustang, which they should be because they're excellent. Did they have the ford atlas or the 2014 GM/chevy pickups there? i'm debating driving down this afternoon for it.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 18:02 |
|
PT6A posted:I went to the Calgary Auto Show yesterday, and I have to say it was pretty uninspiring. I was impressed with the strides Cadillac has made in terms of making desirable cars, but everything else was pretty boring. I sat in the beautiful-looking Ford Fusion, and soon discovered that a lot of what makes it so attractive makes it awful on the inside. I had absolutely no visibility of where the front of the car ended, and the dash seems to go on forever. I'm also angry with Ford because the amazing seats in the Focus ST are not available as an option on the Mustang, which they should be because they're excellent. I thought I read somewhere that the Mustang has it's own set of Recaros but they weren't that great. I need to find a Focus ST with that option to go sit in and try them out.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 18:14 |
|
I think the Boss 302 had a nice Recaro option but the pleb Mustangs don't.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 18:30 |
|
What would be the point of spending the money on super-fancy seats in a Mustang if you'll only ever need the edge
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 18:34 |
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:I think the Boss 302 had a nice Recaro option but the pleb Mustangs don't. Nah, you can get Recaros on any Mustang. You can even get Cloth Recaros on the base V6.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 19:01 |
|
Powershift posted:Did they have the ford atlas or the 2014 GM/chevy pickups there? i'm debating driving down this afternoon for it. The Ford, no, and I'm not sure about GMC or Chevy pickups because I've never particularly liked them and I don't have any use for a pickup anyway.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 19:12 |
|
Q_res posted:Nah, you can get Recaros on any Mustang. You can even get Cloth Recaros on the base V6. I worked at a ford dealership for a while, and I left about 6 months ago. There was a popular "sport" package v6 Mustang with a nice sound system and really nice recaros we sold A LOT of in Northern California. I don't know if it was a specific package or just an options list the dealer found sold well, but we had multiple stangs with the same kit out, all V6s.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 21:23 |
|
Q_res posted:Nah, you can get Recaros on any Mustang. You can even get Cloth Recaros on the base V6. In that case I'm off to go buy a pleb Mustang.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 21:26 |
|
The Midniter posted:You have to admit, while the headlights are a bit of a carbon copy of the Mitsu, that the Land Rover's look much nicer the way the hood line is flush with the entire expanse of the lens rather than flowing down right into the middle of it. Those hoods are popular with manufacturers because you can be lazy with the alignment. On a normal hood you can see both side panel gaps from the same point so it has to be straight.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2013 23:06 |
|
Giblet Plus! posted:Curb weight, 3,211 lb 1) a lot of fancy electronics for an "entry level" sedan. 2) it felt REALLY slow. Until about 5mph. Once the turbo began to spool, which was early, it felt just as fast as my Civic SI did. 3) steering was very tight 4) the inside is way bigger than you would expect for the class. It feels more like an accord than it does a civic. 5) did i mention all the cool gizmos? back up camera, satellite radio, navigation, bluetooth, SD card slot, USB, ipod controls, plus the normally standard power windows, mirrors, locks, and sunroof. I walked away a 6spd 1.4 turbo with 2300 miles (was used for a chrysler demo over the summer) for less than $20k OTD. So far my only gripes are that the turn indicator sound is very loud and the gas cap is on the passenger side. edit: there is also a pretty significant lag in the accelerator from the drive by wire system. I assume it's an intentional torque management "feature" but it makes downshifting a bit more difficult. I believe it will be fixed with an inevitable 3rd party computer flash/upgrade. adorai fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 17, 2013 |
# ? Mar 16, 2013 23:26 |
|
Don't forget to post pics in the post your ride thread!
|
# ? Mar 17, 2013 00:19 |
|
Autoline After Hours has an interesting discussion about car interiors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsayP9wGTGA
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 12:11 |
|
Oh wow, Autoline suck rear end. How much? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpE9jEaTHOI Apparently adjustable headlights on the 2013 is something they consider worthy of a video. Gee-whiz, what amazing features will they think of next?
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 13:32 |
|
THe new CTS is going to get a twin turbo V6 and an 8 speed trans.quote:DETROIT – Cadillac today announced details of a new Twin-Turbo V-6 engine and eight-speed transmission – firsts for the brand and signature features of the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS midsize luxury sedan debuting next week at the New York Auto Show. http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/18/cadillac-confirms-420-hp-twin-turbo-v6-for-2014-cts-w-videos/ Kind of interesting that they're using top mounted intercoolers, don't think anyone's done that before on a 60* V6. Also the scuttlebutt is that the 8 speed trans is the Toyota unit, which doesn't have as good a reputation as the ZF.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 16:42 |
|
Jesus christ, I don't know that I ever thought I'd see a factory 420hp V6, let alone from GM I also find it a bit interesting, though, since it doesn't seem to get that much better mileage (at least on the EPA test) than the LS3 would, and surely this engine would cost more to produce. Also, if Buick ever decides to bring back the Grand National... there's your engine.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 16:52 |
|
Maybe the endless forums badgering has finally gotten to them and they can just now say that all the engines in the CTS are OHC.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 16:59 |
|
I don't think so, actually - I don't see any mention of calling the 420hp CTS a CTS-V. I get two possibilities out of this. One, GM could be discontinuing the CTS-V altogether, but I doubt that. Two, the CTS-V comes back in the future after the C7 Z06/ZL1 show up with whatever engines replace the LS7/LS9, and has a new 550-600hp V8 replacing the LSA, allowing the turbo V6 to slot in beneath it. At that point the odd duck in the lineup seems to be the naturally aspirated V6, since it's only a 50hp bump from the turbo four.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 17:06 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 13:38 |
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Jesus christ, I don't know that I ever thought I'd see a factory 420hp V6, let alone from GM The GT-R is still V6 right, not inline 6? That started out at like 480 and is up to 530 now? I don't know exactly how much weight plays a factor but it seems like GM's V8's end up giving better fuel economy than these twin turbo V6's. Didn't they say when launching the C7 that they just couldn't get better fuel economy out of a turbo'd v6 than they were getting from the V8? Does the difference in weight make a turbo 6 the preferable choice for the CTS?
|
# ? Mar 18, 2013 18:07 |