|
MrChips posted:Sorry Audi, while I appreciate your fascination wih V8s, anything but a turbo I5 in a car called Sport Quattro is insulting to your own heritage. It's a concept car, why not put a ridiculous engine in it?
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
MrChips posted:Sorry Audi, while I appreciate your fascination wih V8s, anything but a turbo I5 in a car called Sport Quattro is insulting to your own heritage. Here, Here. I get that it's a concept, but the original concept from 2010 was something so much more desirable and attainable. This 4,000+ lb., 800 hp, limited to 200 or so units concept might as well have been a totally different car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:It's a concept car, why not put a ridiculous engine in it? The could have put a ridiculous I5 in it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Concept but I think it looks sweet. Seems catered to ladies.     Infiniti Q30 EDIT: gently caress, tables!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Concept but I think it looks sweet. Seems catered to ladies. I'm sure they look completely different, but I get a strong Mazda 3 vibe from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Or Toyota Venza, or name any tall station wagon/CUV thing of the past 3 years. The naming scheme of Infiniti is now so thoroughly  that I can't even be bothered to guess what vague melted jellybean shaped creation I see driving around might be. Is it a G37? A Q50? A JXZ75? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Back in my day, kids sitting in the back seat of a car could still see out the window 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Back in my day, kids sitting in the back seat of a car could still see out the window Why would they need to look out the window when they're balls deep in an ipad/movie on a headrest/nintendo thing, etc...? I don't think kids these days can go more than a few minutes without some form of electric entertainment, so not being able to see outside is just one less thing distracting them!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Back in my day, kids sitting in the back seat of a car could still see out the window They get TVs now so they don't care
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:The could have put a ridiculous I5 in it They already have a ridiculous I5 in production in the TT-RS, but that car costs considerably less than where they've targeted the concept, so it's got to have a bigger motor to appease its buyers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Or Toyota Venza, or name any tall station wagon/CUV thing of the past 3 years. The naming scheme of Infiniti is now so thoroughly Shouldn't the concept pictured above be a QX30 instead of just a Q? So confused
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
Did anyone play Marathon on Mac back in the day because between the background and the car I'm getting that vibe so hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Shouldn't the concept pictured above be a QX30 instead of just a Q? So confused I'm pretty sure it's just a hatchback. There's a picture where there's a model standing next to one, and even if she's like 6'6" you can see how short it is. Found it: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Wamsutta posted:Did anyone play Marathon on Mac back in the day because between the background and the car I'm getting that vibe so hard. It's the walls; the mesh upper and steel plate lowers almost perfectly match the textures used for walls in engineering decks of the Marathon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:It's the walls; the mesh upper and steel plate lowers almost perfectly match the textures used for walls in engineering decks of the Marathon. Holy poo poo, how did I not notice your avatar/title before?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Edmunds compared the 991 911 to the C7 Corvette: http://www.edmunds.com/porsche/911/2013/comparison-test.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Hog Obituary posted:Edmunds compared the 991 911 to the C7 Corvette: So they admit the Stingray handles better, is marginally slower in a straight line, and has a much improved interior, albeit not nearly as nice as the 911 with its superior German adhesives that don't smell like chemicals (seriously). It's also half the cost of the 911. Yet they award the victory to the 911. Man, the "Gotta Have It" factor of that pussy magnet must be off the charts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Why would they need to look out the window when they're balls deep in an ipad/movie on a headrest/nintendo thing, etc...?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:It's a concept car, why not put a ridiculous engine in it? And, for that matter, why get so attached to a specific type of engine? I've got a 2011 Mustang V6, and I've had people tell me I was a fool to not buy an earlier-model V8 (the 5.0 wasn't an option because of cost), despite the fact that the new V6 is very nearly as powerful, and much more fuel efficient. Engine tech is developing pretty rapidly, so it's really quite silly to not explore all the possible options when designing a new car, or to ignore a good engine for historical reasons. Doubly so with concept cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:So they admit the Stingray handles better, is marginally slower in a straight line, and has a much improved interior, albeit not nearly as nice as the 911 with its superior German adhesives that don't smell like chemicals (seriously). To be fair, I feel most people would also rather have the 911. Definitely wins the price/performance battle though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
The v6 used to be terrible I understand people still thinking it's truly a dog rather than a nice engine in its own right
Xguard86 fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
quote:Equipped with $47,000 in add-ons I'd like to see a graph measuring cost of options compared to base cost of 911s over time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:To be fair, I feel most people would also rather have the 911. I love 911's and I'd take the Vette over anything that wasn't a GT3 in all honesty. They just cost so much for what you're actually getting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I love 911's and I'd take the Vette over anything that wasn't a GT3 in all honesty. They just cost so much for what you're actually getting. Agreed. I've never liked the look of Corvettes before, but goddamn this new one is sexy, and it's got the interior and handling to back up the performance as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:To be fair, I feel most people would also rather have the 911. gently caress no, gimme the Corvette!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Who says you can't have both? In all honesty, the 911 vs. Corvette debate has been closer than it ever has been, and that can only be considered a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I'm pretty sure it's just a hatchback. There's a picture where there's a model standing next to one, and even if she's like 6'6" you can see how short it is. It's basically the new EX35. Looks like a small CUV but is actually classified as a hatchback.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
blk posted:I'd like to see a graph measuring cost of options compared to base cost of 911s over time. The best part is that that's a lightly equipped Porsche too. I'm sure you could easily push that to 200k+ with the right 'options.' Ludicrous that it's not taken into any real account when comparing it to the new Corvette. I've never been a fan of the Corvette before, but this new model really has my attention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Who says you can't have both? The only comparable time would be like 1963-1971, when the Corvette weighed about 3,200lbs and could be had with fully independent suspension, 4 wheel vented disc brakes, limited slip differential, fuel injection, lightweight aluminum wheels, aluminum cylinder heads and engines up to 435 horespower (500+ if you count the hilarious/stupid L88 and ZL1.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The only comparable time would be like 1963-1971, when the Corvette weighed about 3,200lbs and could be had with fully independent suspension, 4 wheel vented disc brakes, limited slip differential, fuel injection, lightweight aluminum wheels, aluminum cylinder heads and engines up to 435 horespower (500+ if you count the hilarious/stupid L88 and ZL1.) All Corvette's since the C4 have been comparable (if not better) to the 911 in terms of handling/braking performance, although you could make the case that until the ZR1 was revived the turbo versions of the 911 had it soundly beat in terms of power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Chevy just announced the specs for the 6.2 liter in the half tons, it will be 420hp, 460ft/lbs, but only available in the highest level trims. In other news, get ready to share the road with these.....things.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
GM can't design a vehicle worth poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Yikes. Normally I think the GMC version of their SUV clones look better but the Chevy version looks miles better this generation. What the gently caress is up with those "eyelash" extensions in the headlamps??
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:Yikes. Normally I think the GMC version of their SUV clones look better but the Chevy version looks miles better this generation. What the gently caress is up with those "eyelash" extensions in the headlamps?? It doesn't look quite as bad in live pictures:  Just another super huge vehicle with one person in it that I won't be able to see around in parking lots or on the road 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
fknlo posted:It doesn't look quite as bad in live pictures: Doesn't look quite as bad when the glare off the 3 acres of chrome obscures your view of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Local dealership has this on the lot for $72,000, 2013 1500 Cargo Van 5.3 v8 4spd. Every time I drive by it makes me think the 80's Van craze is trying to make a comeback. Honestly, I kind of like it, it's got a weird presence when you see it in person. Photo is from the dealers page for it, you'd think they'd take better pictures of it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Pretty sure those are the same wheels I have on my CTS-V. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Bajaha posted:Local dealership has this on the lot for $72,000, 2013 1500 Cargo Van 5.3 v8 4spd. Every time I drive by it makes me think the 80's Van craze is trying to make a comeback. Honestly, I kind of like it, it's got a weird presence when you see it in person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Chevy just announced the specs for the 6.2 liter in the half tons, it will be 420hp, 460ft/lbs, but only available in the highest level trims.  So while every single competitor(Expedition, Armada, Sequoia, RR, QX) now has independent rear suspension, GM has not only kept the live axle but also gone back to leaf springs.  No level folding seats and now with less interior room than the last gen. Towing is still less than the Expedition and about on par with the Armada. These things start out really cheap right? quote:With more than 117,000 sold in 2012 and sales up more than 16 percent for the first six months of 2013 over last year. Chevrolet's full-size SUVs continue to play an important role in the brand's success and General Motors' profitability. Introduced in 1935, the Suburban is the segment's founder and the industry's oldest continuously available nameplate, while Tahoe is the segment's sales leader.  They're going to sell 250,000 of these per year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
The Midniter posted:... albeit not nearly as nice as the 911 with its superior German adhesives that don't smell like chemicals (seriously). Is that you Benji?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 01:48
|
|
