|
Vigo327 posted:You can't even buy a car that DOESNT have stability control. Base models of today are contented like mid and sometimes upper-level vehicles of 20 years ago. A new Dodge Dart has WAY more stuff that isn't strictly necessary in a car, than the most expensive cadillac you could buy in 1982. Stability control is mandatory in most countries now, as is stuff like airbags. You need to look to places like India to find more basically equipped cars
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Raluek posted:I admit that I didn't know the L92 was available in as many things as it is, maybe people don't buy them configured that way most of the time? Usually I see the 6.0L iron block motor when someone has something bigger than the 5.3. For the pickups, the L92 6.2L ended up replacing the VortecMax 6.0 package. I see them on a pretty regular basis. The giveaway is that they have a 3.5" exhaust tip that exits straight out the back of the truck, they don't exit out the side like the exhaust on the 5.3L trucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
OrganizedEntropy posted:For the pickups, the L92 6.2L ended up replacing the VortecMax 6.0 package. I see them on a pretty regular basis. The giveaway is that they have a 3.5" exhaust tip that exits straight out the back of the truck, they don't exit out the side like the exhaust on the 5.3L trucks. Good to know. That means more plentiful junkyard L92s in five years! Joy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Raluek posted:Good to know. That means more plentiful junkyard L92s in five years! Joy. if it's in a truck, it's going to get run the gently caress out. i've seen SRT-10 rams with 250k kms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Powershift posted:if it's in a truck, it's going to get run the gently caress out. i've seen SRT-10 rams with 250k kms. I snagged an 80k mile LM7 from a Tahoe for $450, needed a valve job though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
dissss posted:Stability control is mandatory in most countries now, as is stuff like airbags. Or the UK 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
 I was recently looking at an Avalanche and it was only available with the 5.3l vs the Escalade EXT. I thought it was the same for the others too but I guess they eventually brought out the 6.2l for the Tahoe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Or the UK Where you'll probably pay more money for your stripper special than an equivalent well equipped model in the US (of course the upside is you get a functioning healthcare system, better public transport, etc., etc. but that's a whole another thing). One reason a lot of those features come standard, of course, is because the cost of having two options in terms of labor, production runs, and stocking is often actually more expensive than just having the luxury feature be the default for everything, and also because the vast majority of buyers want basic features like power windows. Especially now that power windows are usually lighter than manual ones anyway. The same goes for manual transmissions - the reason they were so popular in Europe is because for a long time, automatics were heavier, less efficient, and more expensive than manual transmissions, especially for smaller cars. This isn't really true all the time anymore, and although they remain due to individual cases, market inertia, and the occasional enthusiast car, manual transmissions are becoming less prevalent overall in part simply because automatics are becoming more and more economical in various situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The same goes for manual transmissions - the reason they were so popular in Europe is because for a long time, automatics were heavier, less efficient, and more expensive than manual transmissions, especially for smaller cars. This isn't really true all the time anymore, and although they remain due to individual cases, market inertia, and the occasional enthusiast car, manual transmissions are becoming less prevalent overall in part simply because automatics are becoming more and more economical in various situations. Torque converter automatics are still useless in smaller cars with small engines, it was only really with the introduction of dual-clutch transmissions that automatics really started taking off for small engine sizes. Fiat had an automated manual that was sort of OK in the Panda and 500, because at least you didn't have the losses from the torque converter, but it was still sort of not-good. That said, automatics have generally become really good, even torque converter units. The ZF 8-speed used in a BMWs etc. is supposedly an extremely nice gearbox to drive. Personally, I still think diesels and DCTs aren't really meant to be together. A slow-revving engine coupled to a lightning-fast gearbox just doesn't give you the benefits that a gasoline engine sees when equipped with a DCT. The big lazy diesel torque just fits a torque converter better. I used to be staunchly manual-only, but I am definitely not opposed to the thought of an automatic gearbox in my next car. The ideal car would be a Citroën C5 wagon with the 240hp diesel, which is auto-only, or a Peugeot 508 GT wagon with the 200hp diesel, which is also auto-only. I have my bike for fun and games, for the everyday ride I just want fancy French comfort and effortless diesel torque. Both corner more than well enough for anything I'll ever encounter on the roads. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Or the UK What can you buy that does come with stability control or airbags? I'm guessing its really niche models, not cheap stuff
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
I think pretty much all modern torque-converter automatics lock the TC pretty much immediately in every gear so really unless you're at low speeds or taking off from a dead stop they behave similarly to a DCT box. I've noticed people who are used to "normal" automatics really don't like the new Ford DCTs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I think there are a couple things going on. Small engine cars with automatics need the most help between 0mph and whatever mph their engine hits ~3-4k rpm in 1st gear is. DCTs get away with not having torque converters because they typically also have much lower gear ratios in first gear than the 4-spd torque converter automatics that were ubiquitous in small cars only a few years ago (and still present in the brand-new Corolla  ). They need that gearing because with a start clutch they all launch pretty much off-idle even when floored. If you locked the torque converter at 1000 rpm in an old 4spd compact with a tiny engine it would suck ungodly amounts of balls. On the other hand, if you can have lots of gearing AND a torque converter you can do really well from a stop even with a small engine, but you pay extra the rest of the time because a fluid-filled TC and the guts of a planetary-gearset wet-clutch auto are WAY heavier and lossier to spin vs DCT parts. I've always disliked CVTs on small engines for a similar reason. They're only infinitely variable within a range, and typically the lowest ratio they're capable of is still not enough to have strong rollout from a stop with a tiny engine. I think 6-9spd (thanks Jeep?!) conventional autos are much better in this regard. What i'm waiting to see (and will wait forever because noone will build it), which i think could be awesome, is a DCT or CVT with a torque converter with magnetorheological fluid AND a strong lockup clutch. That would let you launch the thing from high rpm and then drag it down and lock it up by the time it reached redline. Launch control on DCTs is basically just modulating the clutch and clutch-slipping your way out of the hole. It's hard on the clutch, which is why you usually have to jump through hoops in the interface to enable launch control, and it's only available on cars that make a lot of power at a reasonably low rpm anyway. I think a magnetorheological-fluid-filled TC would let even the tiniest motors haul butt out of the hole without causing ANY wear, so you could trigger it with just a brake-torque and basically be able to launch all-out every time you came to a stop. And the great thing is, with a 1.0 and change engine, you won't even necessarily be breaking any laws. 
Vigo327 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
It's been a while since I've posted to AI. I no longer have the M3 and no longer have my Evo X either. I've descended into Honda Odyssey minivan ownership. But today I was at my local mall and noticed that Tesla had established a dealership in the mall. I dropped by ready to hate it since I really wanted another manual transmission sportscar but ended up really liking the Model S. They had a Model S with the rear facing trunk seats (for a 3rd row) and a Model S P85 or P85+. Without a traditional engine or transmission tunnel it has a tremendous amount of room in the vehicle including impressive luggage space front and rear. Range, recharging, and mysterious fires aside, it offers surprising practicality combined with good performance. I got offered a test drive and am planning on scheduling one this week or next. The pricing on the base isn't even that bad as it starts bare bones around 66k i.e. well equipped M3 range although the higher specs get north of $100k pretty quickly. I haven't followed AI as closely lately and never read the EV threads since I was pretty biased against them but does anyone own one or has anyone test driven one yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Don't know that anyone has first-hand ownership experience, but it seems like opinions around here are generally high, and with chargers becoming more and more common at businesses (I assume you work at some sort of office) and the rise of Tesla's SuperCharger network it seems like range is much less of an issue than it would have been even five years ago. Basically if you live close enough that its range on a full charge is practical for daily use, and especially since you have a second vehicle to use for long trips if need be, there's no real reason to avoid it other than high price compared to comparable ICE-powered cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Yuns posted:
There is a goon that has a Model S, although I think he hangs out in Games more than AI. I think he might be the guy that does the Pocket Tower/Pocket Planes/Pocket Trains games on phones and tablets? As far as opinions in the negative about them around here I don't think that's accurate. There seem to be two or three regulars around here that don't like electrics at all and will spin up all sorts of reasons why Tesla isn't a good company or why their cars cheat or how electrics have no place in modern society or X, Y, or Z. I have no idea *why* people want to poo poo on the electric car so drat hard but I've seen it outside of AI and even outside of the internet as well. I always liked Leno's opinion on electric cars, the more people use electric cars as appliances the more gas we have for the fun cars. The Model S is gorgeous in person and the 4~ or so ones I see around town make me very jealous every time I see them glide quietly by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
I've read somewhere that next year's Chevy Spark will have a Franken-transmission that is a combo automatic and CVT. I'm on my phone and not finding the article at the moment, but it has the potential of being the best of both, the worst of both, the most awesome thing ever, or the worst thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Thanks for the information on the Tesla. I was pretty impressed with the interior. It has some hilarously odd functions though like the ability to adjust the sunroof with a slider on the enormous touchscreen so you can choose the exact percentage that the sunroof is open. Also internet surfing on the touchscreen from the drivers seat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Yuns posted:Thanks for the information on the Tesla. I was pretty impressed with the interior. It has some hilarously odd functions though like the ability to adjust the sunroof with a slider on the enormous touchscreen so you can choose the exact percentage that the sunroof is open. Also internet surfing on the touchscreen from the drivers seat. There's an ev thread with good info.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3461390 Here's the link to the EV megathread. I've only heard positive things. There aren't really any mysterious fires by the way. The one that caught on fire hit a very large piece of metal debris that would have caused serious damage to any car. Remember, the cars we drive now are full of flammable liquid much more dangerous than a battery. It's discussed in the megathread. If you want a more eloquent and detailed response, you can read this article: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/10/04/elon-musk-explains-how-model-s-caught-on-fire/
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
I just checked Autotrader's Testla listings out of curiosity. It seems that a lot of people are buying them and trying to flip them for a quick $20 profit. They're selling HUGELY over MSRP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
Listing price is not selling price, and a whole mess of listings could mean they're not moving at all. Of course some people are always willing to pay grossly inflated prices for the latest hot thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Someone I went through residency with bought one (she's making jaw-dropping amounts of money in Texas). She loves it and has nothing but gushingly positive things to say about it. I guess there could be some degree of cognitive dissonance given how ungodly expensive they are, but taking into account all of the other reviews out there I'm inclined to believe her. I can't say it's the car I'd have my eye on were I to decide to take a huge chunk out of my monthly savings, but it seems pretty awesome nonetheless. This link says the Model S lease starts at $1421 per month if you ignore their hand waving about fuel savings and so forth. I think I'd rather stick that $51k into retirement instead of into a car I wouldn't own at the end of three years, especially since I couldn't drive it more than 12k miles annually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
C7 Corvette vs The World: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mW-UxCf6cE Long story short, the snake and the warship stand above the rest, but the latter is more accessible as usual. I really hope a battle between a Z07 and Gen V ACR is in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
It's been quite a few years now that the Viper and Vette have been world beaters in value and performance, yet comment sections still fall onto the "hurr American car engine bad layout bad" trope. How many Le Mans victories are required to be acknowledged as a good car? Ferrari comments make me think zero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
I also like the "HERP DERP HUUGE BEE TEN" comments, when in reality the new Viper engine at 475lbs is lighter than Euro engines with 10 or 12 cylinders and physically smaller than them on top of that. Its inherent reliability and tuning potential is in a whole other world as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Tekne posted:I really hope a battle between a Z07 and Gen V ACR is in the cards. SRT needs to figure out a way to sell more Vipers, either to the old timers or to new fans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
That may be out of their hands, as comments on the forums indicate that the dealers are sinking lots of potential sales. Interested buyers are treated poorly, aren't allowed to test drive vehicles, and that's before we get to the absurd price mark ups. That being said, Ralph is now doing Viper events around the US where people can ride in and drive the drat things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
The easiest thing to do would be making a "Road Runner" version that's stripped down and has a Hemi, sell it at $50k to $60k.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The easiest thing to do would be making a "Road Runner" version that's stripped down and has a Hemi, sell it at $50k to $60k. Yeah, bringing something to the market to compete with the base level c7 would be smart for sales. The average new viper is nearing 100k now no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
The new Viper bases at $102.5k, you can't even touch one for $100k.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The easiest thing to do would be making a "Road Runner" version that's stripped down and has a Hemi, sell it at $50k to $60k. queue that copperhead concept posted a few pages back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Escalade revealed.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4jT1KjPrvg quote:NEW YORK – Cadillac today introduced the all-new 2015 Escalade, a sophisticated luxury SUV designed to establish new benchmarks for hand-tailored craftsmanship and technology. So it will have coil springs in the rear instead of leafs like the Chevy and GMC. Exterior front is OK, could use a bit more character in the side profile. THe front row interior is nice but the passenger area in those pics look kind of dumpy compared to a similarly priced Land Rover or Mercedes GL, I would like to see what the 2nd row looks like with the bench seats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
That's pretty sharp looking, I like it. Bit too much rear overhang, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:That's pretty sharp looking, I like it. Bit too much rear overhang, though. drat I was just gonna post that. I bet it cleans up nice in black though, probably visually shortens it by deemphasizing the glass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
I like it. Sounds like they're really giving a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:That's pretty sharp looking, I like it. Bit too much rear overhang, though. Isn't that silver car the extra-long ESV version? They had two cars in the first set of PR shots, and I think the black is the normal wheelbase and the silver is the long one. The long version looks like a bit of a hackjob but then again almost nobody buys them anyway. See:    Not totally sold on the rear with that weird roof lip spoiler, but it might be functional. Still looks good overall. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Looks like just about every GM product from the last decade or so; good-looking front end combined with a back end designed by a blind man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
The rear wouldn't look too bad if the taillights weren't as tall. I mean, gently caress. Those are tall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The rear wouldn't look too bad if the taillights weren't as tall. I mean, gently caress. Those are tall. I think maybe they're meant to make the rear look less tall without actually sloping the roof by being super tall but then ending them way above the actual bumper. I sort of like them because they remind me of a Volvo wagon and because I like brick cars and Volvo wagons. 
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The rear wouldn't look too bad if the taillights weren't as tall. I mean, gently caress. Those are tall. Look on the bright side, the chance of some godawful aftermarket ones being made and installed just shrunk to nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 02:16
|
|
