|
KakerMix posted:AWD can be for performance reasons rather than winter. Yeah, when there's enough power that it's difficult to put all of it down through the rear wheels (or, god forbid, the front wheels....). Probably not the case for the IS250.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
The new Cherokee appears to be both moose and car proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NbvvE8J1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK_De82UFFM
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Coredump posted:What the $30,000 and quickly goes up from there 370z? Yeah, that one, the one they won't want this new one competing with because manufacturers don't usually like to compete with themselves. The rest of your post is just silly. Have you driven one of these cars you are calling underpowered?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
The FRS was fast enough that my 11 year old daughter, sitting in the passenger seat while I took one for a test drive, screamed at the top of her lungs for me to please stop driving like a race car driver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:The FRS was fast enough that my 11 year old daughter, sitting in the passenger seat while I took one for a test drive, screamed at the top of her lungs for me to please stop driving like a race car driver. Yeah, but I've had autocross passengers clawing at the passenger side door in a Yaris before. Passenger speed perception renders playground zone speeds into light speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
I just want the option of buying an FR-S/BRZ/86 with 250ish horsepower. Sure 200 might enough, but the minute I start modifying the car, dealers won't honor the warranty and will find any way they can out of warranty claims. What is so wrong about wanting a light, RWD car with more than 200 horsepower covered under factory warranty? It might be a Japanese thing to make sports cars the way they do, but the American manufacturers are sticking some crazy engines in their muscle cars, and making them worth a drat around a track. You have to keep up with competition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
I think a 1.6 turbo would hit the spot exactly in a new Silvia. That will probably match the 200hp number of the 86 cars and keep the gas mileage pretty darn good at the same time. It'll also give easier tuning and modification paths to get more power to people who want to tinker since it comes with FI from the factory, assuming the engine internals can take the added power. That also gives Nissan the ability to release a Nismo version with more power while still staying well under the price and power of a 370z. The whole point of the 86 cars was to match as closely as possible the exterior dimensions and power to weight ratio of the original AE86, right? I'm sure Nissan could do the same with modern DI, fuel management, turbo designs, and other advancements since the CA18DET came out over 30 years ago with only .2 less liters of displacement. They could probably match the stock S13 SR20 numbers too. Also PLEASE call it the Silvia when it comes to the US. (who am I kidding, it'll follow the same naming convention of the Z and be called a 160sx or something.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
If Peugeot/BMW can do 200hp and even 260hp from a direct-injection turbo 1.6L, I see no reason why Nissan couldn't do the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
TrinityOfDeath posted:I just want the option of buying an FR-S/BRZ/86 with 250ish horsepower. Sure 200 might enough, but the minute I start modifying the car, dealers won't honor the warranty and will find any way they can out of warranty claims. What is so wrong about wanting a light, RWD car with more than 200 horsepower covered under factory warranty? Don't Toyota offer a warranty preserving supercharger kit? Or am I just remembering speculation from when the gt86 thread was under 10 pages long?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Don't Toyota offer a warranty preserving supercharger kit? Or am I just remembering speculation from when the gt86 thread was under 10 pages long? They do for the Tundra 5.7
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Q_res posted:When it first became known that Nissan was working on this car, about a year ago IIRC, one of the ideas being tossed around was quite literally a lowered Juke with a sporty 2-door body on it. It will be RWD simply because of all the things like FRS competitor - there's no FWD or AWD that competes with the Toybaru package and in the case of FWD, cant (because RWD IS the big selling point on the Toybaru). Anything else will be straight out laughed at and I add the Silva IS the kind of nameplate that car enthusists care about - because that's the target audience for the nameplate. That's who bought em before and who will buy them again / take the interest. Anything not driving the rear with a Silva plate is stillborn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
TrinityOfDeath posted:What is so wrong about wanting a light, RWD car with more than 200 horsepower covered under factory warranty? This is exactly where I am at as well. I've been lucky enough to pull off both a FR-S and a MX-5 test drive over the past 2 weeks. I think both cars are fantastic and I especially liked the shifter and feel in the mx-5. But on both drives I couldnt help but feel there was something wrong/missing that 40-50 hp would cure. If the MX-5 or FR-S had similar output to say the speed3, Id be down at the dealership negotiating right now on how I wasn't going to be paying them extra for nitrogen filled tires and paint protection on my brand new vehicle. As it stands now, I think there is more to be done on both the FR-S and MX-5 and for now they stay in a category of cool cars I test drove but wont own. Im really happy so many of you are cool with the stock output. That is really awesome that you have a couple cool cars out there that are perfect for you. But there should be an optional engine or package out there for some of us oddballs. Something with a bit more go for anyone who wants it but doesn't want to sacrifice a new car warranty to get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:It will be RWD simply because of all the things like FRS competitor - there's no FWD or AWD that competes with the Toybaru package and in the case of FWD, cant (because RWD IS the big selling point on the Toybaru). Anything else will be straight out laughed at and I add the Silva IS the kind of nameplate that car enthusists care about - because that's the target audience for the nameplate. That's who bought em before and who will buy them again / take the interest. Anything not driving the rear with a Silva plate is stillborn. Absolutely nobody has said, or implied that this thing will wear a Silvia badge. That combined with the whole "spiritual successor" corporate speak is why I think you're in for disappointment. I'd jump up and down if they created a true Silvia/240SX successor with RWD to compete with the Toyobaru. I'm just not confident it'll actually happen. But I do look forward to seeing your reaction if this does end up being a rebodied Juke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Laserface posted:http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/nissan-plans-two-sports-car-concepts-tokyo-show/1216827 Many thanks! I hadn't seen it. Cat Terrist posted:Gotta disagree with you on that one. AWD at the very least is very very distinctly different to steer even without turbo power to play with. Well, to be honest the only AWDs ive autocrossed were DSMs and Subarus but they both handle exactly like FWD versions of same until you get to the point where you would be lighting up the inside tire on an open-diff FWD. AWD only makes a difference on-power, and then the amount of difference it makes depends on the system, with some doing better than others. But, in a low power car it certainly doesnt make a magical difference. If you gave me the choice to race a low-power AWD subaru (on pavement) and a FWD one with a torque-biasing diff i'd probably take the fwd one. Granted, the bigger the power the more AWD helps but we were talking about an IS250 so that's sort of where im coming from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:In the case of the Hyundai/Kia, the turbo engines are really much better on paper than they are in real life. 0-60 is in the mid 7 second range and fuel economy is middling at best. In comparison a V6 Honda Accord with a decade old SOHC V6 is almost a second faster in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile, while getting better fuel economy, with the same hp figure on paper. For all the media hype surround them I really don't find the new Hyunda/Kias or the Ford Fusion to be very impressive at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
EnergizerFellow posted:Going old school "all motor" with relatively large, high-revving L4s and V6s seems to be the Japanses solution to the latest fuel economy regulations. There's a lot to be said about the shockingly good fuel economy you can get from a big motor when it's loping along driving a tall gar and using just a fraction of it's available power. This is why you get shockingly good highway fuel economy in a Corvette, for instance. It's also why, ZR1 aside, none of the C5 and up Vettes reach their top speed in top gear. 6th is purely for cruising.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
EnergizerFellow posted:Going old school "all motor" with relatively large, high-revving L4s and V6s seems to be the Japanses solution to the latest fuel economy regulations. Speaking of: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1087735_toyota-thinks-larger-non-turbo-engines-can-deliver-better-mpg The only way i actually 'like' this new car development is if they use a variable valve event system to switch from atkinson to otto cycle at higher loads. Suddenly a 3.0 Corolla could be pretty darn entertaining. As long as i'm daydreaming, a new take on the old 2ZZ Corolla XRS with a 3-stage VTAK system (atkinson, otto, 6000+ rpm boogie mode) would actually be really cool. This guy did pretty drat alright with an older-tech take on that basic idea: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/1994-honda-civic-d15-3-stage-vtec-turbo-11881.html Vigo327 fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Sounds like all you folks talking about wanting more power out of the BRZ need to pick up an S2000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Except in the S2000 they forgot to install the torque.  PeterWeller posted:Have you driven one of these cars you are calling underpowered? My DD is a 1998 Nissan 240sx. BOOM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Elwood P. Dowd posted:Sounds like all you folks talking about wanting more power out of the BRZ need to pick up an S2000. That's assuming that they really want top-end horse, which isn't the common complaint about the BRZ, and not a raising of the torque curve especially in the lower rev range, which the S2000 is decidedly unsuited for.  S2000:  The 2000's torque curve is worse until about 6200ish RPM. It may feel fatter without the BRZ's 4k hole, but it's illusory. (Disclaimer dynos may vary ambient conditions not listed blah blah)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Absolutely nobody has said, or implied that this thing will wear a Silvia badge. That combined with the whole "spiritual successor" corporate speak is why I think you're in for disappointment. I'd jump up and down if they created a true Silvia/240SX successor with RWD to compete with the Toyobaru. I'm just not confident it'll actually happen. Yeah there's been rumors about a "spiritual successor" to the silvia for years now. Pre-crash, around 2005, they had the Foria concept and then the Urge concept:   Maybe we'll see a new concept car, but I also think that the chances of something making it to production are pretty low. Even a storied nameplate like the Z was only made because they were able to shrink down an existing platform, and it sort of shows in terms of proportions and weight. Nissan is a very budget-conscious company. There's rumors they may also be cancelling a successor to the GT-R for the same reason. Also, all the people demanding more power don't seem to understand that power costs money. And unique platforms cost money. Put them together and you'll start stepping on the toes of 30k+ cars like the 370Z. You can afford to put a big engine at a fairly low price in an economy car platform because the cost of developing the platform's already been paid off by the hundreds of thousands of people buying FWD commuter cars. Not so if you're talking a unique compact RWD platform that will probably sell very few cars overall and isn't easily adapted to other uses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That's assuming that they really want top-end horse, which isn't the common complaint about the BRZ, and not a raising of the torque curve especially in the lower rev range, which the S2000 is decidedly unsuited for. Yeah, I dunno if it's the torque hole or what, but the BRZ just doesn't perform like its power/weight ratio says it should. Looking at old Car & Driver test sheets, a 2008 WRX had 14.3 pounds per horsepower and a 5-60 street start of 7.5 seconds. Their BRZ takes 8 seconds despite having only 13.8 pounds per horsepower. I owned a WRX for a while and I know it had enough speed for me, so what I want is a BRZ that performs at the same level. I'm not sure that will stop me when used prices drop to levels I can contemplate, but in the abstract, I'd rather have a power curve that would get me at least WRX acceleration curves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also, all the people demanding more power don't seem to understand that power costs money. And unique platforms cost money. Put them together and you'll start stepping on the toes of 30k+ cars like the 370Z. You can afford to put a big engine at a fairly low price in an economy car platform because the cost of developing the platform's already been paid off by the hundreds of thousands of people buying FWD commuter cars. Not so if you're talking a unique compact RWD platform that will probably sell very few cars overall and isn't easily adapted to other uses. You make some really good points here. But I feel like the manufacturers could have pulled it off. During the time each of these cars were on sale there existed engines in similar class of cars that had nice power output. During the Miata's years there was the Mazdaspeed 3. Or going back earlier, the Honda Prelude with the H22 was stomping around with 200 hp while the 240sx and Miata had 150hp and 130 hp respectively. Same thing is happening during the FRS/BRZ era. We all know it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
The Prelude Si was not a cheap car, at around 24k in the mid 90's, or about what a 370z goes for today? C&D's 10 best from that time is great though http://www.caranddriver.com/features/1994-10best-cars
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Coredump posted:You make some really good points here. But I feel like the manufacturers could have pulled it off. During the time each of these cars were on sale there existed engines in similar class of cars that had nice power output. During the Miata's years there was the Mazdaspeed 3. Or going back earlier, the Honda Prelude with the H22 was stomping around with 200 hp while the 240sx and Miata had 150hp and 130 hp respectively. Same thing is happening during the FRS/BRZ era. We all know it can be done. I'm not sure what you're getting at here since in all your examples, the cheaper FWD platform-shared cars make more power at similar price points. They're not similar classes of cars. The Mazdaspeed 3 is a Mazda 3 with a nice engine and some suspension parts - a lot of the the development costs are already paid by the thousands of regular Mazda3s being sold, along with the Volvos and Fords that share the same platform, so they can lose more money on the engine and still sell them at a decent profit. The Prelude is another example - they share drivetrains and many parts with contemporary Accords and are based on a lot of common Honda engineering. FWD is cheaper, platform sharing is cheaper, and cutting costs on the rest of the car means you can spend more money on the engine at the same price point. The only way manufacturers could have pulled it off is if they were willing to eat the cost for marketing and brand-building purposes. But Nissan already has a super-value money sink halo car / brand ambassador - the GT-R. And with the world economy still awful and uncertain, companies aren't exactly raring to take more risks, especially since performance cars overall are dropping in popularity, young people and the midlife-crisis types who buy cheap sports cars have been particularly hard hit (versus the rich people who buy GT-Rs), and young people would rather spend their shrinking disposable incomes on tech gadgets anyway. If given the choice between money-losing PR projects, it seems most car companies these days would rather throw their money away on electric and hybrid cars instead of on sports cars. With maybe a few desperate execs trying to sneak sports cars into the lineup as hybrids, though usually they get relentlessly slashed or else serious compromised anyway. I was really shocked when Toyota actually followed through on the 86 concept, and most likely the only reason it really went through is due to executive ego, e.g., Akio Toyoda trying to make a grand leadership statement by spearheading an unusual new product to coincide with his inaugural years. And also maybe a sort of symbolic test and/or a wedding ring between Toyota and Subaru. And even then, it seems like it took a lot of politicking and wangling to finance development with Subaru. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
sanchez posted:The Prelude Si was not a cheap car, at around 24k in the mid 90's, or about what a 370z goes for today? Jesus, the Intrepid/Vision was on that list. Mind blowing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Remember back in the day the Siliva did share a lot with other Nissan cars that we didn't get state side. Back then Nissan had a lot of RWD/AWD platforms with parts interchangeability. Skyline, Lafuel, 300z, etc. Which they really don't have anymore. They mostly have FWD stuff in their car segments. G-Mach fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Jesus, the Intrepid/Vision was on that list. Mind blowing. Other than the Intrepid/Vision though that list seems reasonably good keeping in mind the state of the industry in 1994. Integra GSR, 325i, Prelude, Sentra SE-R, Accord EX are all solid cars. RX7 and 300ZX-TT have reliability issues, but still are iconic early 90s sports cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
G-Mach posted:Remember back in the day the Siliva did share a lot with other Nissan cars that we didn't get state side. Back then Nissan had a lot of RWD/AWD platforms with parts interchangeability. Skyline, Lafuel, 300z, etc. Well, they still have the FM platform (or whatever the next gen of it is called), which is the Skyline/Infiniti Qwhatever as well as basically the rest of the Infiniti lineup of cars and crossovers (except for that one bulbous truck), the 370Z, and a bunch of JDM stuff including a minivan. But small sports cars are pretty specialized and weight-sensitive as well as cost-sensitive, so using a platform that also underpins giant luxury sedans and crossovers is tricky since usually it will be overengineered and expensive for the role. Which is why the 350Z was rather fat and pricey at first (though it's hard to say I suppose since in the US on release it had close to zero competition beyond pony cars and the Miata). The same goes for pony cars like the Camaro and the Challenger, which are also based on trying to shrink existing large RWD platforms, and also end up being heavy and overlarge. Of course, you could say that things are changing, since beyond the 86/BRZ, GM has debuted their new small RWD Alpha platform on the Cadillac ATS and probably will use it on the new Camaro, while Chrysler has small RWD platforms trickling in from FIAT, Hyundai sells the Genesis Coupe (which is big and more of a GT but still) and has a popular full-size RWD platform that's now even spreading to Kia, and it seems Ford may be shrinking the Mustang somewhat. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Other than the Intrepid/Vision though that list seems reasonably good keeping in mind the state of the industry in 1994. I'm not sure why you're saying "other than", they were pretty universally well regarded in their day. They don't seem particularly interesting now, but there were a huge deal compared to their contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I'm not sure why you're saying "other than", they were pretty universally well regarded in their day. They don't seem particularly interesting now, but there were a huge deal compared to their contemporaries. Yeah, as I remember Chrysler's Cab-Forward design language was hot poo poo at the time and considered futuristic and generally ahead of the curve, and the LH era overall was considered something of a golden age for Chrysler. And this may have been before the whole exploding transmissions thing was known / after it was resolved ( I don't know a whole lot about that particular issue). Supposedly they were also pretty decent quality except for a few troublesome suppliers. http://www.allpar.com/history/lh-manufacturing.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That's assuming that they really want top-end horse, which isn't the common complaint about the BRZ, Funnily enough that WAS my complaint the one time i drove one. I thought the midrange was really excellent for a 2.0L ~2700lb car, but the top end seemed 'flat' and the power delivery had no crescendo or drama. Even with the SAME peak power i kind of think the thing would be more fun to drive if it was a little peakier. Call me crazy. Q_res posted:I'm not sure why you're saying "other than", they were pretty universally well regarded in their day. They don't seem particularly interesting now, but there were a huge deal compared to their contemporaries. Exactly! Y'all have to remember what the competitors looked like in 1993 (intrepid launch year). The Intrepid looked like a spaceship compared to a Taurus or Lumina and had very clear visual lineage to a Lamborghini concept car. It was simultaneously bigger and sleeker and had a top engine which made 1hp/CI and revved to 6500 back when that was NOT common in a family car. It also had a way more advanced transmission than par but that's a little too nerd-out to get into. Back then it was considered a little 'out there' for straddling the genres of midsize and full size, but 10-15 years later, EVERYONE's midsize was of a similar size and displacement to the 93 Intrepid so...    ANYWAY HERE'S NEW STUFF: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/10/the-beat-resurrected-meet-the-honda-s660/
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
The Intrepid was really bold and well-designed styling for an American sedan in the early 90s. Unfortunately it's probably responsible for the fishbowl Taurus. That article made me remember how much I wanted an SC in the 90s. Looking back it just looks like a proto-430 and kills any appeal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Coredump posted:My DD is a 1998 Nissan 240sx. BOOM. I'm not sure the BOOM is warranted. You don't drive one of the cars you are calling underpowered. You drive a car with 50 less horses than one of the cars you call underpowered. Maybe you should see what that 50 horsepower will do before you ask for 50 more on top of that. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Uhh, it's kind of a dangerous assumption to assume that the only cars anyone drives or has driven are the ones you've specifically heard them talk about. My dd has ~67 hp but it's just one of 13 cars i own and about 50 ive owned in my life so i consider myself qualified to comment on lots of things that aren't 67hp cars. I have no idea what Coredump has driven (and i dont ask because if anyone is like me that is a long god drat list and nobody cares) so i dont think we should read too much into the '1998 240sx' statement. Just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:The Intrepid was really bold and well-designed styling for an American sedan in the early 90s. Unfortunately it's probably responsible for the fishbowl Taurus. If you want an interesting story about car development, read Car by Mary Walton about the development of the '96 "ovals everywhere" Taurus. I read it after the 2000 redesign (to get rid of the ovals), so it was pretty mindblowing to read about how good they thought its styling looked. Apparently they called it "the catfish" and they still built it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I'm not sure the BOOM is warranted. You don't drive one of the cars you are calling underpowered. You drive a car with 50 less horses than one of the cars you call underpowered. Maybe you should see what that 50 horsepower will do before you ask for 50 more on top of that. You asked if I drove one of the cars I mentioned. One of the cars I mentioned was in fact, a 240sx. The rest is you moving goalpost. BOOM. Edit: Oh poo poo, I just went back and reread my post and I DIDN'T mention the 240, so I take my boom back. But I did mention the Miata which makes less power than the 240sx. So great drivers cars of the 90's and 00's, miata, 240sx, s2000, etc. were all down on power (or torque if we're talking about the S2000 lolz) for no discernible reason. The reason I say no discernible reason is that at the same time all these cars were on the road you had cheapy fwd econoboxes that had more power with engines that I'm pretty sure could have been adapted to the rwd platforms with little effort. I mean Christ, the 240 has the KA24, Nissan didn't even try when they got it over here. Either way, hells yes I want 50 more hp. Coredump fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Jesus, the Intrepid/Vision was on that list. Mind blowing. Yeah, how could a Chrysler be any good? I will scream and defend the electronic 4 speed auto (A604 and variants) to the bitter end. It wasn't THAT bad of a transmission. It just came in a era where the concept of it needed a special ATF different from everyone else was alien to most repair shops....Including some lovely Chrysler dealers. It was also one of the first mass-produced fully electronic transmissions, so you get a lot of places that simply had no idea how to handle them...Still to this day you see tons of reports of shops telling people they need a rebuild when all it needs is a $30 speed sensor or a $180 Solenoid pack. The LH cars had some quality issues, yes...The A/C Evap was a timebomb, bushings that maybe saved $.02 a car were used and ate themselves in 40K, but compared to its competition at the time? Snooresville. Mighty Horse fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Coredump posted:You asked if I drove one of the cars I mentioned. One of the cars I mentioned was in fact, a 240sx. The rest is you moving goalpost. BOOM. Edit: Oh poo poo, I just went back and reread my post and I DIDN'T mention the 240, so I take my boom back. Again, FWD is cheaper, sales volume makes things cheaper, and cutting those costs on the rest of the car means you can spend more money on the engine at the same price point. Especially since often the top engine specials for econoboxes are meant more for marketing and price bracketing rather than for lots of people to buy them, so they can afford to cut the margins even thinner. Cheap sports cars are particularly price sensitive. Especially in the 90s, as the value of the yen rose vs. the dollar and the SUV craze started sucking sales away from other types of flashy image cars. Hell, in 1989, a 300zx cost $30k. By the end of the 90s, it cost $50k. The 240sx even with its cheap US engine also got more and more expensive - from 15k in '89 up to $23+k by the mid to late 90s. $20k could buy you a lot of car back then. If you cared about power, a Mustang SVT Cobra was $21k in the early 90s, and the 300 hp SN-95 version was $25k in the late 90s. With a lot of that price of course having been subsidized by sales volume from secretary specials with V6s as well as cost compromises in the platform. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/24/2014-bmw-2-series-official/ $32k for a 2900~lb bmw with a detuned 328i engine (turbo 2 liter) and awesome fuel economy. drat, sorta wish i didnt get a brz now... the turbo 2 liter is going to be amazing tuned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:13
|
|
