|
I've had a few rentals from Enterprise lately after three trips to D.C. in the past 4 months, and after a terrifying incident in an Chevy Aveo on the Philadelphia turnpike a couple years back, I now only book "Full Size" rentals. In October, I paid to upgrade to a Dodge Challenger - and despite the mortifying visibility issues (the "hips" pretty much negate a good chunk of mirror visibility), it was a joy to eat up highway miles. When I went back to D.C. in December, I decided not to upgrade, and was presented with either a Dodge Charger or a Toyota Camry. That was not a difficult decision to make, and, like the 300, I think that it rides beautifully, handles admirably (for its significant bulk), and again, just lapped up miles. So I was looking forward to getting another Challenger or Charger when I was in D.C. three weeks ago; but they were strangely out of both. Instead, I was offered a $10 upgrade to a Premium vehicle - a 2014 Buick Lacrosse. I was excited at the time - as I've never driven a new Buick before, or any premium GM product, for that matter, and wanted to see what it was like. Some of the observations I made: The Lacrosse I had was a V6; but it took me a while to figure that out. The throttle mapping was so strongly tuned for relaxed driving (or fuel economy, or both) that applying light to moderate throttle pressure didn't do much; in fact, throttle response was pretty numb for the first 3/4 of pedal travel. I only worked out that it was a V6 after going around a corner with my foot in the carpet, and nearly spearing into a garbage truck. Buick has some great ideas for luxury; for example, the soft blue cabin lighting intricately wound around the dashboard, acting as a demarcation between the (authentic-looking-plastic) wooden dash trim lower half and soft leather upper half - this gave the car an old-world luxurious feel with a modern techno-twist. Technology fitted was top notch, but executed poorly/dangerously: I was excited to drive my first car with a TFT screen in place of some traditional instruments; but was instantly perplexed as to why it was merely showing me a digital representation of an analog speedometer. Why do I want to see that? Why not put a real speedo there if that's what you're going to show me? I decided to play around with the menus and found that this was merely one view option; you could change to other view modes which would then give you a digital speed readout. But then, the font was surprisingly small, and the bulk of the screen (maybe 90% of it) was just blank, not showing a tach or anything interesting. Not any information from the stereo or whatever. Speaking of the stereo; there's a nice, huge touchscreen, fitted with a frustrating "app" based OS that was laggy and constantly crashed with my phone connected to it. Bewilderingly, it had a "NAV" button, but pushing that then advised that in order to use Navigation, you had to have the address entered VIA FREAKING ONSTAR. I figured that this could have been because I was driving at the time, so I made a point to try the NAV button again, with the car stopped, in PARK, and even had the handbrake engaged. Again, it advised that to use Navigation, you had to call Onstar. What the gently caress. The dangerous part came because the huge touchscreen only dimmed slightly for nighttime driving - but it was still far too large, bright and distracting for my taste. I did everything I could to find a way to turn it off completely - but as far as I could see, there is no way at all to turn the screen off altogether - save for unplugging and replugging my phone into the USB several times, which would cause the system to crash, and the screen to stay off while it rebooted (taking about 3-5 minutes). Really, though, there were some serious design blunders for what is supposed to be a luxury car. Like, the kind of blunders that I would think were obvious. Most egregiously; *Steering wheel controls on the model I was driving included those "blank" filler buttons that do nothing - i.e. you got the lower trim, so the buttons are just there so there isn't a hole. How is this excusable on a luxury car? Couldn't you have put some other function there? *Navigation functionality (or lack thereof) - why the hell should I have to call OnStar? *Touchscreen lag/crashing and overbrightness and poo poo design; for example, there are virtual "Previous/Next" select buttons, LITERALLY DIRECTLY ABOVE HARDWARE BUTTONS FOR THE SAME THING. Why? Why not use this real estate more effectively? *Manual transmission controls are loving AWFUL. I was excited when I saw the "M" position on the shifter; and then confused when there were no paddles behind the steering wheel, and that the column shifter didn't move to the left or right. So how, then, do you change gear up and down?  Isn't it obvious? With your drat thumb! Overall, what I would equate this car to is a top-model Chevrolet. In its current state, it doesn't feel luxurious enough to be in its own brand. sarcastx fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Jan 30, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
kastein posted:Can't embed, but this is amazing. https://www.facebook.com/dusty.windust/posts/10201896009815738?stream_ref=1 Rehosted that for ya. Beach Bum posted:When I wrecked the Volvo I got a 2013 Chevy Cruze with about 3k on the clock. It had the 1.6L turbo I4, full interior with goodies, and goddamnw as it a hoot to drive while getting 35MPG. That'd be the 1.4, actually. Feels a lot quicker than a 1.4 should, doesn't it? I had a 2011 or 2012 Cruze rental sometime in 2012; turning off traction control and standing on the throttle left a big ol'  on my face every time the turbo spooled up. To be fair, it was raining... Funny thing is, it was showing 31 MPG when I picked it up.. and 36 MPG when I dropped it off, despite using the throttle as an on/off switch the entire time I had it.I'm still not opposed to the idea of owning one, though it'd have to be one with a manual transmission. The auto is surprisingly responsive, but I need my 3 pedals damnit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
dissss posted:Looks like a run of the mill car with some weird light placement I didn't think they could make the new Civic quite as ugly as the previous one but there we go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Mainstream cars always have. yeah, but at least in previous decades they had a shape. almost all the modern cars on the road just seem... formless, somehow. no soul, no shape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
I've seen at least one picture of this car before in the old thread, but someone caught it in the wild apparently. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.   All those and more from here
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Christ, this guy... at least block off your fake exhaust. The Ultimate Poseur Machine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
The saddest part about that car is that everything looks really well done. It's just terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
What's with the undercover Pringles guy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
e:^^^Lowrider magazine mascot. I would like to take a moment and remind everyone that this Hot Rod is front wheel drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
I'm totally okay with this car being what it is as long as it never rolls under its own power on public roads. The tire stickers give me some hope that it's a show car/trailer queen. Go nuts and build the car of your dreams, but don't make your contraption everyone elses' problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
I just can't understand the thought process behind it. That amount of money could have easily made a REAL dragster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Isn't Delaware a big hit area for heroin use? that might explain things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Note how the picture with the stickers on the tire also has a black rear bumper.. that's probably when the build was still in progress. The mesh in that shot isn't trimmed properly either. Basically what I'm saying is we still don't have evidence whether it goes on the street or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:The point is, compared to the ancient shitpiles we buy and attempt to restore so often here in the forums, almost any modern car is quiet, easy to operate, smarter, and much more fuel efficient. Sometimes new cars lack a little soul, that's all. Dodge Avenger, the car for people who...pretty much had it with cars. OOoooooh, ANGRY HEADLIGHTS!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klLSZooiirk
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Before the dealership delivered my girlfriend's tC they gave her a 2013 Focus as a loaner and I finally got to play around with the DCT. It was pretty boring and felt like a typical automatic but if you put it in sport mode and shifted up/down with the thumb controls on the shifter it was a riot. The motor would hold gears to redline (though it would upshift before the rev-limit) and rev-match downshifts. It was also surprisingly good about letting you go into whatever gear you liked as long as it wasn't a completely stupid idea. If I had to buy a car with an automatic it'd be at the top of my list. I can't imagine what a "good" DCT feels like. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:If I had to buy a car with an automatic it'd be at the top of my list. I can't imagine what a "good" DCT feels like. Drive a GTI
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
sarcastx posted:*Navigation functionality (or lack thereof) - why the hell should I have to call OnStar? So people will subscribe to it. One of the more  features on my GM fleet vehicle (A 2012 Chevrolet Captiva, which is a rebadged last-gen Saturn Vue) is it has bluetooth connectivity for phones, however you have to buy minutes from OnStar in order to make calls from your own phone over the bluetooth system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
xzzy posted:
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Soviet/Russian Concept cars... http://englishrussia.com/2014/01/26/soviet-concept-cars/#more-137210
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:yeah, but at least in previous decades they had a shape. almost all the modern cars on the road just seem... formless, somehow. no soul, no shape. Welcome to the 21st century where we have crash standards and crumple zones and pedestrian impact zones and fifteen airbags. Hard to make a crisp, clean silhouette when you have to cram in all that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Welcome to the 21st century where we have crash standards and crumple zones and pedestrian impact zones and fifteen airbags. Hard to make a crisp, clean silhouette when you have to cram in all that stuff. Also fuel economy standards. Long-gone are the days of being able to design a car that has all of the aerodynamic qualities of a brick wall because "gasoline will cost less than $.10/gallon forever!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Fortunately there will always be Lamborghini who somehow make their cars look more ridiculous with each generation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Fortunately there will always be Lamborghini who somehow make their cars look more ridiculous with each generation. Says the man who's never seen the Gallardo
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
There are even rather specific laws governing location and shape of headlights. Which is why you don't have the crazy LED light bars every futuremovie car has. Heck, that's why American cars had dumb sealed beam headlights long after EU had abandoned them. Kinda wish we had a thread on the sociology and policy impacts on cars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I just watched a car get towed out of the parking lot on a flatbed. The only thing was, the operator didn't lower the bed at all as he pulled the car up, even as the back tires came off the ground, so that back exhaust is probably a lot flatter than it was before. The car was still drivable (you can't see the front damage from the picture) but maybe it was still written off and is going to a junkyard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
That doesn't look like a tow truck, looks like a scrapper. Probably one of those "we'll pay $300 and take your car away today" type deals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
sarcastx posted:I've had a few rentals from Enterprise lately after three trips to D.C. in the past 4 months, and after a terrifying incident in an Chevy Aveo on the Philadelphia turnpike a couple years back, I now only book "Full Size" rentals. In October, I paid to upgrade to a Dodge Challenger - and despite the mortifying visibility issues (the "hips" pretty much negate a good chunk of mirror visibility), it was a joy to eat up highway miles. When I went back to D.C. in December, I decided not to upgrade, and was presented with either a Dodge Charger or a Toyota Camry. That was not a difficult decision to make, and, like the 300, I think that it rides beautifully, handles admirably (for its significant bulk), and again, just lapped up miles. You get a dashboard full of blanks in any luxury car. e.g. Because of mutually exclusive options, it's not possible to get a Panamera with every spot on the dash filled, so your $300k Turbo S LWB with every possible option ticked is still going to have blanks on the dash for where the Eco button or some poo poo is on the Hybrid. This is a piddly thing to be complaining about in a $30k Buick. The rest if your post is basically "I wasn't able to figure out the infotainment system in one day". On an otherwise perfectly competent car that does everything it sets out to do well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The rest if your post is basically "I wasn't able to figure out the infotainment system in one day". On an otherwise perfectly competent car that does everything it sets out to do well. Well, think of it like this: I've rented three cars from Enterprise and would genuinely consider buying two of them, on the basis of my rental experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
to possibly continue an argument, on my drive home from work I saw someone in their fresh-off-the-lot 200 ... with retractable hardtop. I'm sure it's no worse mechanically than the Sebring convertible, but all I can picture is small children getting chewed up in folding roof panels gone mad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I've seen at least one picture of this car before in the old thread, but someone caught it in the wild apparently. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves. I've seen this before, in fact I think I posted images of it in one of the older threads. The fake NOS and the fact that it's still FWD are the best parts of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Hey Boomerjinks, how do you like that Geo Prizm? Also, a guy widened his cherokee by 14 inches and wants $25000 for it.   http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/cto/4311811511.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
There is (was? it was a loooong time ago) a build thread for that monument of poor decisions somewhere on the internet. I remember being like "gently caress yeah, door slammer quarter-mile Celica!" and then I got to the dead rear axle and non-functional go-fast bits and just closed the window and shook my head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
JackRabbitStorm posted:Also, a guy widened his cherokee by 14 inches and wants $25000 for it. Whoa. That sure is something special.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
My brain hurts looks at that Cherokee. Feels like the image was stretched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
JackRabbitStorm posted:Also, a guy widened his cherokee by 14 inches and wants $25000 for it. There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Reminds me of the double-wide Wrangler that's probably somewhere in this thread already. It's a Jeeeeeeeep! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
What was even the point? Even by the standards of this thread it's a struggle to figure out why anyone would bother doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that one was funded by an over abundance of oil money and a lack of taste. At that point I'm guessing you can act on your smallest whims simply because you don't have a reason not to. The yellow one though, if I squint it looks like a poor man's hummer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Maybe he wanted the closest he could get to a real H1 without the cost. Although he has none of the benefits and added probably the biggest detraction of the humvee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Ineptus Mechanicus posted:Reminds me of the double-wide Wrangler that's probably somewhere in this thread already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:47
|
|
