|
Don't buy the V6 accord
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Ammanas posted:I4 or V6? Been considering an accord for a minute I4 it's not quick but it gets out of its own way. My only nitpick is I wish it had a smaller turning radius, coming from an 01 civic (a markedly smaller car) I feel like it doesn't turn as well in parking lots etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Any particular reason? I'm looking at buying a V-6/6-speed manual coupe next year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:Any particular reason? I'm looking at buying a V-6/6-speed manual coupe next year. That's a bit different (all sedans are autos) but I really don't feel like it's good value for a nominally sporty coup over say, a gently used G37.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Transverse V6s for a pedestrian car are all sorts of "gently caress You" when it comes to really basic and mundane car maintenance tasks. If the feel of V6 torque (lol torque in a Honda) rustles your jimmies, go nuts. I find it more fun and interesting to drive a slow car and don't buy into the "I need X horsepower" argument one bit, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'd weigh the fuel economy difference between the I4 and V6 before considering how much money it's worth to me to have a slightly faster car on paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Phone posted:Transverse V6s for a pedestrian car are all sorts of "gently caress You" when it comes to really basic and mundane car maintenance tasks. Aren't the V6 Accords stupid efficient though because of Honda engine wizardry and cylinder deactivation? I get the argument about buying a loaded Accord because at that point you can just afford a nicer car all around, but Honda's V6 is by all accounts a pretty nice engine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Phone posted:Transverse V6s for a pedestrian car are all sorts of "gently caress You" when it comes to really basic and mundane car maintenance tasks. A 200+hp front driver is kind of pointless without either an LSD or some e-diff fuckery, neither of which is available on the Accord. edit: great googly moogly, the Honda Accord EX-L two door V6 6spd is $31,000. You can get a 2-series for $2,000 more. You can buy a 370Z for less (!)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Is there a reason you don't want FWD with super torqued acceleration machines? My noob view is that FWD would be preferred due to the engine weight over the axel. Or am I completely idiotic and asking questions that don't make sense in the first place? e: I assume cars don't suffer from the "bike flip" phenomenon where their torque is enough to catapult the entire vehicle around the axel. That would be an issue with RW acceleration or front braking... DNK fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
DNK posted:Is there a reason you don't want FWD with super torqued acceleration machines? My noob view is that FWD would be preferred due to the engine weight over the axel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_steering That being said, some vehicles manage this better than others. I'll always have a soft spot for the '93 Taurus SHO I used to have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
DNK posted:Is there a reason you don't want FWD with super torqued acceleration machines? My noob view is that FWD would be preferred due to the engine weight over the axel. Almost all really high-power cars are RWD/AWD. There are very few controllable 300HP+ FWD cars. Very simply the design of a transverse FWD engine almost always leads to unequal length shafts from the transmission to the wheels to deliver power. This means that when you mash the gas, the car will "tug" to one side because the steering geometry is slightly altered by the torque of the acceleration being different. This phenomenon is called torque steer. You can mitigate torque steer in engineering with suspension geometry and an LSD, e-diffs also help compensate where individual brakes are used as a fake LSD. If you want to experience A++ torque steer, see if you can find a mid-2000s Saab 9-3 Viggen, and launch it from a stop. It will be fun. For all practical purposes, it really doesn't matter for most people's cars the way they are driven most of the time, since you won't accelerate or launch hard enough to notice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
What about bigger, heavier FWD vehicles? You can get a FWD Lincoln MKX with 335 horse / 380 ft lb of torque, is that just a recipe for a bad time, or does being a fatass crossover make it OK?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What about bigger, heavier FWD vehicles? You can get a FWD Lincoln MKX with 335 horse / 380 ft lb of torque, is that just a recipe for a bad time, or does being a fatass crossover make it OK? Having not driven it, I'm not sure. I think it relies on e-diff fuckery most likely, which is fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What about bigger, heavier FWD vehicles? You can get a FWD Lincoln MKX with 335 horse / 380 ft lb of torque, is that just a recipe for a bad time, or does being a fatass crossover make it OK? Generally the computer and traction control system will prevent you from roasting the front tires off the car on vehicles like this. The ECU will also modulate power appropriately. Traction has always been my issue with decently powered FWD cars. My old SRT-4 probably had 320 ft lb of torque after some mods, and the torque steer was insane, as was lack of traction. Personally I'm all about the AWD these days. Both of my cars are Ecoboost AWD Ford's and I'm happy with how they perform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
You notice that when you floor the car, the nose lifts? The weight is transfering to the back. If you have an fwd car, on hard acceleration the wheels get light and spin more. In rwd, the wheels get more weight on the and grip more. You could put a lot of weight in the front I guess, but then you have a poorly handing car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
photomikey posted:I'll turn 40 in a couple of months and it looks like I'm headed for divorce. I'm looking for a mid-life crisis car. Something sporty. Budget $20k-$30k, maybe something 3-6 years old. Convertible is a plus (I mean, it's a mid-life crisis car, might as well). I like Corvette, Camaro, etc, but maybe something slightly less "slap-you-across-the-face mid-life crisis car" and something more "cool mid-life guy" car. Any updates? Did you get a Z4? (Also there is no such thing as "cool mid-life guy" car. It's 99% self confidence and 1% the car you drive.) You can brag freely here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3631953
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
DNK posted:Is there a reason you don't want FWD with super torqued acceleration machines? My noob view is that FWD would be preferred due to the engine weight over the axel. The unequal length half shafts have already been mentioned with regards to torque steer, but having a lot of weight over a single axle isn't necessarily desirable either. You can see this in either extremes. With too much weight over the rear (Porsche 911, turn the wheel, spin out into a tree) or too much weight over the front (Pretty much any FWD car, turn the wheel, plow straight into a tree). This isn't to say "FWD cars are inferior in every which way and you're an idiot if" because FWD cars can be fun, fast, and exciting to drive; however, you have to use a different skill set and keep in mind a few things. If you want to be fast in a FWD car, you must use a technique called trail braking which is basically go-fast code for "brake while turning the wheel". The concept is that you as the driver are shifting the weight of the vehicle more towards the front so that the rear of the car becomes lighter and is more prone to rotation. Too much, you spin out. Too little, you don't get the steering angle you want. However, you also need to keep in mind that you're asking the front wheels to provide 100% of the power, 75%+ of the braking, and the steering; it's a lot to ask. Couple this with a hilarious amount of power and torque, and it becomes rather difficult to drive. That's the car nerd explanation. It's less of "X is superior" and more of "X has less things going against it"; also, just because there's a different skill set doesn't mean that one is superior or inferior to the other, it's just different. Phone fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Proposed Budget $23k + or - a few K New or Used New or Used within 3 years and 35k miles Body Style Sedan or Wagon Use Commuting to work with the wife and dropping the kid off at daycare Important Aspects of Car Safety, Fun to drive, Reliability, automatic Location Seattle, WA We just had a kid and I need to dump some toys and pick up something made this decade with 4 doors and an automatic so the wife has something to drive and we have something to put the kiddo in. I'm sacrificing some toys to finance a newer car and as such thought if I'm buying it I might as well have some fun with it. I have not made it out to drive anything yet, but have done some market research(CL) into what seems affordable in my area. Cars that pique my interest in no particular order: Acura TSX/TSX Wagon Audi A3/A4 Sedan or Wagon BMW 328i Mercedes C300 4matic Honda Civic 1.5T Honda Accord Sport Subaru Impreza Sport Premium ??? Looking for feedback mostly on expected reliability (lol audi) and models/years/options that are must haves or best to avoid
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Subaru Outback with the H6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Phone posted:Subaru Outback with the H6. Could just be me but I've never heard a good thing said about the H6
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
TSX wagon is about the only wagon I could realistically recommend. You could find a Volvo of some kind, maybe? Outback is a good suggestion although I think there's a PNW Subaru Tax. Mazda6 would fit the bill and is quite a bit better to drive than the other midsize sedans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Maksimus54 posted:Could just be me but I've never heard a good thing said about the H6 I thought the H6 was all-around considered a better motor than the 4-bangers (especially vs. the EJ25), just at the obvious expense of weight and efficiency. Fewer headgasket issues and no oil consumption class action lawsuits. The EZ36 in the 3.6R actually has pretty respectable output and gas mileage for a car the size/weight of an Outback, and has is derived from a motor that's been around for a while so there are fewer unknowns than the newer FA/FB motors which are showing a number of problems. Guinness fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Maksimus54 posted:Could just be me but I've never heard a good thing said about the H6 You've heard good things said about the EJ25?  the EJ25 is a loving turd of a motor, and each variant breaks in a new and exciting way. The EJ/Z3# motors are thirsty, but they don't break all of the time. Phone fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
The subaru h6 is a good motor but doesn't get the same attention because you can't modify it and is automatic only.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Guinness posted:I thought the H6 was all-around considered a better motor than the 4-bangers (especially vs. the EJ25), just at the obvious expense of weight and efficiency. Fewer headgasket issues and no oil consumption class action lawsuits. The EZ36 in the 3.6R actually has pretty respectable output and gas mileage for a car the size/weight of an Outback, and has is derived from a motor that's been around for a while so there are fewer unknowns than the newer FA/FB motors which are showing a number of problems. Good to know, I must admit I have not paid much attention to them at all. I'll be adding that and the Mazda 6 which inexplicably got left out to the list
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Phone posted:
Really enjoyed this post thanks, nice break from PRIUS PRIUS PRIUS
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Proposed Budget: 25k-30k (USD) New or Used: Either Body Style: Probably small/midsize SUV or less likely: Small truck How will you be using the car?: Primarily a daily driver/commuter. Occasional towing and general outdoor shenanigans. What aspects are most important to you? Comfortable for a 6'4 tall person, reliability, MPG. After 17 years my old dodge intrepid is effectively dead (can't pass emissions). In addition to daily driving I need space to haul 2-3 bicycles + camping gear along some very light offroad work getting to trail heads. A few times a year I also need to tow a motorcycle + a few hundred lbs of racing gear on a trailer to the next state over. This has me looking at the small-midsize SUV market or maybe a used taco if I can find one worth buying in my price range. So far I'm looking at used the 2015 Ford Edge/Nissa Murano or a new 2015 CX-5. Any opinions on these or any other AI endorsed alternatives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:Proposed Budget: 25k-30k (USD) The CX-5 is excellent. I'd go with a 2016 as they got a slight design refresh and you can get more doodads on it if you care. The Edge and Murano are both just OK. The electronics interface is better on the CX-5 than the Edge. I'd get a used 2016 CX-5 before I got a new 2015. There are some thoughts for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:Any updates? Did you get a Z4? (Also there is no such thing as "cool mid-life guy" car. It's 99% self confidence and 1% the car you drive.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
photomikey posted:It will take me months to decide. I'm looking Z4, Boxter, SLK350. This is the worst crisis ever. Go on test drives. Even if it's the wrong color / transmission / trim it's good to know what you like. Then you can start the search for the perfect Z4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:The CX-5 is excellent. I'd go with a 2016 as they got a slight design refresh and you can get more doodads on it if you care. Forester, CR-V. Used Pathfinder (murano is not as good imo). Ford Explorer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
photomikey posted:It will take me months to decide. I'm looking Z4, Boxter, SLK350. Get the Porsche and make sure it's already had the IMS issue taken care of. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Maksimus54 posted:Proposed Budget $23k + or - a few K If you aren't afraid of maintenance and reliability issues, which seems like the case based on your list, the Golf Sportwagen is pretty fun for a station wagon. Great safety scores for newer models, and good fuel economy. Otherwise a 2014 or newer Impreza. I can't think of any other wagons in your price range that get good crash test ratings on the small overlap. I have a 1 year old and the hatchback on my Outback is amazing for changing the baby while out and about. It's not a fun suggestion, but the Prius or Volt would be great choices in your price range, or possibly a Mazda 3 hatch if you don't think it's too small. You may also like the Mazda Cx-3 despite the fact that it's a compact suv, it's pretty wagon like and supposedly fun to drive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
A CX-3 is going to be too small. My friend had a Mazda2 (which the CX-3 is based off of), and they tried to make it work, but had to up it to a Mazda3 to make the car seat work. If the kid was 3 or 4, sure, but not with a newborn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Phone posted:A CX-3 is going to be too small. My friend had a Mazda2 (which the CX-3 is based off of), and they tried to make it work, but had to up it to a Mazda3 to make the car seat work. If the kid was 3 or 4, sure, but not with a newborn. The CX-3 is a 101" wheelbase with 168" OAL versus the Mazda2 which is a 98" wheelbase with 156" OAL. It's substantially bigger. For comparison, the Mazda3 is 104" wheelbase with 181" OAL for the hatch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Fourth Generation (DJ; 2014-present) Wheelbase 2,570 mm (101.2 in) Length 4,060 mm (159.8 in) (hatchback) Related Mazda CX-3 We didn't get the next generation Demio outside of the Also, I had a Mazda2 from January 2012 until October 2015. The CX-3 is marginally bigger, sure; however, the Mazda3 is straight up bigger and has a trick multilink rear suspension vs the twist beam on the Demio/2/CX-3. Phone fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Isn't the CX-5 the one that's more like a Mazda 3 crossover? I was under the impression that CX-3:Mazda 2 as CX-5:Mazda 3
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Teeter posted:Isn't the CX-5 the one that's more like a Mazda 3 crossover? Thats fairly accurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Phone posted:Fourth Generation (DJ; 2014-present) Twist beam is better from an interior space capacity perspective. You can't compare the DJ because we never got the DJ. You're saying that since the DE was too small, the CX-3 is going to be too small, and I'm just pointing out that in no way is that actually true when you compare the footprint of the DE to the CX-3. I'm very aware of the platform sharing roots of the CX-3. edit unless you're some sort of weird foreigner that actually did get the DJ, but I don't think that's the case
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Anyone have any feedback on mid/large 5-7 seater daily driver Family Seriously-Not-A-Van-Vans? I'm just looking and the only one that I'm really digging is the Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I like hybrids. The bonus of it being AWD with instant torque might mean it's a fun boat to drive too. Ford Explorers look cool, but their horrible fuel economy is a turn off for a daily driver. In fact, the entire class of vehicles barely gets 20mpg average. Reliability > Room / Comfort > Fuel Economy > Ride > Style e: opinions on Pilots / Nissans / GMCs / etc are super welcome -- especially if they're negative because it's fun to bash and I'm already resigned to be choosing the best-of-the-worst with this style of vehicle DNK fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Look at the new Mazda CX-9.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:54
|
|