|
Cage posted:(Its a casual, every-wednesday $5 to run drag strip. People will bring minivans and stock civics) I would run everything I owned at such a strip.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Well, modern cars are quite a bit quicker than their predecessors so maybe people are just used to 14s 0-60 times even though their Camry can do 8s. I'm not asking them to use the full amount of power available all the time, just that they actually use ANY of it period. Like pulling away from a light and not even being up to 10mph by the time they get through the intersection or slowing from 55mph to 30 just to take a gentle curve in the road. Cars have gotten a lot more powerful, they handle leagues better than they used to, and yet people seem to be driving slower than they were 10 years ago. Terrible Robot fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Terrible Robot posted:I'm not asking them to use the full amount of power available all the time, just that they actually use ANY of it period. Like pulling away from a light and not even being up to 10mph by the time they get through the intersection or slowing from 55mph to 30 just to take a gentle curve in the road. Probably because they have such a Hugh center of gravity and are so loving hard to see out of now
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
My city has a lot of 'buy the car for the label' sorts of stuff so instead of Camrys and Acuras alone it's also Bentleys and Mercedes and various BMWs including M's and AMGs with Jaguar F-types. I lead off the line at stoplights probably 80% of the time and I'm in a 40hp kei van pulling away from an M5 or AMG. I'm pushing it for all she's got of course but I am amazed at how easy it is for me to keep up with and outrun the typical traffic when everyone around me is driving super cars in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
We have a lot of two lane on-ramps onto I-10 here. More often than not I'm tear-assing up the outside lane of it to get past all the people who want to merge at 50. At least once a week, some shitler in a civic or a sexually-repressed fat housewife in a minivan will floor it in an attempt to run me out of lane to merge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
blk posted:Probably because they have such a Hugh center of gravity and are so loving hard to see out of now probably because they are texting
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
I passed a Corvette with a friend in a 1972 MGB. All 40 horsepower it had left in it. At 65.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
You guys realize most people don't live their lives a quarter-mile at a time right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:You guys realize most people don't live their lives a quarter-mile at a time right? That's fine, but you really shouldn't be holding up my diesel Golf in your 250+ hp car on an onramp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:You guys realize most people don't live their lives a quarter-mile at a time right? If you can call it living.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Here in Toronto, drivers tend to leave huge gaps in traffic. Way bigger than they'd ever need for weather or braking. It's infuriating to be in a backed up turn lane and watch people constantly cutting into the queue because some idiot is giving himself five car lengths of room for no goddamn reason. Also, many people here are afflicted with a disorder that renders then blind to green light when in the shape of a left-pointing arrow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:probably because they are texting I know what it is like to become and old man because more often than not I feel like I am the only one driving with my head up and looking out of my windshield.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
fknlo posted:That's fine, but you really shouldn't be holding up my diesel Golf in your 250+ hp car on an onramp. This is what frustrates me. I needed that loving onramp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Whiz Palace posted:Also, many people here are afflicted with a disorder that renders then blind to green light when in the shape of a left-pointing arrow. The glow of an iPhone screen is the culprit 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Whiz Palace posted:Here in Toronto, drivers tend to leave huge gaps in traffic. Way bigger than they'd ever need for weather or braking. It's infuriating to be in a backed up turn lane and watch people constantly cutting into the queue because some idiot is giving himself five car lengths of room for no goddamn reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Car and driver has a full test of the fusion sport: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/tested-2017-ford-fusion-sport-review 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, 13.7@101mph, 30-50 in 2.9, 50-70 in 3.5, 4128lbs. just a hair behind the manual WRX in the quarter mile. quicker than all these cars. http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...te-specs-page-6
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Car and driver has a full test of the fusion sport: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/tested-2017-ford-fusion-sport-review Christ those are fun numbers for a sensible-ish family sedan. 30-50 in 2.9 is an awesome number. The new Malibu LT does it about 2 seconds slower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Any love for the new Fiat Spider around here? Cuz I just bought one and 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
How come you guys have no mention of the Fusion Sport MSRP when talking about its practicality? Starting at $33.5k, I feel like you can get a lot of other fun practical things for that kind of money. I wish performance models competed on price, but lots of them are really expensive. It's all relative depending on your income level, I guess. I know that Fusion MSRP is around the average transactional new car anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Car and driver has a full test of the fusion sport: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/tested-2017-ford-fusion-sport-review Sweet Jesus the lightweight poo poo can't come soon enough
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:How come you guys have no mention of the Fusion Sport MSRP when talking about its practicality? Starting at $33.5k, I feel like you can get a lot of other fun practical things for that kind of money. Because I think the main thing people are comparing it to are Audi's and xdrive BMW's?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
People were (implausibly) expecting it to be some kind of major groundbreaking performance machine when it is a marginally more expensive, marginally faster car compared to the optional-engine versions of midsize family sedans available on the market already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:People were (implausibly) expecting it to be some kind of major groundbreaking performance machine when it is a marginally more expensive, marginally faster car compared to the optional-engine versions of midsize family sedans available on the market already. I think we wanted a Fusion ST. There's certainly some tuning capacity in that engine. With the right suspension mods (magnetic ride?) and less bloat it could have been something special.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:59
|
|
Zoom Zoom, motherfuckers
|
Deteriorata posted:Any love for the new Fiat Spider around here? Cuz I just bought one and Please post pics in the post your ride thread 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Please post pics in the post your ride thread Done. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Christ those are fun numbers for a sensible-ish family sedan. As someone with a current generation SHO it was really disappointing. I was expecting it to be at least 400 pounds lighter than the crazy heavy Taurus and with those engine specs crack a 5 second 0-60 but instead somehow it came out 200 pounds lighter with basically the same performance as a 7 year old SHO. C&Ds own test of the SHO as it was released in 2009 has virtually the same numbers. Unlike the 3.5 EcoBoost I think the iron block 2.7 may not really be a great fit for a performance oriented car, I think it's to blame for most of the weight. Wonder what the front/rear weight ratio is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
That's heavier than an E55, somehow
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Now if only I could get that Fusion Sport as a wagon...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Any love for the new Fiat Spider around here? Cuz I just bought one and I want an abarth one bad, and I will be tuning it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
The Fusion sport discussion seriously reminds me of the way people talked about the Legacy GT 10 years ago
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Elem7 posted:As someone with a current generation SHO it was really disappointing. I was expecting it to be at least 400 pounds lighter than the crazy heavy Taurus and with those engine specs crack a 5 second 0-60 but instead somehow it came out 200 pounds lighter with basically the same performance as a 7 year old SHO. C&Ds own test of the SHO as it was released in 2009 has virtually the same numbers. I have a SHO as well (2013 nonPP), traded in my 2011 Fusion Sport on it. I thought the new Fusion Sport was the car I wanted all along, but after checking a new Fusion Sport out I'm keeping the SHO for a few more years. It's a good car, but it's not better than the SHO in my book, at least not enough to make me trade the SHO in on one. I'm also working from home now, hard to justify a new car when I'm putting less than 150 miles a week on the car. I used to put 800 a week on it. I guess I've come to really like the SHO. I know this is going to sound really spoiled/bougie but I was surprised the 41,000 dollar MSRP Fusion Sport I looked at didn't have electric steering wheel adjustment. I don't know why that stood out, but the last 2 Explorers we've had and the SHO have it, and honestly the whole memory settings thing for me and my wife are something we've become used to having in our Fords. I know I hyped the car up as soon as I learned about it finally coming out, but I do think many folks thought it would be 'more' than it is and I think that's what is hurting it. I'm surprised to see 1250 in incentives already on the car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
blk posted:The Fusion sport discussion seriously reminds me of the way people talked about the Legacy GT 10 years ago I want a new Mazdaspeed 6 wagon.  Unrelatedly, I saw an E55 wagon for the first time in the wild. It was cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Elem7 posted:As someone with a current generation SHO it was really disappointing. I was expecting it to be at least 400 pounds lighter than the crazy heavy Taurus and with those engine specs crack a 5 second 0-60 but instead somehow it came out 200 pounds lighter with basically the same performance as a 7 year old SHO. C&Ds own test of the SHO as it was released in 2009 has virtually the same numbers. It's not just a cast iron block, it's 2 piece aluminum/Compacted graphite iron. As a package, it's 120lbs lighter than the 3.5 ecoboost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:I saw an E55 wagon for the first time in the wild. It was cool. Shopkeep at a local mall just got an E63 S wagon. So North American sales of that model is at least one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It's not just a cast iron block, it's 2 piece aluminum/Compacted graphite iron. As a package, it's 120lbs lighter than the 3.5 ecoboost. I don't know where all that weight came from then. Where did you get that weight from? I can't seem to find it online for the 2.7 since it's not available as crate engine from Ford yet. Looking at C&Ds own instrumented test results a same generation Fusion with the 2.0l and AWD gains 385 pounds going to the sport with the 2.7, a same generation Taurus with the 2.0l and no AWD only gains 344 pounds going to the SHO with the 3.5 + AWD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
All the additional weight is from SHEER BOOST POUNDAGE also because its cheaper to have bulkier, innately stronger materials than to actively engineer for strength.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Elem7 posted:I don't know where all that weight came from then. Where did you get that weight from? I can't seem to find it online for the 2.7 since it's not available as crate engine from Ford yet. using f-150 listed weights for the 2.7 and 3.5, as they use the same transmission, driveshaft, diff, etc. where the 2.0 and 2.7 obviously wouldn't. The weight usually comes from a lot of places, like the 89 speakers and 19" wheels which could be 5-10lbs heavier a corner. I don't know if you've seen a 2.7 and 3.5 in person, but the 2.7 is incredibly small, the 3.5 is on the left.   Rigged Death Trap posted:All the additional weight is from SHEER BOOST POUNDAGE The CGI is there to actively engineer for strength. The 2.7 can run 18lbs of boost at 10:1 compression. ford claims it hits 2000 psi cylinder pressures, where a diesel would be 2600 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
Whiz Palace posted:Shopkeep at a local mall just got an E63 S wagon. So North American sales of that model is at least one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Elem7 posted:I don't know where all that weight came from then. Where did you get that weight from? I can't seem to find it online for the 2.7 since it's not available as crate engine from Ford yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
I'm just waiting for GM to say gently caress it and throw twin turbos on the small block.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:51
|
|
