|
This new ford management went full speed ahead to failure.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
No one in America buys full-size sedans, while China still does. Unless the unlikely occurs and Americans switch away from SUV/CUVS back to sedans, if say this move actually makes plenty sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Network42 posted:No one in America buys full-size sedans, while China still does. Unless the unlikely occurs and Americans switch away from SUV/CUVS back to sedans, if say this move actually makes plenty sense. Every day we move further from his light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
This looks beautiful and I want one. I want to see what they do with the interior. Always loves Pantera interiors for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Welp, just found my new favorite exotic. Please let resto-mod exotics be a thing now.....Daytona Spyder resto-mod yes please 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:That's what I'm saying, the lack of a stick shift on a brand that entirely trades off of nostalgia was a massive mistake. If I'm buying an unreliable Italian piece of garbage I should be able to shift my own gears. Honestly I think rowing your own gears would be a mistake in the Giulia. The flappy paddles are part of why the driving experience is so good, IMO. There is a lot of Ferrari DNA in the car and they’ve been a two-pedal shop for a looong time now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:That's what I'm saying, the lack of a stick shift on a brand that entirely trades off of nostalgia was a massive mistake. If I'm buying an unreliable Italian piece of garbage I should be able to shift my own gears. This is really gonna frost your nuts then. http://www.motortrend.com/news/updated-alfa-romeo-4c-arrives-2019/ quote:But if you were holding out for a manual gearbox option, you’re out of luck. Fedeli says there are no plans to introduce manual transmissions on any future high-performance Alfa Romeo, Maserati, or Ferrari models. Fedeli cites lack of demand as the main reason. When he was at Ferrari, he says the brand spend 10 million euros to develop a manual transmission for the California convertible, and ultimately just two customers ordered their cars with the row-your-own option. Next they won't even let us shovel our own coal into the boiler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Cellular Suicide posted:They hit this on the head for us, and the article sums it up well. Our Outback is the perfect size for two kids and a stroller with all the shopping we need, or add a skybox for a week’s worth of camping gear. We cross-shopped SUVs and bought the Outback because my wife grew up with one and I loved my old Forester. We probably don’t need a third row SUV, but it will be hard to say no if this one is even remotely decent. I went "hummm tows 5k? I can put a car behind that easy..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
I don't like it. At the end of the day it's just another half-assed, half-hearted retromodern design that drops the ball on a lot of key details. The proportions are all wrong (they can't help that one much sadly), I'm not a particularly big fan of the treatment around the B/C pillars (it's heavy and awkward looking, adding visual bulk to the car that just wasn't there in any of the original Panteras), the lower section of the nose feels unfinished (even if they did a good job on the upper surfaces of the nose) and the rear is a mis-shapen mishmash of incongruous shapes. fridge corn posted:
The new Vantage, on the other hand, is, for lack of a better way of putting it, very brave of Aston Martin. It's the traditional shape, but with a lot of very forward-thinking design cues. Enough that I can definitely understand why people wouldn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I don't like it. At the end of the day it's just another half-assed, half-hearted retromodern design that drops the ball on a lot of key details. The proportions are all wrong (they can't help that one much sadly), I'm not a particularly big fan of the treatment around the B/C pillars (it's heavy and awkward looking, adding visual bulk to the car that just wasn't there in any of the original Panteras), the lower section of the nose feels unfinished (even if they did a good job on the upper surfaces of the nose) and the rear is a mis-shapen mishmash of incongruous shapes.  I feel like you just want to be contrary. That Pantera tribute looks leagues better than the aston and we can already see the original pantera's design has aged very well so having this take so many cues from the original is great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
It has pop-up headlights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:It has pop-up headlights. It does and that owns
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Both cars look really nice for different reasons. It's a good time to be an enthusiast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Charles posted:
20% more displacement for 10% more torque seems like a waste, especially with only ten more peak horsepower. I would have figured they'd shoot for 300/300 at a minimum, since I assume this will power the next STI as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:20% more displacement for 10% more torque seems like a waste, especially with only ten more peak horsepower. I would have figured they'd shoot for 300/300 at a minimum, since I assume this will power the next STI as well. Maybe they worked on keeping the ring lands and head gaskets intact instead of focusing on raw power. E: my dad has an outback 3.6R and routinely hauls three dogs in it. He wants a VW Atlas now because he's doing a gig by the VW test facility in Phoenix. I can't tell him enough reasons to not buy a VW again. BloodBag fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
BloodBag posted:Maybe they worked on keeping the ring lands and head gaskets intact instead of focusing on raw power. That's crazy talk right there, then it would hardly be recognizable as a turbocharged Subaru at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:20% more displacement for 10% more torque seems like a waste, especially with only ten more peak horsepower. I would have figured they'd shoot for 300/300 at a minimum, since I assume this will power the next STI as well. I assume they are focusing on power delivery and not just peak output. You probably don't want a peaky high-revving turbo in a high-volume not-minivan
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I want to take a quick poll: If you want a AWD sporty sedan : KIA Stinger or S5 sportback? Honorable mention to Lexus is350 or Jaguar XE perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I want to take a quick poll: If I'm a hypothetical person with more to my name than I really have, S5 Sportback In the real world, KIA Stinger GT (As someone who in the last 5 years bought a similar car new(SHO) this is actually a real possibility too next year not empty talk) I think Lexus are way overrated and Jaguar ownership scares me, plus the interior in both is a bit to tight compared to the KIA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I want to take a quick poll: If money/longevity is no concern, S5 without a single doubt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
None of them, sadly? The IS looks like heck and is still using their old 6 speed auto. The S5 SB is numb and devoid of emotion (i got a B9 S4 and can't wait for the lease to expire). Haven't seen a Stinger yet. Jag not on the radar at all. The Gulia Ti is interesting but they currently don't lease well in Canada. Definitely interested in the Genesis G70. I'm hoping it can split the difference between all the rivals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
So with all this lease talk I am confused. I always thought it was a sucker move but it seems like more and more people are doing that. When is it better to leave vs buy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
When you're in a dealership it's always better to leave than buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
fyallm posted:So with all this lease talk I am confused. I always thought it was a sucker move but it seems like more and more people are doing that. When is it better to leave vs buy? From a strictly financially optimal perspective, leasing is worse than buying because the financially optimal thing to do is buy a reasonable, reliable car, pay it off, and drive it for 10-15 or more years until it becomes too much of a money-sink rattle trap to keep on the road. But if we throw out the idea of doing the financially optimal thing (because this is AI, after all), and you're going to have the insanely expensive habit of buying a new car every 3 years regardless, then we can compare leasing for 3 years vs. buying and selling/trading-in after 3 years then the equation becomes different and can favor leasing depending on the terms, brand, incentives, and residual values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Man, I saw that Honda has deals locally for leasing a new Civic LX for 36 months at $100/mo with like $2900 down. I don't think you can drive too much for cheaper than that. They require an 800 credit score, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
If your goal is to get your hands on a brand new luxury vehicle leasing isn't a bad idea. You probably make enough money that you want to trade up in 3 years anyway. If you want to make the smart financial decision, don't buy a luxury car, and probably don't buy a new car at all. But if you can afford it, leasing can be a good way to enjoy 3 years of a luxury car and then trade it back in before it turns into a headache.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Man, I saw that Honda has deals locally for leasing a new Civic LX for 36 months at $100/mo with like $2900 down. I don't think you can drive too much for cheaper than that. They require an 800 credit score, unfortunately. You can definitely drive for less than that if you don't have to have a new car. That's still over $180/mo just in car payments if you amortize out the down payment over the term of lease, plus full comprehensive insurance, and you'll be back to having no car after 3 years, at which point you'll either have to buy or lease again. Plus leases carry mileage restrictions and damage fees. If you bought the same Civic LX for $20k and drove it for 10 years it'd cost less than $180/mo amortized over that time period, with no mileage restrictions, plus you'd have a paid off 10 year old Civic you could still probably turn around and sell for $6-8k because Honda. If you factor in the sale/trade-in price you come in way under $180/mo. Even with maintenance and repairs once you're out of warranty, which shouldn't be awful for a Civic. But if you have to have a new car every 3-5 years for whatever reason, then yeah, leasing can potentially make a lot of sense. Mostly on luxury cars that depreciate like a rock and have the risk of becoming maintenance nightmares out of warranty. Guinness fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Guinness posted:From a strictly financially optimal perspective, leasing is worse than buying because the financially optimal thing to do is buy a reasonable, reliable car, pay it off, and drive it for 10-15 or more years until it becomes too much of a money-sink rattle trap to keep on the road. Pretty much this. All leasing is good/all leasing is bad is a terrible way of looking at things. Ask GM how much they enjoyed taking back off-lease Escalades in the late 2000s when gas was going through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
fyallm posted:So with all this lease talk I am confused. I always thought it was a sucker move but it seems like more and more people are doing that. When is it better to leave vs buy? Leasing makes sense in certain situations. I lease my wife's car and it works out well for us. This might be our last lease though, with interest rates going up, and residuals probably dropping in the next couple of years it probably won't make sense. On a side note, when the hell did Full Size SUV's get ridiculously expensive. My wife sent me a link to a Ford advert for the "all new" 2018 Expedition. 53K for a base model XLT with cloth seats and no Sync. Nuts. The GM triplets are just as expensive though, they must be making a fortune on those things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Leasing makes sense in certain situations. I lease my wife's car and it works out well for us. Is that USD? If so: holy hell. I just ordered a new car for well less than that, in Canadian dollars with Canadian hosed-up pricing on top, and I'm thinking it's ridiculously goddamned expensive, but it's a gently caress sight nicer than than an Expedition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Pickups have gotten insane too. In Canada, The base f-150 went from $19,990 at the end of the last gen(with another $2k on the hood when the 2015s came out) to $30,449, the 5.0 is now a $2,200 option. You could have gotten a 2014 5.0 RCSB at $20k even out the door. now it's $34,700 and that doesn't even get you cruise control. When the dollar was down to 70 cents, americans came in and cleaned out the used market, too. Jeep doesn't even show the price up front anymore. They show the WEEKLY payment at NINETY SIX, 96, months. https://www.jeep.ca/en  That's 417 weeks, 417 payments of $115 for the base model grand cherokee. They're preying on people who assume a month = 4 weeks = 384 payments. That's $47,995 for the base model grand cherokee. $35,028 for the base model Wrangler. $27,939 for the compass which can trace it's lineage to the 2005 fiat punto. The Trackhawk is $109,995 canadian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:20% more displacement for 10% more torque seems like a waste, especially with only ten more peak horsepower. I would have figured they'd shoot for 300/300 at a minimum, since I assume this will power the next STI as well. Maybe the CVT cant handle the power? Can you get a conventional auto in a Subaru anymore? Powershift posted:
Those prices arent off the charts for a new vehicle in Canada, especially for the GC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Pickups have gotten insane too. In Canada, The base f-150 went from $19,990 at the end of the last gen(with another $2k on the hood when the 2015s came out) to $30,449, the 5.0 is now a $2,200 option. Boy I can't wait for this bubble to burst!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I honestly can't believe what cars cost these days. My wife and I make... a lot of money combined, but we both drive Cmax Energi's that we bought as used lease returns for about $15k/each. Even that worked out to something like a $350 car payment over 48 months which is more than I wanted to have. I also have an Abarth cabrio as a fun weekend car, but that things worth about $11k if I'm lucky. My neighbors all have (leased) GL benzes or (purchased) Type S/X's. Insanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Leasing makes sense in certain situations. I lease my wife's car and it works out well for us. My guess is the popularity of the 3-row crossovers gave manufacturers the room to move the BOF SUVs upmarket. Now GM can really gouge the people who need a Yukon Denali for signaling purposes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
SUVs and Trucks cost stupid money because they are fashionable. The wife’s car has its lease up next year and I am thinking of buying it out rather than lease again since she damaged it pretty badly and I don’t see the point of getting her another new car only for it to get destroyed again. 100% not a VW tho since they come with crappy specs for the price. Only got the current one since I traded my GTI in since she refused the learn to drive stick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:Yeah, I honestly can't believe what cars cost these days. My wife and I make... a lot of money combined, but we both drive Cmax Energi's that we bought as used lease returns for about $15k/each. Even that worked out to something like a $350 car payment over 48 months which is more than I wanted to have. I also have an Abarth cabrio as a fun weekend car, but that things worth about $11k if I'm lucky. But you spend more than that on bikes monthly don't you??
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
D C posted:But you spend more than that on bikes monthly don't you?? nah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Wow. Imagine paying $76 a loving week for 96 loving months. Speaking of leases, they are a bit "better" here in Sweden, never any down payments, but I read the average cost of returning the vehicle (due to damage like scratches / curbed rims etc) is ~$2000. A relative of my GF expects to pay close to $3000 when turning in their car. That's almost a year of leasing the car just in return fees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Guinness posted:If money/longevity is no concern, S5 without a single doubt. So if you could only afford to buy it outright once(unable to buy something that price again in 4 years) and then aim to own it a long time you’d advise the stinger over the S5?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:50
|
|