|
GM spends a decade and billions of dollars trying to make a car more desirable than its BMW and Audi counterparts, and fails. Ford crams a built up truck engine into a Fusion, gives it AWD, and succeeds. What a world.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
I'm not sure you could design a car that's more derivative than this. It's a nice looking car but that's because the cars it's aping are nice looking cars. The Lincoln Landwind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Now if only it was a beige hatchback with an unsynchronized manual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Boy howdy I can't wait to find out what powers the new Mazda CX-9 (Mazdaspeed3)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:You have it backwards, due to gearing, from a roll, all that matters for acceleration is horsepower. After 30mph, your engine should be in its powerband until you lift off throttle, negating any torque advantages. The 2.0L TDI only has 140hp, so it's only ever going to give you that much. There is no way around this fact. Remember that this only happens if you're in the powerband, which you won't be for a gasoline engine unless you cruise around at 3000-3500 RPM all day. With a diesel engine, if you're puttering around at 1500-2000 RPM (which is what most people prefer), you're already in the meaty part of the power band. Downshifting takes time, and effort if you drive a manual. My car has 160HP and thanks to variable valve timing, it actually pulls really well from 1500 RPM in second gear, but I wouldn't be able to keep up with a diesel of similar horsepower, also punching it from 1500 RPM in second. At least not until the diesel runs out of breath around 4000 RPM and I can keep going. But how often do you actually rev out even 2nd gear on the street? And if we repeat the test in 3rd, 4th or 5th gear, pulling from 1500 RPM my car would be left in the dust. Bench racing is one thing, but in the real world, the big torque down low is more comfortable and fits the average driver's driving style better, with overtaking maneuvers that can be done without downshifting. Torque is king for normal everyday driving. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Guinness posted:How easy is it to crank it up to 200hp? Very easy. $400-500 ecm, down pipe, cai. Ecm alone pretty much gets you there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Powershift posted:holy poo poo. That means the Fusion version of this car will show up in 2018. Ford generally let's Lincoln have the first year exclusivity on the new stuff. I love it looks like a jag. drat thing is going to be out of my price range though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Lol the 124 looks like hot garbage, especially the front fiasca and hood. Shocking no one, it has the 1.4L. There will be a removable hardtop being produced by 949racing available in the next year or so, but this is badge engineering and a motor swap at best. The interior is exactly the same; Fiat ain't doing poo poo to modify the chassis (considering that Mazda is building them).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Phone posted:Lol the 124 looks like hot garbage, especially the front fiasca and hood. Shocking no one, it has the 1.4L. The 124 could've been so pretty. The front lights are actually a nice shape and the inset is a nice little touch but then the double set of disjointed DRLs and indicators and the double grille are just loving garbage. Rear end is an NB with some aftermarket looking lights thrown in. And the silver A pillar/windscreen surround just looks cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
So relatively similar horsepower with a lot more torque in the Fiat, but it's also five inches longer and a hundred pounds heavier than the Miata. I think I'd go Mazda on this one. Not that either is in the cards right now, I need a real garage before I buy another new car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
That's a Mazda option, it looks kinda tacky, but you can get the same covers for the mirrors, vent rings, and rear hoops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Definitely getting the 124 - yeah the miata has nicer lights but the 124 looks pretty unique. Going to hand in my Fiesta ST and get a beater until the 124 comes out. Can't wait for that 1.4 raspy goodness and easy 200 HP tune...
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:GM spends a decade and billions of dollars trying to make a car more desirable than its BMW and Audi counterparts, and fails. If you buy that instead of a Cadillac it better be at a huge discount
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
"Buyers who want more grunt will need to wait until Fiat introduces an Abarth-badged model with about 200 ponies at next year's edition of the Geneva Motor Show." That is a good idea if its not overpriced. Or even if it is it'll be a welcome addition to the used car market down the line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:GM spends a decade and billions of dollars trying to make a car more desirable than its BMW and Audi counterparts, and fails. As we all know, internet comments resulting from a press release are an accurate reflection of a car's desirability. I'd be shocked if this thing actually sells in any major numbers. And there is no chance in hell I would ever take this over either an ATS or a CTS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
The GTO, the G8 (and now the SS), the Sky/Solstice, the CTS V wagon, the SSR - these are all cars that GM, specifically Lutz made while listening to enthusiast bitching. You know how well all those models did. On the other hand, the new Camaro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:The GTO, the G8 (and now the SS), the Sky/Solstice, the CTS V wagon, the SSR - these are all cars that GM, specifically Lutz made while listening to enthusiast bitching. You know how well all those models did. To be fair, they were already making the GTO, G8 and SS; they just decided to import them from Australia. They weren't scratch products to meet perceived American demand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
will totally be buying whatever retarded souped up Fusion comes out
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Phone posted:Lol the 124 looks like hot garbage, especially the front fiasca and hood. Shocking no one, it has the 1.4L. They promised a hopped up Abarth version with the Alfa-Romeo 4c engine
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Based on the 2.7
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:The GTO, the G8 (and now the SS), the Sky/Solstice, the CTS V wagon, the SSR - these are all cars that GM, specifically Lutz made while listening to enthusiast bitching. You know how well all those models did. And in true GM fashion, they cocked each and every one of those up, except for one. GTO: Launched in the US with a LS1, word of the LS2 version coming got out way earlier than expected, LS1 sale prices tanked and I don't think GM ever got away from having to put cash on the hood after that. They had to move the gas tank up which made the trunk hilariously small and uselessly shaped. And it looked like the Cavalier they had just finally euthanized. SSR: Also got a power boost (and a stick) a year after launch, but this was never going to be more than a very niche vehicle built for GM die-hards. I'm pretty sure it cost about as much as a C5 or C6, and who the gently caress would buy a rebodied Trailblazer instead of a C5? One of my uncles, that's who... G8: I don't think they nearly hosed the product up as much, but importing a Pontiac was never going to let them hit the price point where people actually would buy a Pontiac. SS: Still expensive as all hell. The unfortunate reality is that the enthusiasts who want a GM V8 sedan, want it at B-body Caprice prices. Sky/Solstice: They managed to make a Miata even more impractical in every possible way. The roof took up the whole trunk, couldn't be raised/lowered from in the car, and the cupholders are behind the goddamn headrests. A Miata can work as an only car; a Kappa really can't, but isn't fast / fancy enough to be a toy, either. CTS-V Wagon: This one I'll put squarely on the market being too cheap and too small, because GM went and built a loving 550hp manual-transmission RWD station wagon. It was priced fairly given what anything equivalent would cost you. And nobody loving bought one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It was priced fairly given what anything equivalent would cost you. And nobody loving bought one. I'm still amazed at how many cars sell at that type of price range or higher. I'm top 3% of single income earners/top 15% of households, have no kids, not a whole lot of debt, and still wouldn't feel comfortable spending $60k+ on a car. fake edit: put the Focus RS or new MKZ in the transit connect for no real reason please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Remember that this only happens if you're in the powerband, which you won't be for a gasoline engine unless you cruise around at 3000-3500 RPM all day. With a diesel engine, if you're puttering around at 1500-2000 RPM (which is what most people prefer), you're already in the meaty part of the power band. Downshifting takes time, and effort if you drive a manual. If we're talking about the Golf that isn't true though  Sure there is less torque there but its spread across a wider range in the petrol. As for the manual transmission VW doesn't even bother pairing it with the diesel here, presumably because there is no demand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Yep. That AMAZING LOW END TORQUE is marketing bullshit, it does not exist in diesels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Well, obviously you're talking about direct-injection turbo-charged gasoline engines, which do shake up the field quite noticably. But that is a relatively recent development. For a long loooong time, diesel (or a big V8) was the only choice for low-end torque. You're only getting that from a small gasoline engine if you buy something made within the last 5 years or so, and even then only with the higher-spec engine options.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Well, obviously you're talking about direct-injection turbo-charged gasoline engines, which do shake up the field quite noticably. You mean as opposed to the turbocharged direct-injection diesels we're comparing them to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
They're also like a hundred kg heavier, lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:
AI said they wanted big powerful wagons. They did not say they would buy them. I could be wrong though, because like 3 posts before yours...
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I'm still amazed at how many cars sell at that type of price range or higher. I'm top 3% of single income earners/top 15% of households, have no kids, not a whole lot of debt, and still wouldn't feel comfortable spending $60k+ on a car. Come on bro, what's a little (lot) of debt between you and a trendy, rapidly-depreciating asset? But seriously, I too am amazed at how many new 60k+ cars and trucks I see on a daily basis. I'm not filthy rich, but I do pretty well and have no kids/debts, and I still wouldn't buy a 60k car. And if I did buy a 60k car, it sure as poo poo wouldn't be some luxo-truck or posh SUV like 80% of the expensive crap I see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
AI wants someone else to buy them so we can pick them up for cheap in 5 years time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You mean as opposed to the turbocharged direct-injection diesels we're comparing them to? Yes, because direct-injection turbocharged diesels were available long before direct-injection turbocharged gasoline engines, and are thus much more widely available. Look, I'm not arguing that modern gasoline engines have bested diesel engines on just about every point related to everyday driveability, but it took a long time for them to get there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
dissss posted:AI wants someone else to buy them so we can pick them up for cheap in 5 years time. Well, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Unrelated: the Camaro builder at Chevy.com is hilariously borked right now. I don't know who thought putting that live was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Yes, because direct-injection turbocharged diesels were available long before direct-injection turbocharged gasoline engines, and are thus much more widely available. It's not any harder to turbo and DI a gas engine than a diesel. I just think there wasn't a huge need to until recently. Diesels always needed DI and FI to be useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:drat. So its probably the same super high boost thing again. All second gen ecoboosts probably will be. the current 3.5 is still the first gen with the aluminum block. The second gen 3.5 is probably going to use a lot of the same tech to hit ~450hp/450ft/lbs stock. The 600+hp 3.5 in the GT is supposed to be based on the daytona prototype engine, which ford said is still based on the production block. The last lancer evo MR ended up at 3650lbs, if ford could build a fusion RS at 3700 with 400hp/400ft/lbs and the AWD system out of the FoRS everyone seems to love, they would have the new evo that doesn't feel like a tinny shitbox. If the rumors of the hotted up DCT FoRS are true, they could stick that DCT in it too, and people might actually buy one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Powershift posted:If the rumors of the hotted up DCT FoRS are true, they could stick that DCT in it too, and people might actually buy one. I would, in a heartbeat. I'd have to get a weekly shampoo at the car wash, though, from creaming my pants every time I put my foot down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Yes, because direct-injection turbocharged diesels were available long before direct-injection turbocharged gasoline engines, and are thus much more widely available. I don't think this is very fair either, most gas engines aren't as useless as VW's 2.5l was or crazy 9k RPM F20s, and have in fact quite adequate torque and power curves for everyday use. At the same time, diesels used to have rather narrow powerbands too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I don't think this is very fair either, most gas engines aren't as useless as VW's 2.5l was or crazy 9k RPM F20s, and have in fact quite adequate torque and power curves for everyday use. At the same time, diesels used to have rather narrow powerbands too. My point is that used to have more torque at normal cruising RPM than gasoline engines, which gives a nice sensation of having a more powerful engine than you actually do. E: Of course, this was and is probably more pronounced in countries where any engine larger than 2.0L is considered huge and needlessly powerful by most people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Come on bro, what's a little (lot) of debt between you and a trendy, rapidly-depreciating asset? I just assume the vast majority are on leases?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:My point is that used to have more torque at normal cruising RPM than gasoline engines, which gives a nice sensation of having a more powerful engine than you actually do. Even then the only difference is in the petrol you need to downshift before accelerating, in the diesel you'd probably have to upshift while accelerating otherwise you'll run out of puff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:17
|
|