|
Yummers posted:I bought the car for performance and to get some respect and breathing room on public roads. This is my favorite line, right here. Oh man, that bro has a Lexus, MAKE ROOM. I can't wait for his kill story thread.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
One of the guys I work with has a Dinan M3, and there's no way I'd get a Lexus over the base M3 knowing what I could do with each if I got bored with the stock variants. He just got the thing a month ago and he's going tomorrow to possibly trade up for the Lime Rock M3. I hate him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:I hate Vikingskull's friend too. He has a year old 911 Turbo, too. The Dinan is his daily beater, haha.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
discstickers posted:Hope you like torque steer. From Motor Trend: quote:Despite the GS sending all of its 270 hp to the front wheels, the aforementioned HiPer strut system apparently does its job well and dials out any excessive torque steer. Launching the car with traction control off gets you plenty of wheel spin, but with our optional 255/35 P-Zeros, the GS eventually finds its footing, and the turbo blasts you through first gear in a hurry. Link
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
Devyl posted:My point is Americans are still trying to push box-shaped vehicles through turns on race tracks. ZL1? Box. CTS-V? Box. Mustang GT? Not as boxy, but still big. I normally associate well-handling track-ready cars with being a bit more aerodynamic. We need to drag limit all the torque  Seriously, though, even though American cars aren't the slipperiest cars out there, they've come leaps and bound in terms of capability. American sports cars are fairly well sorted on race tracks nowadays. Also, if the rumors are true, the new SRT 'Cuda is going to be smaller than both the Camaro and Mustang once the Challenger gets the axe. 450hp, 3600lbs. is what I'm hearing. It's going to be on a RWD Alfa-shared platform rather than the same platform as the Charger/300. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I don't see why it matters. Is highway commuting in a ForTwo really any worse than doing so in an F-150? It is when the F-150 hits the ForTwo at highway speeds.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
In New York, sometimes a dude going 70mph in the right lane of a 4 lane highway will screw up the flow. Drive down near Nyack and see how the poo poo goes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
They always leave wiggle room on new engines for future versions, this way after a year or two they can fiddle with them and advertise a few extra horsepower as a feature of the new models.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Because America, that's why. What are you, a Communist?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
You know what? gently caress the 60's. These muscle cars are better. There, I said it. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
The Monaro is a pony car, Australia is about the only place outside North America with pony cars. The cheap, RWD daily driver part is most of it, but they need to have a V8 too, which the G and Z aren't. Those are just sports cars.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
dissss posted:The V8 Commodore/Falcons aren't really cheap though - they start at around $40k Cheap is relative, anyway. For a nicely optioned V8 Challenger or Camaro, you're looking at mid to high $30k's here in the States. The Mustang is cheaper, but cheap always meant "more horsepower than most in this price range", not actually cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Talking about reliability, the new Toyotas seem to be quirky more than lovely, but like was said they'll do 200,000 miles so they still get to keep their reputation. Boring looking cars, though. How anyone still buys a Honda is beyond me. Ugly rear end cars and they definitely aren't as reliable as they once were. Any newer Honda comes in to our auction with 100k+, it seems like it has more lights on than a Range Rover. The cars that are starting to surprise me with reliability is the Charger, though. We're starting to see Hemi Chargers come through with 300k+ on the clock. I knew the Hemi was a great engine having owned a car with one, but I never thought the Charger was going to be like a new version of the Panther chassis Fords when they came out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Holy god if it's good looking I swear I'll buy a new GNX.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Mighty Horse posted:In reality, Daimler came in, shifted all of Mercedes losses to Chrysler, allegedly took the Viper platform for the SLS, killed the real replacement for the Neon, gave us classics like the Sebring and Avenger, and disappeared with Chrysler's 6 Billion in cash. I'm a Mopar guy, I wish this little tidbit would get publicized more. Chrysler was on the upswing until MB loving salted the earth there. I have unreasonable hate for MB now, especially since they have a reputation from 20 years ago of being quality cars despite the fact that their poo poo is built for a two year life cycle the last decade. e- AMG stuff is sufficiently crazy to get a pass, though. Gimme a Black Series anything, please.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Aren't they changing it to the Barracuda for the next generation? That's the rumor. Smaller, lighter, possibly a supercharged 6.4L, badged as a SRT 'Cuda, instead of Dodge or Chrysler. Who knows, though. e- fun fact, the Barracuda was released a few weeks before the Mustang in 1964, but the Ford PR machine was much stronger. People think the Mustang was the first pony car, but it wasn't, the first gen Barracuda was. Ugly as all get out though, jesus gently caress. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Yeah I'd have a Valiant from that era, but the 2nd and 3rd gen versions weren't all bad. Challenger, Road Runner, and Demon all looked way better though. If I had to go early 60's Mopar, Dodge Polara all the way. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Does it help that the Ram Fitteen Hunnert got some kind of award or something? drat, the Sport Quad Cab is more than a full second in the 1/4 slower than my 05 Regular Cab. Never make a 4x4 Quad Cab and call it a "Sport", Big 3. You look like fools. In any case, I've owned my Ram for 7 years and all I've ever had to do was routine maintenance on it. They've only improved the breed, too. Ford makes some decent trucks, but the Ram has been the best thing going in the segment for a few years now. Elwood P. Dowd posted:I mean, I understand why the ridgeline doesn't get much respect as a TRUCK but as far as trucks go it is about the perfect truck for a certain niche into which my wife and I fit. Mostly the "she oversees a large girl scout camp and needs capacity outside of the cabin of her vehicle to carry stuff and we also like to go kayaking and camping and things with our friends and I like to go four-wheeling and things and we don't have any space for a trailer on our tiny lot in the city" demographic. It has treads built into the bedliner, basically letting everyone know that you can haul your toys to the trails. Anyone who buys a Ridgeline thinking that the truck itself is more than transportation or a toy doesn't really get what the Ridgeline was designed for. It's a casual light truck, not a contractors battle wagon, and it does exactly what it was designed to do. It's going to get you into and out of the woods, pick up the kids, haul a deer carcass or some lumber. It's not going to tow a fifth wheel or have an anti-aircraft gun fitted to it in a Middle Eastern civil war. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
It's not the cop car, the SS is a limited run luxury sports sedan that's sort of the same as the cop car, but I'd imagine with leather seats. I read somewhere they want to sell 10,000 of them a year or so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I thought the cop car was the SS and they were already showing off pre-production models of it. Aren't they still on the wall about whether there is even going to be another Commodore? The cop car isn't the SS.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
MikeyTsi posted:The term "Sport Utility Vehicle" existed before there was a vehicle that you could realistically put four-wheelers or whateverthefuck "in the back" No but you could strap a kayak to the roof and tow a trailer with four wheelers on it. SUV means "Hey I'm not a truck, but you can do some truck things with me! Also you can put kids in me!" They were never supposed to be rock crawling mud trucks with diesels and light bars or whatever AI thinks they should be. The Ridgeline absolutely is a good SUV. I'd even say it's better than any Explorer made today. SUV's for the most part have turned into tall station wagons. e- I'm pretty sure we could have fit a four wheeler in the back of my dad's old RamCharger now that I think about it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
OrganizedEntropy posted:Apparently the 4.3 is an all new engine..effectively just the current LT V8 with 2 of the cylinders lopped off. The 4.3 is a 350 with 2 of the cylinders lopped off
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Because that worked out so well for them last time. God I'd kill to see Ford dump billions into F1 just for a repeat performance of the early 1960's
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Ford actually only invested £100,000 in the Cosworth DFV. I meant the GT40 at Le Mans. It's one of the greatest moments in all of racing history, and it's the only time an American car company has thrown its full weight behind an international racing series. I've always said that there's no reason a GM or Ford couldn't win a constructors title in F1, there's just no will to do it. Ford partnering with Boeing to poo poo all over F1 would be a glorious thing to behold, if only for the tears generated from the likes of Ferrari. It's that whole sleeping giant thing. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:While I get what you're saying, that's not really 100% true - look at what GM's done with the Corvette since 1999. What's more, that's been with a single team and even a fairly constant driver line up. GT class wins and overall victory are two very different things entirely. Bob NewSCART posted:Why are you so confident that if any American company even lifted it's finger it would absolutely destroy all these European companies who have been doing this poo poo since the start? They wouldn't necessarily be successful, but we'll never know unless they try (they won't, they don't care).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Hasn't the WRX always kind of been a GT, though? 4 doors, rear seat.... it's not exactly a sports car. It's always had a nice interior, too, compared with the base models. Boy-racer sure, the wings and scoops, but at its heart it's been a GT car. What they should say is "cars are getting fatter and heavier, and quality is of increasing concern, so the new WRX will reflect that". It's not like they are breaking new ground or even telling us something we didn't expect.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Well, in fairness, I'm American, so our GT's have always been economy car + go fast parts + leather = GT.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Here's a promo vid on the C7 now, lemme see the C7R 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Considering they went with the Stingray moniker, I'm not surprised it looks as cartoonish as it does. To us it's a timeless classic, but when that first Stingray Vette came out, it was probably the craziest looking car you could buy. Some of the styling cues I disagree with, but overall it looks like what it is. Brutish and sharp. Between the Vette and the Viper, most exotic car companies save maybe Lamborghini have been put on notice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
If you want pure acceleration numbers, you need a fuckoff huge Roots blower. When you're counting tenths of a second, twin turbo setups still have lag that makes a difference. You want the torque and you want it now. I'm honestly surprised they don't just twin charge the Veyron to get that extra 400 horses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Doesn't VW have a small displacement twin charged car? I'm actually kind of sure there's been a few over the years from different companies, but I don't have time to Google it right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Devyl posted:You guys lack creativity. The secret in the launch is the torque. To go much faster than the Bugatti's up-coming 1.8 second time, we need to look into creating a fully-electric engine. Keep it used strictly for initial launch to accelerate whatever vehicle it's inside forward with 2,000+ Ft/Lbs of torque while the gas-powered motor builds up the horsepower needed to continue moving the vehicle forward. Of course, have the electric engine limited to being in a "full race" mode with separate key required. Any other mode like "sport" or "luxury" runs the gas engine only. And if you want to get really fancy, you can have the gas-powered engine recharge the electric engine to save on battery & electricity costs. So it all boils down to someone deciding to drop a twin-turbo LS9 in a Nissan Leaf with lots more electrical power. And sticky tires. Electric motors might be the answer, no one has ever really tried it in terms of an all out acceleration machine. I suggested large Roots superchargers because that's the solution every acceleration based motorsport has arrived at. Top fuel/funny cars, drag boats, sand dragsters, hill climbers.... if it's about straight line power it has a Roots blower on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Yeah, the technology while not young per se certainly isn't as developed as the IC engine is, and I'm sure we'll reach the point where electric motors post impressive acceleration numbers. That might even be the way for Bugatti to go, because it fits the technological innovation angle they are shooting for. The weight of any system might be a deal killer, though, which is another plus for them to consider a blower (or two). That's the Buckeye Bullet, a student built project from Ohio State University. It holds the electric speed record of 307.666, so we're getting there. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Meanwhile, in go-really-fast news: Hennessey is a dipshit but that goddamned car is evil. If you told me a 15 years ago that there would be multiple cars pushing close to 300mph and actually driveable on the street, I would have called you crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
I bet I've seen two dozen Crown Vics at auction with 500k miles, and a top of 800k miles. They have a lot of shortcomings but they are not a lovely car.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Going back to the point about buying muscle cars as a young guy, yeah, they could. You know who the people were that were buying those cars, though? Guys right out of the military, Vietnam era. Most of my moms cousins had SS Chevelles, Cyclone Spoilers etc that they bought after being discharged. My dad bought a 64 Sport Fury with a 383 and a 4 speed. A lot of young kids could buy them new, or a year old, by saving summer money. You want to afford a new muscle car? Enlist, go get shot at in Afghanistan, and don't spend anything while you're out there. e- when it comes to American muscle cars, I think the big 3 know their market, and they learned it after WWII/Korea. Guys hooked on adrenalin coming back from a war. The first muscle war happened in the mid-50's, the second in the late 60's, and the third is happening right now, all during and after a major American conflict. There's other factors at play, but I think that's the main one. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Feb 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Well back then the median wage was higher for people too. I'm pretty sure in the US if you adjusted minimal wage to match inflation, back in 1968 you were making $10.50 in today's dollars. People had more buying power back then. Absolutely, and there was less discretionary spending, as well. You didn't have a cell phone bill as a teenager, no MMO monthly fee, designer clothes weren't what they are now, all of that. I do stick by my point, though, that the big 3 specifically targeted young males coming home from war who needed some kind of excitement once they got back. Last month my grandfather died, and while the family was together after the services, I was talking to my mom's cousins about my Daytona Ram, and how underneath the pickup body, it was basically a muscle car chassis instead of a modern setup. They all started telling stories of street racing in the late 60's, and all of them said the same thing basically. They had a ton of money saved up from when they were deployed, and when they returned home at the ripe old age of 21, they wanted the fastest, brightest and most obnoxious cars they could afford. Back then there were 3 dragstrips near our area, but they spent more time street racing because it was more exciting and dangerous. They said they got off on the danger and rebellious aspect of illegal street racing, and it helped them adjust back to normal life a bit easier. I think Detroit has known about this phenomenon since post WWII, and they specifically target that market because of it. Hell, the Super Bee and Road Runner in particular were definitely targeted at young people almost exclusively. They were totally stripper cars with the biggest engines available, and the only options were performance oriented, mostly. Retail on those were around $3,000 even, cheap even for that time period. Cars like that in the 60's, with their bright colors and flashy bodywork and stripes, definitely weren't marketed at guys 40+, as most of that market was conservative and not part of the counter-culture movement at the time. Mopars especially, though Ford and Chevy had their share. The Mopar muscle cars were counter-culture in their roots, and their styling certainly showed it, they were basically targeting males age 18-30. e- Hell, Dodge wanted to call Plum Crazy purple Statutory Grape, until the lawyers stepped in. You don't name a color Statutory Grape while marketing to middle aged men. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Feb 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
I looked it up and apparently a journalist coined the name while writing about Charlie Glotzbach's Plum Crazy NASCAR Superbird, so yeah, not a Mopar name. Still, though, color names were outrageous back then. Dodge: Sublime Green Go Go Mango Top Banana Panther Pink Plum Crazy Plymouth: Limelight Sassy Grass Green Vitamin “C” Lemon Twist Moulin Rouge In Violet Tor Red Ford: Original Cinnamon Bring ‘Em Back Olive Three Putt Green Anti-Establish Mint Last Stand Custard There She Blue Young Turquoise Hulla Blue Good Clean Fawn Counter Revolutionary Red Knight White Freudian Gilt History Onyx Not exactly color names that would appeal to a 45 year old CPA or engineer. Snowdens Secret posted:In 1968 the work force barely included any women. Cut out half your labor pool and make the other half support a household on a single earner's salary and the value of labor will unsurprisingly jump. They couldn't afford a brand new car, but the used market was much better than it is now. Now people buy a car and keep it 5-10 years, but in the 50's, 60's and 70's it wasn't uncommon to get a new car every 2 or 3 years if you had the capability to buy new. So a kid in 1972 could get a 69 Chevelle for $1,000 (or less). That's mainly how young kids could get a muscle car back then by saving paper route money for a year or two. Most 16-21 year olds weren't buying new, just like today. It's just that the cars you could get used back then were way cooler on average. One of my co-workers owned about a dozen Challengers in the late 70's, because you could pick them up for $500. After the gas crisis in '73, muscle cars were hard to own, and weren't collectibles yet, so the depreciation on them was really crazy. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Feb 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:this is interesting as hell, I never knew about the military/muscle car connection. It's not something that's ever been directly commented on, but it's there. As was said, tons of shady people outside of military bases target members of the military for all kinds of useless and expensive poo poo, and you can see that the car manufacturers do, too. It's part of the reason why you could get muscle cars in the 60's and today with a 6, but dolled up to look like the more powerful 8 powered cars. In the 60's you could get a Challenger with R/T stripes and any of the bright colors, yet powered by a slant 6, or the Mustang today that you can option out similarly. Stuff like that, IMO, is proof positive that the big 3 know kids want those cars and try and maximize potential sales to them in the fullest. The war thing is just a theory I have, but you have to admit that the 3 horsepower wars coincidentally occur at the same time as the last 3 major wars, regardless of the economic situation of the time. We had a recession in the 80's and early 90's and no muscle cars, but no wars either. Now we have the worst recession in 100 years yet a horsepower war, and I think the two wars post-9/11 totally factor into the new cars being released. It's also a uniquely American phenomenon, I don't think similar marketing strategies have occurred elsewhere in the capitalist world. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Linedance posted:I can agree with the American phenomenon, but what about Gulf War 1 and the Balkans? Is there some sort of cutoff or troop deployment tipping point for American military involvement that determines whether or not new muscle cars come out? What Xguard86 said. That stuff lasted weeks or months at best, with a few hundred thousand people involved. Millions served in the two wars now, millions served in Vietnam and Korea. It's a market segment worth targeting when you get numbers like that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 01:10
|
|