|
XCPuff posted:The new Impala looks pretty impressive. It's definitely not what I expected. It looks like a chevy taurus, and i can't help but think that 182hp could potentially have trouble motivating a 4000lb car. I do love the interior, though.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
davebo posted:Okay this is the info I was waiting for. I want to buy a car this fall and I was hoping the Impala would wow me over the Ford Fusion or Kia Optima. I like the look and the interior, but I'm totally confused by the engine choices. You've got 182hp/172tq, something eco-friendly that's fine, then 195/187 and 303/264? Why would you have 182 and 195 so close together? Nothing at all in the 220 region? 182 is going be rear end and I don't need 300hp in a daily driver mammoth sedan unless it's rwd. Come on GM, I've got a garage full of your cars and you're pushing me to other dealerships. the 182hp 2.4 is a hybrid drivetrain, and will likely be priced near the v6. The 195hp 2.5 is going to be the new rental spec which in the current model is the 300hp v6. A more appropriate question would be "Where's the turbo?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
Presto posted:The front can't decide whether it wants to be a Farrari California, a plain old Dodge with the crossbar, or an Alfa-Romeo. and here i thought it had decided that it wants to be a ginetta g50  the race car looks even more like it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
davebo posted:That's still the car I'm hoping to get later this year, pending release of some more info. They list all the engine options on the website but no power numbers yet. Meanwhile Chevy released all those figures for the 2014 Impala at the NY show and that won't be out until next spring. What gives Ford? quote:The standard Fusion – available in S, SE and Titanium trims – will be available with three engines. The base mill is a 2.5-liter naturally aspirated inline-four with 170 horsepower and 170 pound-feet of torque, mated solely to a six-speed automatic transmission. We're sure it's a fine powerplant, but our interest is more settled on the next two: a 1.6-liter EcoBoost four with 179 hp and 172 lb-ft, and the range-topping 2.0-liter EcoBoost four with 237 hp and 250 lb-ft. Both engines can be had with the same six-speed automatic, though the smaller 1.6-liter engine can be mated to a six-speed manual box. Front-wheel drive is standard across the board, but top-of-the-line Fusions with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine can be had with all-wheel drive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Volvo still makes wagons in the states, right? You mean this one? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:I don't know man, nothing can be worse than those twin turds Sebring and Avenger. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Press release says 1648 kg or about 3600 lbs. Not exactly amazing, but the Toyota Avalon's of similar size and it's in that weight ballpark, while the Dodge Charger's like 4000 lbs. The dodge charger wishes it was 4000lbs. Motor trend weighed the SRT8 in at 4271 lbs edit: the cadillac xts is listed at 3995lbs in fwd/3.6, it's the same platform the impala will be built on, and the impala is set to be powered by a 2.4l i4 with 184hp and 172ft/lbs of torque. Powershift fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah that's definitely fat as gently caress, but it does have 6 liter engine and pushrod or not that's gonna be heavy. The new redesigned 2012 Charger is listed at 3961 lbs for the base V6, which isn't that horrible. We're comparing base engines, after all. The new V6 in the Charger puts out a bit less than 300 hp, so not too bad. Where did you find the specs? i can't seem to dig through chryslers piece of poo poo of a site. I would love to know what an AWD R/T weighs in at.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I usually just hit up google. drat. I wonder if it's anything like the last gen AWD chargers with their 64/36 weight distro. edit: yahoo says 55/45, i guess they added that 200lbs to the rear end end. Also, the ford taurus with the 2.0T is listed by ford at 3990lbs, so if you aussies need something to worry about, it should be the US taurus becoming your next falcon. Powershift fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:That is the problem. They more safety crap they stuff into these cars, the more drivers (if you can call them that) seem to take themselves out of the driving equasion and the car is built to allow them to survive and continue to repeat their ways. I'd like that last option please! Right now, there's nothing stopping someone who took their drivers test in a neon from jumping in one of these and taking it anywhere.  Also, there is nothing worse than being stuck behind a rental motorhome on a mountain highway because the driver is too scared of their vehicle to do even half of the speed limit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:People will always be idiots, but we're teaching less about driving and maintaining vehicles while the vehicles themselves are getting more powerful and require less skill on the side of the driver. Most insurance companies offer discounts for drivers courses. In alberta, with our government controlled insurance costs, it is treated as 3 years driving experience on the scale, but you can't add to it, meaning you don't move to 4 years on the scale until your actualy 4th year of ticketless, accidentless driving.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
I sat in a new BMW 6 series at the auto show here, you just touch the door to the catch and a little eletric motor goes "BRRRRRRRRRT" and finishes shutting the door for you. Like luxury car trunks and stuff. All i can think of is "how much does that cost to fix"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
rscott posted:Fooled me. Tail lights look almost exactly the same along with the dash and a lot of the interior. I'm beginning to suspect that general motors is only willing to put forth the minimum level of effort required to survive as a car company.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Here's pics of the unibody and rear suspension. http://www.bmw.no/no/no/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2011/showroom/dynamics/xdrive.html It says quite clearly right there, FIREHJULSDRIFTSSYSTEM 
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's stopping you from buying a CTS wagon right now? I'm guessing the fact that it's twice the price of the camaro with the same engine, and on the same platform as the holden wagon.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Although Holden had a hand in the initial design of the Sigma platform, it's a pretty different beast from the Zeta platform used in the Holden Cars. For one, Sigma has double A-arms in the front instead of MacPherson struts on the Zeta, and also the Sigma platform is much lighter since it has a lot more aluminum in it. The CTS Wagon is a great car, arguably a better one than the VE Holden, but it's also really very expensive. The thing stickers at $38-40k base. The Pontiac G8 sold for $10k less. The Camaro is the one that's built off of a modified Zeta platform. I'm not good at english, i meant the camaro is the one built off zeta. To get the 3.6 they sell even in the impala, you have to option the CTS up 10 grand. The 3.0 is where the 3.6 should be and the 3.6 is where a v8 should be in the CTS.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah I mean I still don't know of many reasons you'd choose an iQ over something like a Mazda 2, Kia Rio, or a Yaris or something. I can think of few reasons why having a tiny car instead of merely a regular subcompact would actually be a benefit instead of a pain in the rear end. The 3-5 mpg difference really isn't that big when we're talking about mileages in the 30s to start with. Think of the cygnet body kits!
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Body kit? I believe you mean "bespoke luxury commuter car". Apparently Aston Martin labors under the impression that people buy their cars for the "design, craftsmanship, and attention to detail" put into the interior and not because they look cool and are loud and fast. but everybody will be making cygnet body kits for the iQ. when aston sues one into the ground, 2 more will pop up in it's place.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Arclyte posted:So this Veloster Turbo that is supposed to be hitting the market in 2 months has a matte grey paint option. What sort of special care would that need? If it's anything like the BMW, you have to wash the car front to back the second a bird poops on it, and can't wipe it down at all. Are you sure it's matte grey and not just gloss grey vs metallic silver?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Naky posted:Yeah, it's a matte grey. I've seen it and there are pictures of it around the net as well as confirmation of it being a color option. Huh, neat, hopefully we have a lot of guinea pigs to show us how it stands up to regular use.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:I.....dont hate this: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/17/mansory-channels-enzo-styling-in-ferrari-458-spider-monaco-editi/ For a Mansory car, it's surprisingly restrained. What exactly would it taken them to put on the car for you to consider it tasteless?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
First test numbers for the 2013 GT500 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1205_2013_ford_shelby_gt500_first_test/ 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds 0-100mph in 7.7 seconds 11.6@125.7mph quarter mile. That quarter mile slots it in nicely between the 458 italia and the mercedes SLS AMG for strait line speed. It sounds like it's a lot easier to handle than the old car as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:It's what one or two of its horses are designed to help move. It's 26 extra pounds but if that really bothers you, a tune on an otherwise stock GT500 nets you an extra 50rwhp, and 50rwtq More than enough to carry that glass roof around.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
Tekne posted:http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/06/23/teen-flips-car-into-garage-alcohol-may-be-factor/ A probably drunk sixteen year old with four of his friends flipped a new dart off a boulder through a garage door, but luckily, nobody was killed by his joyride. Hooray for free advertising, I guess. And who ever said the new dart didn't live up to the name.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:At some point in the future Americans are going to have to suck it up and accept a city car, given most never go more then 60 miles from home on any given day. You could easily get a last gen accent hatchback here for about 10 grand even. That made it about $3,000 cheaper than the next cheapest new car. I would expect the nissan versa, as terrible as it is, to take it's place, simply because it starts at $10,999. Not because it's good and not because it's small, but because it's the cheapest new car you can buy. Looking at "city cars" in the US right now. the smart car is $1,500 more and completely impractical, the fiat 500 is $4,500 more, the scion iq is a full $5,000 more,
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
that roofline/windowline looks familiar  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It also got beat in that comparison by a plebian upgraded Mustang or Corvette, or the domestic CTS-V. But none of those cars get you respect and breathing room on public roads. I doubt you'd even get more than one look with a CTS or a mustang.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:The M3 is turbo now? Remember this is edmunds though. They drive it like they own it. Motor trend will drive it like they stole it and probably knock half a second off making it fall more or less in line with other vehicles in it's range. dissss posted:I dunno, I think the IS-F is a pretty sweet car. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:What's the Fortwo run? 12.8 seconds to 60 edit: It would be quicker to haul the smart car up a 7% grade in the back of a base model V6 f-150 than it would be to run the quarter mile with it on flat ground. Powershift fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Oct 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Did Smart think about things like highway/interstate merging when they came up with the Fortwo? Because I travel on I-10 almost daily and if you can't merge in just a second or two, you're more than likely to be in a wreck. Probably not. It was designed for European roads, and is only sold in north America as a fashion accessory.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
I have to push the mirror control button back to make my truck do it  on the plus side, i can push the button and make them fold in on the highway for extra speed!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
If they carried their motorcycle philosophy over to the car side, they're cars probably wouldn't have sucked so bad. Why they aimed for the top with their motorcycles, and rock bottom with their cars never made sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
So now that that's over, can we start taking bets on when mitsubishi will pack it in? They sell about twice what suzuki sells in a month. but that still leaves them with less than 6 new vehicles sold per month, per dealer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:Well there goes any hopes of the Evo coming back. Sigh. The lancer evo, yes, but imagine an i-MiEV evo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Powershift posted:The lancer evo, yes, but imagine an i-MiEV evo. Just a side note. I smile every tine I drive by the local mitsu dealer because they are basically a scummy used car dealer that happens to have 20 new mitsubishis on the lot. Their featured vehicle for the last month ha been an 08 King Ranch f-150 with 95k kms on it and they want $33, 995 for it. I paid less than $15k for an 06 with 128k kms and more options E:dammit, missed the edit button
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Hashal posted:I'd say most auto-vette owners bought it because of the name and the looks. Since that's the only reason, no need or desire to get a manual. You can only get a Z06 in manual, which I think is awesome. Ford is doing this too, and it's great. The GT500, boss 302, and focus ST are all manual only.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:New Audi S6/7 has a DCT with a 420hp V8. Counterpoint: VW/Audi seems to have a different metric for "reliability" than other carmakers especially concerning new transmissions. the audi S6 starts at 72 grand, the audi s7 starts at 80 grand. the base corvette starts at 50. That's a pretty large gap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Those things compete with the 550i and E550, all these cars just have big MSRPs but never sell without huge incentives because they are still just an A6/5 series at the end of the day. Remember the 8 speed autos that most of the cars in this class come with are the same ones you get in a V6 Same design, yes, but there are different spec levels to match different outputs. A BMW 760i would no doubt shred the 8HP45 in the v6 ram. There's probably a good reason the ram ram ram v8s have yet to receive an 8 speed, and a good chance the SRT8 davebo posted:As a second-hand auto corvette owner I'd like to say I bought it because it was a great deal. The problem with manual corvettes is the manual is a premium option on top of the base price, so people get it in their heads that the manual transmission they've probably been molesting for however many miles is now worth thousands more selling it used. 8 speeds sure seems like a lot though. Don't you eventually hit a point of diminishing returns where the amount of time in the peak power band isn't worth the time lost shifting? I had aspirations of getting a used C7 in 5-ish years but I'm starting to think it might be nice just having something tiny with less power. Not Miata less-power but something like that. Absolutely. Even the automated manuals in class 8 trucks are only going with 9 or 10 gears. on pavement, i've never had to use any more than 12 even loaded to 105,000lbs. Splitting the bottom 5 gears on hard ground takes more time to shift than it does to accelerate in full gears. Granted i have a fairly low rear gear, but still Powershift fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The one in the A6/5 series is the 8HP45. in the 310hp a6, and the 300hp 535i, yes. The 550i uses the 8HP70. edit: the 8 speed transmission is expensive enough that the 4.8L v8/6 speed auto is now the base model truck. the V6/8-speed is the next level up. Powershift fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
Tekne posted:http://www.leftlanenews.com/jeep-grand-cherokee-2014.html They recently spotted a Grand Cherokee SRT8 with the new 8 speed, so it's probably going to make it to the rest of the lineup as well. I wonder what the power ceiling is for this variation of the transmission. The only 2 variations chrysler is expected to be using is the 8HP45 and 8HP70. the 70 is rated for 516 ft/lbs of torque. the current srt 6.4 produces 470hp/465 ft/lbs, but if it stays at that level they're going to seriously fall behind the competition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 08:42
|
|