Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

«‹›4 »

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

bull3964 posted:

That's not always true though.

Your ABS can flake out in a way that renders you completely and utterly unable to apply any brake pressure. When your ABS control unit takes over, it takes over and overrides your braking ability. That the very basis of ABS.

The abs system just has to decide that your brakes are locked up 100% and they will override your attempt to apply pressure. This was actually a very well known defect in the ABS system in early WRXs. Uneven terrain had the ability to confuse the abs system to the point where all braking pressure was completely gone.

Ice mode is evil and should be disabled whenever temperatures are clearly well above freezing. :colbert:

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 03:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:59

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

InitialDave posted:

He's not just talking about ice mode, he's also talking about the ABS system treating a wheel as being locked and cutting fluid flow to it - but the system "thinks" it's working properly, so it doesn't flag up any faults or bring the light on, you just find out when you hit the brake and one of your calipers doesn't respond. You both have reduced braking force and a strong pull to one side. It's very unsettling.

Oh crap.

Why wouldn't the system turn the light on if it thought a wheel was locked? Or was that the fault? How do you even fix something like that?

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 18:14

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Sagebrush posted:

So you can thank John Leonard of Seattle for demonstrating to advertisers just how phenomenally stupid and greedy the average American is.

A local newspaper ad once advertised 2L bottles of Pepsi for 0.89�. I grabbed 5, gave them a nickel, showed them the ad, and told them to keep the change. They refused to honor the ad, though

Taking advantage of poorly thought-out sales and ad campaigns isn't greed, it's smart shopping. :colbert:

# ¿ Feb 3, 2013 21:01

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Know how all the auto manufacturers are switching to small displacement turbocharged engines to get similar power with large boosts in fuel efficiency? And still pretending it's the 70s when "Turbo" was synonymous for "performance" when it comes to badging and premium pricing? Consumer reports says they're full of poo poo in the real world.

Yahoo posted:

Small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one. That's a tempting proposition, but our testing shows these small-displacement turbos are not delivering on the promises.

By now, we've tested many cars with these engines, and lots of competitors with traditional, naturally-aspirated powerplants, big and small. Generally, the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines. Looking at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated based on laboratory tests), some of these cars' turbocharged engines seem to have an advantage. But we found those results don't match the findings from our own fuel-economy tests.

The latest example is the collection of EcoBoost Ford Fusions we tested, which come with small, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The smallest one�a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp�is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four cylinder on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall places it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans. The Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, all with conventional 2.4- or 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 mpg, respectively. And all accelerate more quickly.

The larger among Ford's EcoBoost four-cylinder engines, the turbocharged 231-hp, 2.0-liter, is billed as having the power of a V6 but delivering the fuel economy of a four-cylinder. However, our so-equipped Fusion Titanium returned 22 mpg (which pales against the 25 and 26 mpg we recorded for the best V6 family sedans), slower acceleration and reduced refinement compared to its V6-powered peers.

Another example is our tests of the Chevrolet Cruze. Our base Cruze had the 1.8-liter four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version came with the 1.4-liter turbo four cylinder. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and it got the same fuel economy as the larger engine�26 mpg overall.

Turbochargers pump extra air into the engine to deliver more power. But all engines have to be operated at a very specific air-to-fuel ratio. So this extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset any savings from shrinking engine sizes.

One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an abundance of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily driving, this means a more effortless feeling of thrust with reduced need to downshift while climbing hills or when delivering the kind of moderate acceleration most drivers demand. That can make a car feel more responsive, even if its actual acceleration times from a standstill are slower. However, not all of these turbocharged models deliver that benefit. Many, especially those smaller 1.4- and 1.6-liter engines, still downshift frequently to keep up with traffic. And all but one of the tested cars have slower mid-range acceleration from 45-65 mph.

In contrast, BMW's turbocharged four-cylinder engines seem to deliver both good fuel economy and acceleration: The 2.0-liter turbocharged four cylinder contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last tested 328i sedan. It improved mileage only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV compared to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, with essentially identical power and acceleration but somewhat comprised refinement. The 2.0-liter turbo four cylinder engine we've tested in Audis and Volkswagens usually return impressive mileage, though we haven't tested any identical model powered by two different engines for such a direct comparison.

There's a table in the link below with actual measured mileages.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-050100955.html

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 11:42

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

b0nes posted:

I used to live within 20 miles of 2 lotus dealers.

Do people drive Boxters anymore? Or even the Cayman? How are the sales? I see lots of Cayennes,Panameras, Targas and Turbos.

For the last few years, Porsche sold roughly the same number of 987s (Boxster & Cayman) as 997s (911s of all flavors) and Panameras in the US. They sold about as many Cayennes as they did all the rest of their cars combined. Sales across the board have been way down from 2009-2012 due to the recession, though the new 981 Boxster is expected to be wildly popular and may see a resurgence as the economy continues to recover and might even overtake the 991 market this year.

May be a regional thing; I'd be willing to bet roadsters are the most popular in areas which have the most top-down days. Boxsters used to be extremely rare in my area, but they seem to be getting a lot more common as cost comes down in the used market and spend less time sitting in the garage as a 2nd car for rich people and more time as middle class DD.

grover fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Feb 13, 2013

# ¿ Feb 13, 2013 11:45

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

blk posted:

Kind of surprised how high Porsche is on the list.

Why would you be surprised? Porsches are actually quite well known as being extremely reliable cars. They're one of the new high performance cars you can flail the gently caress out of constantly, and they just come back for more.

Be prepared to bend over and take it in the rear end if you ever have to take it to the dealer, though; everything costs WAY more than it should. The 20k oil change interval might also help with the way JD Power does their ratings.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 03:49

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

leica posted:

I think Entier would like to argue that after shelling out a shitload of money to replace the motor in his Cayman. Not to mention the other large numbers of people that had to do the same thing because Porsche wouldn't admit there was a problem. Yeah sign me up for that

Small % chance of catastrophic failure every time you turn the key: part of the Porsche excitement!

I'm sure if JD Power considered repair cost, Porsche would be further down the list. But 997.2/987.2 covered in this report don't have IMS issues, not do the Cayennes which represent the bulk of the #s.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 04:42

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

kimbo305 posted:

It only looks bad because Porsche markets the DNA of their products as being racing derived. Lots of Porsche owners track their cars and they don't quite stand up to that lofty marketing claim.

The failure rate of tracked Porsches is pretty damned good compared to... well... just about everything else people track stock.

It's ironic, but the primary failure mode for IMS bearings is not abuse by driving the car too hard, but abuse by not driving it hard enough! Seems Porsche designed the M96 engine, but had issues with oil pooling during long high-speed sweepers during track sessions in early development and compensated by raising the oil level. This unfortunately changed the IMS from a normally only subject to oil splash to being semi-immersed in oil all the time, which lead to seal failure. At which point, the grease washes out and the IMS is lubricated entirely with engine oil. Low-viscosity motor oil requires high RPMs to properly lubricate the IMS bearing. One big shop did done numbers on this and found the failure rate for tracked cars and "drive it like you stole it" cars was WAY lower than the failure rate for low mileage garage queens- EG, the cars that may never see 3000 RPM their entire lives. This is, incidentally, also the most likely reason tiptronics have lower failure rates: owners accidentally push the pedal too hard and their cars downshift compared to their "launch in 5th gear" counterparts. That one rennlist thread where the owner accidentally got his engine up to 6500rpm and was terrified he broke the engine cracked me up almost as much as the thread where one owner seriously asked if you wax your car yourself or only trust professionals to do it- yes, those people DO exist, and really need to have their Porsches forcibly taken away. As do the 80% of BMW 1-series owners who think their car is FWD. But that's another topic altogether...

From what I know of EinTier, I'm positive he did everything right. I'd be willing to bet his IMS was destroyed and on the way out before he even bought the car, but he had no way to know it until it finally let go.

grover fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Feb 15, 2013

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 16:00

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

leica posted:

Exactly. Here's your race derived car, but don't drive it too hard because IMS bearings!

Except IMS failures are not related to tracking- they're actually related to NOT tracking. I just explained this two posts above yours.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 17:22

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Pr0kjayhawk posted:

Fair point but I don't really give that car much thought. 600hp from a 3.6l engine is going to have some massive turbo lag and if I was going to spend $140-150k on a car it wouldn't be a Porsche.

Also I can't afford a GT2 so that helps me not care about it.

How effectively can a GT2 RS put 612hp to ground? Is that getting past the point of diminishing returns, where you'd actually be better off with less hp and a lighter car? It's hard to compare 0-60, 1/4 and 'ring times online because there are so many variables, but the numbers just don't seem to show much advantage to the GT2 with any respect beyond sheer top speed, and the GT3 appears to be slightly quicker 0-60.

grover fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Feb 17, 2013

# ¿ Feb 17, 2013 19:46

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Internet Meme posted:

I wonder if the top speed is tire limited. There are a lot of exotics that are electronically limited to 217mph for some reason.

217mph=350kph and could be limited for aero/liability much like the quite arbitrary self-imposed 155mph/250kph electronic limiters in a lot of other cars.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 04:04

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Devyl posted:

Top speed of 75 mph? Yup, that's not going to be a big seller unless it's ridiculously cheap. Oh god, just imagine trying to get on the highway or Interstate

While 235mpg would be nice, I think I'd settle for a nice happy 100mpg @ 75mph and a 0-60 time somewhere maybe under 10 seconds. Ideally under 8. If they can do that and keep it under $30k, they'll sell millions of them. With hybrid electric technology, it really shouldn't be that difficult to get decent acceleration in a very light package.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 04:14

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Jork Juggler posted:

Here's an update from an article that is 11 months newer. The future is here, kids, and it will hit 62MPH in only 12.7 seconds.

Hmmm... what's that say about mileage?

autoblog posted:

The car uses a plug-in hybrid system to achieve mind-blowing consumption of just 0.9 liters of diesel fuel consumed every 100 kilometers (and average of roughly 261 miles per gallon).

Dammit, I hate when manufacturers cheat like that. If it gets 261 miles per gallon, you should be able to drive 2610 miles on 10 gallons. If you can't, IT'S NOT 261MPG! I wonder what the plug-in range is and what it actually gets in real-world use? poo poo, you might as well call the Volt a 1,000,000mpg car because all it consumes in 100km is a little bit of lost fuel vapor.

Also, I figured out why it's limited to 75mph. Those were the highest rated donuts they could find. :eng101:

Still, it's super-light-weight and mid-engine/rwd. I wonder how it handles with nice wide sticky tires, and how much extra hp can be eked out of the engine and electric motor with an ECU flash?

grover fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Feb 27, 2013

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 11:41

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Bob NewSCART posted:

Oh, that's what I thought he was saying but it was weirdly worded so I was a little lost. Yeah, something with some fat sticky tires plus an extremely solid AWD is a car you probably don't want to be sliding around.

I dunno, sliding around at high speeds is pretty damned fun, too, if done properly and in a safe environment. I mean, how can you know what the limit is if you never reach it? Or worse- TC kicks on in bad weather on a gravelly off-camber intersection once and you end up calibrating your butt dyno far too low and driving a high performance car like your grandma drives her buick?

Modern cars- and modern tires- are just plain good. Even the "bad" cars seem pretty damned good. Horsepower wars and new suspensions have definitely improved the marketplace.

grover fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Feb 28, 2013

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 11:58

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Devyl posted:

Old news man. The new C7 news is the 'vert.

My god that looks good. How much heavier is it than the coupe?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2013 17:45

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

The new $4.6M Lamborghini Veneno is way over the top in every respect, and that just makes the little kid in me absolutely giddy!

http://jalopnik.com/lamborghini-veneno-all-of-it-450933018

grover fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Mar 4, 2013

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 18:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Pr0kjayhawk posted:

The 991 GT3 Cup keeps the Mezger engine while the base GT3 has a modified DFI engine. That says a lot right there.

I'm super excited for the car but Andreas Preuninger almost seemed to be apologizing for some of the technology that found its way into the 991 GT3. Porsche's site has the car at $130k base though, that's about $20k lower than I was expecting. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on 997.1 GT3 prices this summer.

I'm keeping an eye out for motivated sellers during sequestration, especially around DC; I have a feeling there'll be some great deals to be had on 911s over the next few months.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2013 16:36

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Residency Evil posted:

Are we at the point yet where we admit to ourselves that the 991 GT3 is just another sign that Porsche is moving away towards making street cars that are meant to be driven on the track?

Counterpoint: Boxster Spyder and Cayman R. The 911 chassis is being ever so incrementally turned into more of a european touring car and less of a pure sports car. 991 GT3 should really be 981 GT3. Everyone else realizes it, why doesn't Porsche?

grover fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Mar 5, 2013

# ¿ Mar 5, 2013 17:42

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

The Midniter posted:

Exactly...I see this red Cayman S driving around town and it's 1) a stunningly gorgeous car, 2) everything I've read about it makes it sound like a driver's wet dream even moreso than a 911.

But I still want a 911 more! It makes no sense.

Makes no sense that you'd want an extra hundred or so horsepower more than you can get in a Cayman? Porsche may be losing the horsepower wars, but that fun pedal is still awfully fun.

I'm just upset 997.2S is holding it's value so well. GET CHEAP, DAMMIT!

# ¿ Mar 5, 2013 21:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Previa_fun posted:

It was just the other day I discovered the IIHS YouTube channel and went watching some of the small overlap videos. It's amazing how safe cars have gotten but I would NOT want to endure an accident like those. The NHTSA 35mph full frontal test looks like a parking lot ding by comparison.

drat, you weren't kidding. I'd hate to see what would happen in a 60s/70s car in this sort of test, though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj-oPkXpAnA

# ¿ Mar 9, 2013 13:33

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

CornHolio posted:

I just don't like the idea that if I'm about to get into an accident, the car wants to swerve suddenly and take control over my inputs. How does it know not to swerve into, say, oncoming traffic, or a family standing on the sidewalk?

Unless I'm misunderstanding the technology.

The challenge would be gaining confidence in the technology to trust that it would never actually do that unless an actual collision was imminent and impossible to avoid without instant automatic action. Consumers in general are getting more confident in automatic braking, but I don't think we're quite there yet with swerving.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2013 02:20

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Sir Tonk posted:

Man, the Dart did really well in this.

And yeah, I'd love some more tests of classic cars. Throw an old Mark III, or a Continental, at this test.

I'm confused at the testing process in general- seems as though people are simply building for the test instead of building for cars that are safe regardless of the geometry of the crash. Even so, wouldn't it be more accurate and meaningful to test likely crash modes? This car isn't even traveling backwards when it hits!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16CIDz4pAxo

# ¿ Mar 10, 2013 16:10

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Throatwarbler posted:

So what you're saying is that cars should be tested for every possible crash scenario imaginable?

No, I'm saying cars should be designed to be survivable no matter what angle the crash occurs at. You can't test every possibility, and the car companies realize that, and design their cars specifically to provide the best crash protection only against the specific crash tests that are done; everything else is secondary. Same problem with SOL tests in US schools: they're prepping for the test alone, and defeating the purpose of the test. I wonder if a "pop quiz" form of car testing might be more beneficial, where random tests are sprung on manufactures who don't know what angles or speeds will be tested in any given year, just that they tests will be based on common real-world accidents.

Volvo set a really impressive goal for themselves with this respect: "Our vision is that no one is killed or injured in a new Volvo by 2020"

# ¿ Mar 11, 2013 02:39

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Even if the average american has 170hp, they're only going to use maybe the first 40 or 50 of them because they're afraid of rpms. I'm honestly not sure how to fix this. Maybe hybrid technology that quietly boosts horsepower during acceleration and largely hides scary engine sounds?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2013 12:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:59

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

AdmiralViscen posted:

New range rover spied, no camo

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/13/are-you-the-2014-range-rover-sport

You can probably already guess what it looks like.

Why do manufacturers bother with camo on cars like this in the first place? Seems like enthusiast feedback on early designs would be a good thing, not a bad one.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2013 16:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

«‹›4 »