|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, I'm not going to buy one. Not this one, anyway. I got excited when I first heard about the Leaf, then I saw it. I've heard there's going to be an BEV Ford Focus coming out soon as well, but I haven't heard many details on it yet. But in a years time if we have the option to get a fully battery electric vehicle from Nissan and Ford I'll be really happy about the future.
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
JackRabbitStorm posted:Which set are the headlights? One set is the low beams and the other set is the high beams. DUH.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
decahedron posted:The two forty has a top speed of 150mph - how many tracks have areas that you get up to more than 150 on? Okay, lets say there's not many tracks where you can get up to a high top speed. The Lotus could still use more power and there are times where it suffers from it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Not news exactly, but I've seen the Transit Connect a lot around Boston. I'm glad it's been popular with people who need small work vans. That's cool. I'm kinda wanting one. I think it would make a really good camping/bicycle hauling vehicle. Plus unlike the Honda Element and similar vehicles I could fit a motorcycle and associated tools in back. The thing I wonder about the engine is since its based on the same four cylinder that's in the Ford Focus will the hop ups from one carry over to the other?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The TC is neat but it has a difficult time even unladen on the freeway so I wouldn't dare trying to drive it with a motorcycle and tools in the back. Car and Driver did a article on just that hauling a motorcycle and tools from NYC to Alabama and back. For your reading: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q1/2010_ford_transit_connect-feature_test
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Apparently there are already some modified examples out there, so I would imagine everything would work. From the Car and Driver article it sounds like the Transit Connect is okay on the highway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I don't know if this counts as a new car per se, but it is a new car for Tim Lynch. Apparently Tim and crew at Proline are having Skinny Kid Race Cars build them a Z06 for Outlaw 10.5 racing.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
rscott posted:7 grand for a set of 4 rims isn't actually all that out there on cars in that price range. A set of 4 wheels on some Ferrari models can be twice as much. I think that's too much money for what you get.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Ugly, too expensive, and only marginally better performing than the 2011 Mustang. I can think of a lot better things to spend $150k on. You know, the factual point about it being marginally better and a lot more expensive I agree with. Years ago I may have agreed with the idea of going with the Mustang over the M3 but now I think there is something to be said about how a vehicle goes about getting those numbers. Maybe the M3 just feels better to drive. That special edition may not be worth what they ask but the choice between the regular M3 and the Mustang may be harder.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Australian track special. $80k, Ducati 1198 engine in a 300kg space frame and carbon fiber tub. Atom, X-Bow, Caterham 7, and now this, the bantamweight segment is growing. It pisses me off how overpriced some of those cars in that segment are. Ariel and Caterham I'm looking at you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 13:20
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I could live with the styling for the most part, but I think there's two things wrong: You know, I wonder if car consumers wouldn't go for a cheap no frills car if all the car review media didn't immediately poo poo on the car. I think for the most part, once people are shopping for a cheap car their number one concern is reliability. Their are plenty of cheap no frills reliable cars that have come and gone that may have not done that great BUT the thing is when the average shopper of a car starts to try and research one of this stripped out models only thing they're going to see is "this car sucks omg" and they will stop there. They won't bother reading further to find out the reviewer says the car sucks because it still has crank windows. In my own world that is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Screw you haters, I would drive it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:We'll have to see how much the FT-86 weighs. Power-wise, it's obviously outgunned by both the Genesis and the V6 stang, but maybe it'll be noticeably lighter. I just can't wait for all the guys who've been bemoaning the lack of a light, low powered RWD sports coupe to not buy the thing. The thing is if they do release a low powered rwd coupe they need to price it accordingly. Not in low $20k range which is what is going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Depends on their sales targets and how much they want to scale up this initial model. There's no way in the first year that it can touch the sales of the Mustang, so they'll need to recoup some of the costs of developing this new platform. Even if it's RWD, I don't see it being sold for much cheaper than a Scion tC, which Toyota is probably thinking about replacing. If Toyota sold it at Scion tC prices, and the thing made an honest 180 hp like the tC and weighed less than 3300lbs I would be so happy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Omegaslast posted:Really..? 3300 lbs is really not that light. My 99 GT weighs less than that and it makes 260hp and 300 ft/lbs of torque. Maybe if the FT86 came out in 1999 at 3000~ lbs with 180hp it would be a good car. now? not so much. Yeah but your 99 Gt is 11 years old. I didn't know how low to go with modern cars. We'll say within 200 lbs of a Miata.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I also think that the idea of putting cupholders in it at all is totally loving dumb but americans am i right Don't you mean people in the US? American's encompass people from two different continents, surely all of them don't think that way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:No, he means Americans, because it's a perfectly acceptable term for US-specific people. Yeah but its dumb. That's like saying European when you really mean someone from France. If you're talking about the United States, say the United States. Don't refer to the whole drat continent when you're really talking about one country.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Hhmm yes okay next time I will instead write "but citizens of the United States of America am I right? B..but Canadians are Americans too!! Maybe sometimes they don't want to get lumped in with US. Get it...US?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Linedance posted:As a Canadian, if something is referred to as "American" I'm going to assume you mean that bit between Canada and Mexico, and if you're incorrectly applying it to something Canadian, I'll politely correct you. And then I'll call you a oval office because I live in the UK. What the hell? Canadians are Americans though. Just like the Germans are Europeans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, but English doesn't have a good demonym for the US, apart from American, unlike some other languages, so we just say American and derive the meaning from context. Yeah you're correct there. But what gets me is that folks from the US and Canada too I guess forget that other countries in the Americas can infact claim to be American, we don't own the term even though its used to refer to us most often in English speaking countries. From what I understand some spanish speaking people refer to people from the US as United Statesians in Spanish, estadounidense, rather than Americano.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I'm sure BMW gives a poo poo about mini's heritage Oh come off it. Mini's heritage... You know that during the time the original Mini was manufactured they had a station wagaon? Even a pick up truck? If anything BMW IS following in Mini's heritage by releasing models which mirror the original Mini's variations. They are just sized up to modern sizes so you don't die instantly if you get in a crash. There's no way to get around the size gain the Mini's have taken on unless you were to start constructing them out of really exotic materials to maintain the strength they have for modern crash worthiness.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:
It'll come out underpowered, overweight, and over priced. And probably with no head room.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:Probably. I'm still holding out hope that Subaru can steer Toyota into doing something right with the vehicle. I want more than anything for this car to come out and kick rear end. I really do. I've always wanted to see what the benefits of having a flat four in a FR configuration would do. Its just after all I've heard this car going through I'm not too hopeful on how it will come out. Please let me be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Going by the clear glass model of the component layout, if anything, the boxer is not doing anything for weight distribution: drat. I usually don't like to see engines tucked up under the cowl of a car but if the line at the base of the "windshield" is supposed to be where the firewall hits then it looks like they could have moved the engine back some. I wonder if they could move the wheels up anymore. I would think a flat four would be the easiest engine to make front mid engined and they hosed it up. Well at least it will help with the center of gravity and keep it low.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The H4 engine also has the disadvantage of being wide, which cuts into space for suspension, and having more turbo-lag in turbo form due to the distance and placement of the turbo vis a vis the exhaust. We talked about this in the last thread. For a performance car it really only makes sense if it's in the middle/rear like a Boxster. If the designers would have packaged the front of the car decently they could have gotten the engine completely behind the suspension. That would give you a lower center of gravity and a lower polar moment of inertia. That's probably what the engineers were thinking about when they went with the flat four in a FR configuration. Plus turbo lag doesn't seem to be a problem for the Suburas that the flat four is in the front of. Worse comes to worse now there will be a rwd transmission out there that will mate with the flat four. Maybe we'll start seeing the engine ending up in other interesting cars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
I don't understand how certain lovely cars with good performance are okay here but then lovely cars with good performance like the Cobalt suck. I thought we were all about cars that focus on performance to the point they skimp on other things, like a nice interior.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah the list of cars the Cobalt SS beat on the Car and Driver 2008 Lightning Lap at Virginia International Raceway is shocking. Car and Driver posted:We’re massively impressed with the new front-wheel-drive champion of the LL1 class, the Chevrolet Cobalt SS. Not only did it lop three seconds off the Mazdaspeed 3’s 2007 front-drive record of 3:16.0, it was only a half-second behind the overall LL1 record of 3:12.5 set by the Nissan 350Z Track in 2006. Coredump fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Mar 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
Autism Sundae posted:It's a great car if you only measure cars with numbers they get on the track. It's not a great car to buy, own, and drive daily. Nobody's saying that Cobalt SS isn't a great performer. Are you on the right forum? We have people who daily drive Lotus Elise's on here and we all seem to agree that's pretty awesome. Actually, if you look at this situation another way. The Cavalier got a reputation that was SO lovely that the Cobalt that came after it is tarnished. GM managed to put together a genuinely good performing car in the Cobalt SS that should tick all the right boxes with AI but...nope.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Linedance posted:there's more to cars than just how fast they go. If there weren't, shows like Top Gear wouldn't be so popular. We all appreciate fast cars, but some people appreciate other less quantifiable things in cars as well like style and perceived quality. Yes I know there is more to cars than how fast they go. You're not looking at the context in which I made my statement. Autism Sundae was discounting the Cobalt SS because he said its a car that only does well when you look at its performance numbers. My point is, we have a lot of people on here who that's all they need. So for all us to cheer on Lotus Elise's being daily driven and then turn and discount the Cobalt SS is not congruent. They both have poo poo interiors. Both fall apart, as is evident with the guy who had a wheel fall off an Elise. In case you didn't catch that, his wheel FELL OFF. IT FELL THE gently caress OFF. Sorry, little blue collar thrown in there. So basically, I'm just raging that I'm hearing the "there's more to cars than just how fast they go argument" when the Cobalt SS is being discussed but I don't hear that with other fast less well rounded cars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:It's not really a valid comparison, the Elise isn't a comfy car nor is it advertised as such and you have to be a masochist or just not give a gently caress to DD one. The Cobalt SS is a fast four door sedan which it does exceedingly well but it still has a pretty atrocious interior. It's like how AI generally likes the corvette because its fast as poo poo but every time a thread comes up people whine about how it's interior isn't yet unicorn foreskin leather. The comparison was cars whose only redeeming qualities are their driving performance. I think in comparison like that the Elise and Cobalt SS are valid. If one was going to be invalid it would be the Cobalt because you could actually use it as a real car day to day, which would only go further to invalidate the point some people were trying to make.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
Mutley posted:Either way we both agree the Chevy is gently caress ugly and that's the important thing here I think that front end would look okay on a hatchback.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
dissss posted:Yes its this. In a RHD country Japanese and Australian cars typically have the indicators on the right, but European cars usually leave them hanging out on the left. So my Japanese Nissans and my parents Suzuki Swift are one way around, whereas their Ford Fiesta is the other. The right side makes marginal more sense in a RHD country as the gear lever is to the left but either way would be fine if standardised. Everyone should just drive on the right hand side of the road like civilized people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
I would really, really like to see the Hyundai Genesis get a new front end. The grimacing look on the front end makes the car look like its biting down on a horse bit or something. The fluidic design language Hyundai has started to use has grown on me so I wouldn't mind to see a front end like that on the Genesis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 13:31
|
|
|
Man where is that article where Grassroots Motorsports out autocrossed a Jaguar E-type in a Honda Odyssey? I know its around here somewhere...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Cars that carry a stigma in North America: Diesels, Hatchbacks, Wagons, and Minivans, anything else that might possibly provide some level of utility. Canada has a fair amount of hatchbacks and stuff so I don't think the American car market is all poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:See also the strong sales of the Scion xB (before they made it bigger, too). The Scion xB thing still makes me laugh my rear end off at Toyota. I remember reading when they first brought over the xA and xB they thought the hatchback style xA would sell more than the xB. They were so off from their predicted sales targets that in the first year of selling the xB sold at almost 2 to 1 to the xA. Further more instead of attracting an audience of 20 something first time car buyers Scion were getting people in their 40's or 50's buying the thing so they didn't hit their target market either. Thing was the xB was really just a Toyota bB (or Bb I don't loving know) brought over straight from Japan. When the US Scion design team redid the xB according to Scion's 3 or 4 year model refresh the xB got fat and ugly and now no one wants them any more and the used ones from 04 to 06 still sell for $10k for a car that was only $17k when it was new. They haven't dropped in value like a person would expect because the new ones suck so bad. Scion should have kept selling the first gen xB for twice as long as they did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:Not in any racing ever. Are you sure about? Like 100% sure? I'm pretty sure if I take the time to go research I'm going to find someone that contradicts you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:Im surprised with a shorter engine like the boxer and the dimensions so close to the s2000 but a longer wheelbase they still have the engine partly infront of the strut towers. Guess that's a bitch to manage without a transaxle or without ruining passenger space. I'm sure they could have done it. If the S2000 can get the front of the inline 4 even with the front axle then Toyota should have been able to get that flat foor complete behind the front axle. I mean, how would the drivetrain look if we stuck a flat four on the front of a wider s2000?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:The boxer and drivetrain packaging that Subaru uses is pretty entrenched, they didn't adopt a oilpan axle pass-through system like BMW or Nissan, so having a 2cylinder long engine was their solution. It'd be pretty hard anyway, given their crank throws would maybe interfere with the axle. Unforunately, the forward-mount boxer design's only benefit is a lower cG, polar moments go nuts, packaging gets complicated with modern VVT cylinder heads and maintenance, and you end up following a philosophy meant for a pushrod 4boxer and lever activated 4wd. You can solve the cG problem by raising the engine above the level of the monocoque's rails, but you lose the only benefit of the design. I just want to one day see a Lotus 7 or exo-type car that uses a Subaru boxer 4 in a front midships FR design that has the engine all the way behind the front axle line.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
dissss posted:Are we really doing HUDs again? I thought they were a late 80s fad like digital dashboards. poo poo while you mention it, bring back the digital dashes. The Subaru XT dash modernized? YYYESSS.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 19:15
|
|