|
Lowclock posted:Are you just looking at the pictures or something? I wish I DID just look at the pictures, the fallacies and outright bullshit damaged my brain.
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
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. Not often I disagree but mate, no. The Subie egnine's mass is even more compacted than a rotary and the apparent overhang is nothing more than the ancillaries - the main mass is quite a way back and centrallised, which is even more pronounced in the BRZ. Crank throws interfere with a RWD layout....? cG issue?!?!?! Sorry but what??? Even in the AWD which is restricted to where the driveshafts have to go, you still are further back that what it appears and all main mass is compact, better than any other production AWD - which is the fair comparision. I'm tearing down my WRX's engine and really it's quite interesting just how small it really is - and more to the point it's all so drat light and easy to actually work on. The block being smaller than a normal I4 leads to the fact that it is one of the very few engines that is noticably lighter than a rotary and that really is saying something. Where the whole polar movement thing came from was Subaru and WRC where you have two issues - one, Subaru persisted in a production block where the other teams did not and hence the other teams did a bunch of nutso modification to get an I4 as low and as far back as possible - which on a road car you can not do and b) Subaru were loving retards and designed the suspension completely wrong on the 04-05, mistakes that persisted to the 06 WRC and were not completely nutted out before they pulled out. But you might notice in the Group A days they were not complaining about that as then you needed a production block in it's production location. And when you do that - a road car - the Boxer gains some signifigant advantages over other AWD options. In the BRZ, the motor is lighter than any other 2 litre I4 option, it's much lower, it's much more compact and much further back now it doesnt have to worry about driveshafts. Whta they do for the WRX I dont know but for the BRZ a boxer is a drat good choice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Maybe this is not such a big problem if you design the suspension around the engine but this car notably uses Macpherson strut front suspension. Exactly what is wrong with MacPherson strut again.....? I keep forgetting because apparently I'm in an alternative world where it works more than "just fine", it in fact works extremely well. And it's quite clearly not going to be an issue here either given this body has been designed from the ground up to accept a boxer engine?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:Part of me thinks you're right. There are a ton of car people all over the internet that are complaining that this car just doesn't have the horsepower to compel them to buy it. But, then I look at the Miata, somehow it succeeded despite having such low horsepower numbers and a terrible reputation as a gay car. It even managed to outlive the technically superior S2000. The MX-5 suceeded because it's a drat good thing to drive in every single way you can think of, which appeals to a lot more than just self proclaimed car people. As in it is still after 20 years an experience that basically nothing else replicates - and the people who are so hung up on power call themselves "car people" .... well they arent, they are bench racing wankers. The BRZ has more hp than a MX5, it's also currently lighter. It's being made to blatantly replicate another fantastic drivers car, the Sprinter (which has much less power but there's a drat good reasons why it the tofu delivery machine of choice). If this thing handles as well as initial reports says it does then gently caress the hp wankers -I WANT THIS CAR because I love throwing small light cars into corners at ridiculous speeds! If it doesnt handle then it can go to hell. DJ - the BRZ is not a AWD. There is no driveshafts to gently caress with the layout, which is why the boxer is a godawful way back. I don't understand why you arent seeing this - the WRX will be a different kettle of fish and then you need to compare apples with apples, almost all AWD layouts likewise have their engines further forward (but they are also bigger engines as well), but the BRZ is not AWD and the engine is well back and behind the axle line - in a position and CoG than no I4 can match. CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:They ruined it. It was always a heap of poo poo in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Motronic posted:. Doesnt handle, poor build quality, ride is hosed up, pathetic performance, well behind in crash safety, good only for idiots that dont have any clue that up the road there is vastly superior cars that do exactly what you quoted as requirements for the same dosh. Ford even built a godawful load better one called the Territory, which was good in everyway that the Escape isnt. And that's really what is hosed up, the Territory IS good, the old Escape is a terrible piece of crap, all Ford had to do was RHD the Territory and you would have had something actually worth driving on a road. But no, they released one of the worst vehicles in the last decade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Yeah, I think we had this earlier, but having been out on a few test drives: The sequential manual shift function on autos and DSGs? It should be pull towards you for a higher gear, push away from you for a lower gear. Why the hell is everyone making it the other (wrong) way round, and why (given that it's all just electronics) can't I choose which I want? And the manufacturers (with a lot of justification) will say - "If you want to row your own, get a manual, tough poo poo"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
Hashal posted:Where's all the NSX talk after the superbowl commercial? We remembered the CR-Z and said no thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
dissss posted:HSVs are still enormously expensive - the R8 tourer starts at $68,600 AUD It's also a very good car and enormously fast. Probably worth every cent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
dissss posted:I really think Holden missed a trick by not importing these to compete with the Mondeo - that awful Cruze isn't even available in a wagon and of course no diesel in the Commodore is increasingly becoming an issue. Given how involved Holden was / is in running GM Korea, I cant see them using their Opel portfolio readliy. Plus the Cruze is getting manufactured locally shortly, we'll probably see a bunch of variant appear after that The Cruze anyway isnt utterly crap - it's just average. Pretty much like any other smallish car Holden has ever been involved with
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:The XV might check a few of those boxes for you. It appears to be the Outback Sport they always meant to build (but far short of the Gravel Express I wanted them to). It's a totally average boring shitbox Subaru should never have thought of.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Devyl posted:You haven't even seen the suit yet: If the suit has a TANNNNNK MISSLE then you know someone has been watching too much Iron Man
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
grover posted:Mustang and Camaro are huge cars because the american public doesn't want hot hatchbacks, they want 500hp family sedans. I mean, look how well the Dodge Charger has sold despite being a Dodge- simply by the fact that it has 4 doors. The consumers that buy these cars don't autocross then, and they certainly don't road race them. If anything, they drag race them, but virtually none will ever see a time slip of any sort. Mostly, they just don't ever drive them anywhere near the limit, but they'd rather be driving something with the image of a performance car than something that looks like every other sedan on the road. So why aint Ford and GM importing every Falcon and Commodore they can lay hands onto? Why was the G8 such a sales flop, when desite it's highish price (it wasnt THAT high tho) it was the mythical 500 hp family hack?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The Commodore/Caprice/Statesmen all drive pretty well, especially with a big V8 and hopped up suspensions. I mean, they're basically fatter Camaros. Actually the kerb weight of a V8 Camaro SS is over 1745 kgs and a V8 Commodore is about 1760kgs. It's literally just dealer options in it. No denying tho the Commodore isnt a bad thing to drive these days but given the sales figures it's got problems.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
D C posted:Seems like an overcomplicated solution, there has to be some cleaner way of doing that. Sounds like a job for Italian Tuning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-nascar-ss-revealed-in-las-vegas/ Third time lucky maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:That and also probably every manufacturer will start whining about the specific brand of tire and settings they used, demanding rematches, sending special ringers, and before long it will become another contest of which manufacturers care and bother to dump PR money in. Maaaaaate I got some news for you. What do you think car makers regularly do for vehicle journalists? They set up ringers all the time - It's SOP. If you get your hands on a ex-press car, it's quite interesting to see how the car maker does it - tweak this and tweak that and you get a car a good second a lap faster than anything that comes off the production line. They check panel gaps and run the cars in and service before they get into the hands of anyone. A journalist gets a car that almost never will come off the production line and usually they get "preferred" options that the car maker is aiming to sell most off or shows the car off in it's best light. Oh and then there's the whole "if you want our cars without question make sure you write nice things" said/unsaid that goes on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:I wouldn't say the WRX in any iteration has a nice interior. More like spartan. And some of the best Subaru customers rather like that! The WRX has never been a GT car. It began life as a toned down rally car and the closer it was to that concept, the better the WRX is. The GC8 or Classic is the best example that's raw as all get out but holy poo poo it's FUN. It's light, it's agile and it's brilliant. Yeah sure the MY11 and on is a more livable car and faster in a straight line but the GC8 WRX really is something else again - for all it's rough edges it goes exactly like you think a rally based car should go. That linked article is rather old too - what it thinks the WRX will be isnt lookign that way apart from lighter and more power. It's looking like the STI will be filled with luxury poo poo, the WRX will be going raw.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I would have expected it to be the opposite. It's never been that way - the WRX has always been low rent, the STI gets the optional extras. Subaru have been making this more pronounced with the 3rd gen as well and it sounds like they are going to make the STI a up market M3 competitor while the WRX is for the tuners and boy racers. Or the smart guys who work out the price difference makes the WRX very appealing to grab and go nuts on. How else you going to convince anyone a STI is worth 25K more than a WRX?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
fknlo posted:
The quad pipes make it look cartoony - but apart from that they hit that one out of the park.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Just realised this thing looks close to the kind of car I would draw as a 10 year old - wild, silly poo poo like quad pipes, aircraft cockpit interior, huge V8..... My inner 10 year old wants this car and wants it NOW. I'm pretty sure the more sensible part wont say no either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I have to say that the new 'Vette looks way better than in the leaked photos. That said, the rear end with its gray plastic, quad pipes and a bunch of random shapes still looks like poo poo. The Viper's rear end, even with the cheesy CF part, is just so much cleaner and nicer to look at. The Viper looks like a car for fat balding sad depressed middle aged men whom cant get a hot blonde. The rear end is droopier than their dick. Not doing a thing for me. The 'Vette - well I expect that to have rocket launchers, machine guns and oil sprays because it's the kinda thing Condorman would drive. drat, every single new picture you guys nail up, the more I just giggle at how stupendously childish (but awesome) it is and how it's a fantasy come to life. And why if I was American I would desperatly want one. If it drives anything like it looks, I would be in fits of hysterical laughter the whole time, peeling out huge burnouts and drifting till the tyres exploded. Seriously, will it come with a missile rack?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Twin-charging generally refers to both a turbocharger and supercharger. Twin charging is such a dumb name for such a cool thing - we should call it Super-turbocharging (or technically Super-Superturbo charged, given a turbocharger is actually properly called a super-turbocharger) like the Italians called it in the S4. THAT sounds awesome. A mouthful but hey, twincharged sounds so wimpy in comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted: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. What to me is even more insane is that those cars have the brakes and handling to contain that kind of power. 15 years ago if you had a 750Kw car, it was a straight line bullet with brakes that melted after a few hard stops and evil handling because the chassis couldnt handle the power. You can take a Venom GT by the looks of it and cut a seriously fast set of flat out laps without killing yourself. It's not chassis compromised. THAT's some goddamn impressive poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I'm not sold on RWD in the family sedan segment, to say the least, but hey more power to Chrysler if they pull it off. Commodores and Falcons are very very good cars for the segment - but the real problem is that the buyers who might want a big RWD have moved to crossovers and 4WD's. Even if you can get 200-300Kw engines, good handling, plenty of bells and whistles for a good price and most of us here would prefer that, the rest of the buyers are buying slower, boxier, worse handling but practical crossovers by the boat load.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
dissss posted:I think that for most purposes the Mondeo is a better family car than the Falcon - roomier, better interior, more comfortable and much more economical. 3 out of 4 are not true, especially roomier. Economical however, that a big one and that's very true. Other than that the Falcon really is a drat sight better - you have to be an idiot to pick a Mondeo for any other reason other than you want to save petrol (or an Aurion or a Camry or a few other large FWD's that arent as good as a Falcon). The whole economy thing is a problem for the Falcon but the thing is, it's not losing sales to cars with THAT much difference in economy. Hell, the Territory is cannabilising the Falcon and some variants are way worse in that respect. quote:In terms of pure passenger comfort, I don't think any non-luxury car can do it better than the Crown Vic. Sure, it was like driving a sofa, but also, it was like riding in a sofa. Tons of leg room, and you could fit five people's luggage in the trunk, along with two illegal immigrants. A part of me dies every time I get in a taxi or limo that isn't a Crown Vic or a Town Car. Now, it might have not lost a lot by being FWD, but it was RWD and it was fantastic for what it was. Dear Lord, no. Crown Vics are the best example as to how to do a RWD wrong. The fact that a RWD is best for a large platform and a Crown Vic is a misreble failure verses FWD's, that's enough to deserve it to be condemned as a failure - esp when Australia has been building much better RWD's the whole time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Comparing the Crown Vic to the Falcon is just a level beyond cluelessness. Yes, the Crown Vic was never as good a car as the Falcon. It was never meant to be. The Crown Vic was pure simplicity and durability; body-on-frame, solid axle. Not remotely the same kind of car as the Falcon and not trying to be. You wouldn't knock an Elise for not being as spacious and comfortable as an M3 would you? Of course not, that'd be idiotic. The only thing the Crown Vic ever had in common with the Falcon was the fact that they depended almost entirely on fleet sales to survive. The difference being that Ford US just kept a cheap, ancient platform around for that until they couldn't use it any more. Ford Aus kept pumping money into a car nobody buys, now that's how you do RWD right. Clueless? Oh I'm not sure that word applies to me on this one - the Falcon is a goddamn taxi and was and is designed to be built cheaply and be a tough as boot leather, simple and just works for 500,000 kms. Which it does. They are cop cars, they are courier cars, they get bashed up, beaten to the ground yet you still expect them to be usable after all the abuse. So dont try a elise strawman here - the Falcon IS what the Crown Vic is supposed to be. It just so happens it was done a lot better even when the Panther platform was new and the Falcon was the XD. And the XD was not exactly a good car.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:Detroit must have a really weird niche going on... G8's and GTO's were/are incredibly popular and manual is increasing in popularity Ummmm yeah.... no. Why you think they stopped selling them and Holden had to redecorate a bunch of Commodore SS's with Pontiac front ends so quick? quote:As for pricing you have to remember the Commodore is an Australian car and cars (all cars) are expensive there compared to the USA. The SS is more than $45,000AUD My SS-V was 55K new. I STILL paid 40K AUD for one two years old (Yeah I paid a bit too much. Sue me, it was in remarkably good condition)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 10:56
|
|
.
|
XCPuff posted:That had nothing to do with popularity I dont think you really thought that one thru or in fact read the sales numbers. The G8 was already on shakey ground before Pontiac vanished
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Because the GT3 is sold largely as a track car (right?) and the kind of people dropping that coin on a track car are also the kind of people who have to have the fastest laptime, even if they aren't actually racing it. Thus, they'll buy the PDK because it's faster, and manual purists will cry into their Wheaties. The turth however is that manuals are still actually quicker and better but not the traditional H pattern. I have no idea why real sequentials have never made it out to road cars because they are lighter, shift every bit as fast and are proven to work. Hell you then can just use paddles - paddle shift full manual. Why not? It's not the technical hassle of a DSG, they are quite a deal lighter. And on a track, I dont care if the DSG is a poofteenth faster. Gimme a cluth, I'll make the difference up and then some because that's what a clutch allows you to do. Manuals arent dying because the alternatives are better / faster (They aint). It's because we in AI are a dying breed. Even so called "car nuts" have no real idea how a car works and just do the latest tuner poo poo rather than actually getting under a car and figure out how a cheap mod can blow away 2K worth of tuner brand name crap. We have laws mandating bullshit like stability control that fight back agianst having fun in a car that thence gives us electronics over good engineering. Cars like the Toybaru are the exception, the rule is the Corolla or the latest lovely big turd AWD. A few say we never had it so good with the hp we have to choose from. gently caress that, what we dont have the choice is where it REALLY counts - cars that talk to your rear end and fingertips. Cars that make you WANT to drive because it's a serious experience of you and the road. Cars that throw you back into your seat get old. Cars that give you a boner when you feather them into a sweeper never do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Let me say to preface that I definitely agree with you in terms of needing good, fun cars to drive. But I don't think for a second that the presence of electronic aids and safety features and regulations are actually preventing us from having good, fun to drive cars. Before electronic aids, the vast majority of cars on the road were poo poo to drive. After electronic aids, the vast majority of cars on the road were poo poo to drive. I would much rather have my daily that my girlfriend drives on occasion have stability control than not. I think the ire is misguided at best. Let me put it this way - Electronics masks the lovely engineering and is being used as a replacement to engineering as well. And it is making cars worse - Subaru are a very good example. The engineers have gotten lazy and allowed the electronics in and every single case that's happened the cars are worse. Cars that have been traditionally driver focused are going bye bye as they get blighted. I can certainly agree that at times electronics can help when done right. My Commodore has fairly basic TC and stability control, it's unobtrusive and works when it's really needed in a way that doesnt porduce unexpected results. Kinda surprised I would say that as up to now every single electronics blighted car can do some unexpected nasty kickback when the electronics cant really decide what needs to be done. From our (and I mean from a AI perspective, not a moron behind the wheel perspective) POV too, TC and stability gets in the way of exploiting a chassis, example the new Lancer where it's systems literally fight you if you want to be spirited and get dangerous to boot. Turn them all off and there's actually a better car lurking. Dont make the mistake of thinking I'm a technophobe, ABS when done right is fun on a track, the Commodore's TC is actually a good thing when all of it's power is lighting up in the wet, DSG's are the best replacement of a traditional auto you can think of etc. But it's about doign it right and electronics really is leading everyone down the wrong paths and it's not being done right. lovely cars are going to be lovely but that's not what I'm lamenting. It's good cars being fouled and the fact peopel like us are getting fewer in number, so we can not create the demand mass to get more like the Toybaru.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Subaru I'm not totally sure that it was specifically due to electronics versus a conscious decision by management to sell 750,000 cars globally per year. They had to compromise to meet those goals. But yeah, I agree with you that electronics can cover for poor engineering. I just wonder to a certain extent how much it matters. The thing is that Subaru got to actually have the chance to being more than a blip by making well engineered cars - They didnt need to compromise. They had a fanatically loyal buyer base. They have for years sold every car they made and when car makers were exploding left and right, did it at a profit too. The truth is that most of the sales increases they trumptet are literally they make more cars to meet demand. quote:The greater issue, and I think we agree on this, is the demise of people who actually want cars like the Toyobaru. I'm not going to say that it's wrong for people to want commuting appliances, but it makes things harder on the small slice of people who want something different. The problem is that enthusiasts as a whole tend to be very much talk and very little action. It's tough for an OE to cater to enthusiast desires when the enthusiast would rather buy a used S2K or dump some money in to an E30 or or or or. True. I guess tho, the Toybaru shows someone in Subaru (mainly cause they were the ones who developed and build it) still thinks about the original WRX and how it lit up sales from people like us. It was exactly what we wanted in a new car and we reacted and bought it. The Toybaru is exactly what we want and look at the lines around the block. We might be a dying breed but there's always hope cars liek the Toybaru spark a few young drivers to want more than appliances
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think most young drivers do want more than appliances, but the problem is they don't have the money to drive the sales of new cars. I wish that were true, I really do. But from what I see I dont think that's the case - it seems to be that being a car geek stopped being something to get into a few years ago. One thing I do note is the car culture is strongest where ther's good RWD options - lets face it, RWD (and turbo AWD) is more rewarding to work with, even poo poo RWD when new. FWD is unappealing and has hard limits what you can do. Car companies even with drat good engineering have immense problems making FWD behave at over 180Kw ATW and nothing anyone has backyarded says that could change.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:So he'll deal like the rest of us did -- dream and wait. What's he gonna dream and wait for? A broken rear end beaten up BRZ or a twenty five year old WRX? We are seeing our kind of cars vanishing and appliances being built instead, you think that will change? I dont. There's a drat good argument to be made between 1990 and 2007 was the best "Built for AI" and they are now vanishing. Rule out anything with obnoxious electonics, autos, tiptronic, DSG, grip monsters etc and you have a really small pool left. A FD RX7 is still one of the absolute best drivers cars you can get today, either new or used. Want to be horrified? The FD came out 20 years ago and there's gently caress all since that's genuinely a match for it as a drivers car. The original MX-5? 22 years ago. The original WRX? 21. The best WRX is either 99 or 2006, count the years. The MY99 is already 14 years old. The reality is that cars also just do not engage us, humans, as they once did. We dont have the option of feeling character anymore outside of a shrinking group of cars but humans are less and less caring. Cars with character? gently caress that says market surveys, no one wants that. They want docking for iPods, endless doodads, parking assist, 20 cup holders and the list goes on. I and others here want to feel the front wheels talking to us. NVH testing says gently caress that. Thank the Lord for the Toybaru tho, maybe there is hope in the bleakness of beige and marketing bullshit
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:No, they could not. They were driving 10-20 year old cars back then, too. I'd propose you are both right. The average age for a new car purchase has shifted in the last 30-40 years and cars tended to get into the hands of younger adults earlier second hand as second hand values just didnt hold like they do today - lets face it, a five year old car in the 60's would have been rusting and already falling to pieces, needing a lot of work. We forget how lousy the quality was in these days of cars that could last 40 years without anything other than regular service. In Australia esp where rust isnt an issue due to modern car metals, you can resonably expect a 30 year old car to be working and even be in not bad condition. 60's and 70's cars would have been fully rebuilt - twice - in that time more often than not. Young adults did get their hands on newer cars earlier, but yes, still had the 10 year old bombs. We forget that only 25 years ago, cars were not guarentteed to start in the morning and being handy with tools was a good thing. 40 years ago, almost mandatory. Now? Most drivers dont have a clue how to change tyres. They don't need to know more. So there's a range of factors also at play to the decline of AIness in the community I suppose if you add all of whole cars becoming stupidly reliable and actually able to last to a date we would never have thought likely in the 80's. quote:The reality is, the youngest generation isn't sold on owning a car at all let alone showing enthusiasm for high performance. And re-reading your post.... yeah, I agree. Not many want to own cars cause they like them I suppose CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Pr0kjayhawk posted:Also, these drat kids need to get off my lawn! I used to yell at kids to get the gently caress off the lawn. Now..... they are all inside playing them computer games and posting on that MyBookbirdie thing (I'm pretty sure it's a bad thing that the above attempt at humour actually is the truth about modern growing up)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Super Aggro Crag posted:Working in the construction industry, I see a lot of 20-somethings with money for the first time, buying new cars. They seem to love Mustangs, GTIs and WRXs. And you know, those young guys often dont have much debt and earn good money too. Sure it's hard work but they get a much better start to adult life than the debt buried Uni grads.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Apparently this is the new Jeep Cherokee/Liberty. Holy gently caress this is Aztec kind of disaster styling. This can not be a seriously considered car
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:It looks a lot better in the new photos and in blue, but I still don't really like it. Oh gently caress no, it's still just as utterly godawful! What the gently caress where they thinking???
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
oxbrain posted:http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/3d-printed-car/ TBH, it's a mindfuck it can be done at all. And yes, they will get the printing time down and this has all the hallmarks of a paradigm shift if that happens to the point where it becomes mass production viable, which I think the chances are good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 10:24
|
|