|
Spatule posted:I tested the Gold anf the A3 and the A3 was quieter with absolutely nothing vibrating in the cabin even on cobblestones, it had a bigger boot (not much, but also more practical in shape), and the price difference as a company car was like 10€/month. I'm in North America, worker ants like me get neither much vacation nor company cars here With the terms you mention I have to agree the Audi is the better pick.
|
# ? May 30, 2011 00:33 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 10:12 |
|
Cream_Filling posted:Too bad they're so expensive and maintenance is expensive. I was looking at a A4 wagon, and the poo poo starts at $36k, with most on the lot pushing to $40k. What the hell? Seeing Americans whine about cars being too expensive makes me mad.
|
# ? May 31, 2011 17:04 |
|
The A4 Avant starts at $43k in Canada. For the exact same thing. And our dollar is stronger than the USD. Americans don't know how good they have it.
|
# ? May 31, 2011 17:32 |
|
el topo posted:The A4 Avant starts at $43k in Canada. For the exact same thing. And our dollar is stronger than the USD. Americans don't know how good they have it. Neither do you. It starts at $80,714 here in Denmark.
|
# ? May 31, 2011 17:47 |
|
A1 Clubsport Quattro ugly as can be, but I think this one qualifies as a "hot hatch". 500 hp from a 2.5 twin turbo. Oh and the exhaust. Heh.
|
# ? May 31, 2011 19:25 |
|
Mordred posted:Neither do you. It starts at $80,714 here in Denmark. Yeah but you get free healthc... er, hang on
|
# ? May 31, 2011 19:46 |
|
heat posted:Yeah but you get free healthc... er, hang on Yeah, 'free' might not be the right word to use...
|
# ? May 31, 2011 21:16 |
|
Mordred posted:Yeah, 'free' might not be the right word to use... My joke was that Canadians also get free healthcare.
|
# ? May 31, 2011 21:34 |
|
heat posted:My joke was that Canadians also get free healthcare. I suspected that, but my point is that it's not free. You pay for it. With high taxes on both income and cars. This is turning into a derail. I'll stop now.
|
# ? May 31, 2011 21:50 |
|
Mordred posted:Seeing Americans whine about cars being too expensive makes me mad. I'd much rather have working public transit and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly cities than cheap cars
|
# ? May 31, 2011 22:35 |
|
BonzoESC posted:I'd much rather have working public transit and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly cities than cheap cars What the hell are you doing in AI?
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 07:00 |
|
BonzoESC posted:I'd much rather have working public transit and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly cities than cheap cars I'd like both
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 07:01 |
|
Mordred posted:Neither do you. It starts at $80,714 here in Denmark. What's the used car market like? I always notice on Top Gear that while new cars are expensive as poo poo, they seem to be able to get newer cars in amazing condition for less than you would in the US.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 08:54 |
|
eames posted:A1 Clubsport Quattro I think it looks nice in a Subaru type of way. I love it. Hot hatch indeed though. I want to hear how angry it sounds.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 09:30 |
|
Mordred posted:What the hell are you doing in AI? Reading about cars; driving and automobiles are a lot more fun if you don't have a daily commute to suck the enjoyment out of them. Faerunner posted:I'd like both Move to a city that got big before 1950 and ended up a bit car-hostile: Chicago, New York, or San Francisco.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 13:51 |
|
BonzoESC posted:Move to a city that got big before 1950 and ended up a bit car-hostile: Chicago, New York, or San Francisco. hahaha Good luck having a car in New York City(meaning proper NYC i.e. Manhattan).
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 14:07 |
|
KidDynamite posted:hahaha Good luck having a car in New York City(meaning proper NYC i.e. Manhattan). He was saying if you want good public Transporation or bike friendly city move to one of those three. Also cars in manhattan isn't bad, just absurdly expensive.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 14:12 |
|
Muffinpox posted:He was saying if you want good public Transporation or bike friendly city move to one of those three. Also cars in manhattan isn't bad, just absurdly expensive. Most place in NYC even have a place for you to work on your car.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 14:22 |
|
Mordred posted:I suspected that, but my point is that it's not free. You pay for it. With high taxes on both income and cars. The figure I quoted didn't include sales tax, which ranges from 13.5% to 15% on top of the sales price depending on the province.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 16:32 |
|
5 - 15%, in fact, since Alberta doesn't have a provincial sales tax
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 16:41 |
|
15% sales tax? 20% in the UK. Say you decide on an A4 Avant SE, with the 3.2 and Quattro system. £34k without options. First year's road tax is also £580.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 19:16 |
|
InitialDave posted:15% sales tax? 20% in the UK. Yeah but thats the on the road price, already including VAT. In Canada tax is added to the listed price, so if they say it's $20000, it's actually going to be $23000.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2011 22:16 |
|
2012 1 series
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 00:47 |
|
eames posted:2012 1 series This is the facelift and not the 2013 model coming to the US in 2012, right? This one looks generic
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 00:51 |
|
kimbo305 posted:This is the facelift and not the 2013 model coming to the US in 2012, right? This one looks generic Definitely the new model, not sure if it will come to the US though. I thought that the rear of it has a remarkably american look (to me as a european), maybe because it’s so wide. And yeah, it really does look awfully generic. First picture looks like a shrunk 5-series GT.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 00:54 |
|
That's absolutely loving awful, even by BMW's usually low standards.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:03 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:This "real world" stuff is seriously one of the dumbest things I read on car forums. Do people think the EPA tests are done on the Spectral plane? or Dimension X? The EPA mileage test is conducted by real live people on planet earth, they are "real world". They are also repeatable, verifiable, conducted to certain standards under carefully controlled conditions (elevation, air temp, fuel) and are thus valid data for comparison. So yeah, unless you have a climate controlled elevation adjusted dyno room in your garage, you may not get the same figures as the rating. The fuel economy you achieve falls under the category "anecdotal bullshit". Late to respond to this, but this post seems really naive to me. Do you really think they don't take the absolutely BEST numbers out of all the tests they do and then slap them on the paper? We're talking driving a full tank on a completely flat surface on a day with no wind doing nothing but driving at 60kmph and shifting at 2k RPM and every other cheat they can do to maximize the numbers. See, I live in this real world and in my real world of the Canadian prairies, where it's ridiculously windy all the time and the highway speed limits are 110, but traffic speed is actually 130 - where if you're doing 110, you're the rear end in a top hat causing accidents because everyone else on the road is swerving around you. It also gets to be -45C in the winter on a regular basis where you're warming up your car for 5 minutes every morning and your gas car sounds like a diesel engine. So no, I don't believe the numbers they post are always realistic. Read any subcompact forum and half the threads are people upset that they can't reproduce the stupid 48MPG or whatever the hell they slap on that sheet of paper because the conditions they got that number were absolutely optimal. If you want to get suckered in by the marketing though, be my guest.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:16 |
|
Naky posted:Late to respond to this, but this post seems really naive to me. Do you really think they don't take the absolutely BEST numbers out of all the tests they do and then slap them on the paper? If it's the EPA testing it, they probably are sensible/objective enough to take an average or use the worst numbers. Sure manufacturers can try to game the system (a la CAGS), but the EPA doesn't really have incentive to help them boost numbers. By and large, everyone is playing the same game. I don't have reason to believe that a small turbo motor is automatically going to be much worse or much better than its EPA rated fuel economy.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:24 |
|
eames posted:2012 1 series Yeah I also think this looks like poo poo. The kidney grills looks like such an afterthought and that flat stubby bumper for some reason makes me think of an inflated old Z3. Maybe BMW just needs to do the throwback thing and take a ton of styling cues from like old 5, 6, and 8 series cars because even though they might be great cars, they keep going all sorts of wrong directions on the exterior styling.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:24 |
|
Naky posted:So no, I don't believe the numbers they post are always realistic. Read any subcompact forum and half the threads are people upset that they can't reproduce the stupid 48MPG or whatever the hell they slap on that sheet of paper because the conditions they got that number were absolutely optimal. If you want to get suckered in by the marketing though, be my guest. As long as they're comparable between models thats all that matters. No testing regime is going to cover everyones usage patterns. It works the other was as well though, Honda in this country posts the official ADR consumption but also mentions results from the Energywise rally (which is basically a hypermiling event). The Energywise results are usually significantly better than the official figures, for instance a 2l Civic goes from 29.4mpg to 33 or so
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:31 |
|
eames posted:2012 1 series BMW's styling has always been hit or miss, but this is a loving abomination. I generally consider the 6 and X series the real "misses" but this piece of poo poo is in a league of its own. God drat. Fayez Butts fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jun 4, 2011 |
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:33 |
|
Someone drew that on paper, made a clay model then built an actual car, stood back and went "Yep, good."
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:36 |
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Someone drew that on paper, made a clay model then built an actual car, stood back and went "Yep, good." But look at how much more attention is drawn to the badge in the rear, which is why you bought it anyhow - to show everyone you have a substandard BMW!
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:38 |
|
Naky posted:Late to respond to this, but this post seems really naive to me. Do you really think they don't take the absolutely BEST numbers out of all the tests they do and then slap them on the paper? We're talking driving a full tank on a completely flat surface on a day with no wind doing nothing but driving at 60kmph and shifting at 2k RPM and every other cheat they can do to maximize the numbers. So what is your issue? That the EPA standardized test cycle doesn't conform exactly to your climate and driving style? Of course your mileage is going to be different. If they did it according to your climate and conditions then the reading won't be "real world" for everyone else, how is that any better?
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:41 |
|
That new BMW looks terrible. North America will LOVE it
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 01:59 |
|
^^ Unfortunately, you're probably right. Lowclock posted:Yeah I also think this looks like poo poo. The kidney grills looks like such an afterthought and that flat stubby bumper for some reason makes me think of an inflated old Z3. Maybe BMW just needs to do the throwback thing and take a ton of styling cues from like old 5, 6, and 8 series cars because even though they might be great cars, they keep going all sorts of wrong directions on the exterior styling. Will you quit your job, move to Germany and become BMW's Design Chief please? I understand that you'd be making a huge sacrifice, but think of all the children who will be growing up with BMWs that look like an angry retarded kid who is demanding his daily box of Chicken McNuggets. Seriously though, you're right about the kidney grills. I swear they almost look Photoshopped on because of how absolutely misplaced they are.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 02:13 |
|
oRenj9 posted:Will you quit your job, move to Germany and become BMW's Design Chief please? I understand that you'd be making a huge sacrifice, but think of all the children who will be growing up with BMWs that look like an angry retarded kid who is demanding his daily box of Chicken McNuggets. I will get right on it. It would be easier to say Lowclock with a straight face than Adrian Von Hooydonk. E: For EPA test numbers, do they try to keep the same acceleration for every car? Lowclock fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jun 4, 2011 |
# ? Jun 4, 2011 02:33 |
|
Naky posted:Late to respond to this, but this post seems really naive to me. Do you really think they don't take the absolutely BEST numbers out of all the tests they do and then slap them on the paper? We're talking driving a full tank on a completely flat surface on a day with no wind doing nothing but driving at 60kmph and shifting at 2k RPM and every other cheat they can do to maximize the numbers. MY DAD works for the epa() and you're full of poo poo, hth edit: constructive comment, it's impossible to create an economy standard that applies to everyone so the most sensible thing to do is create an ideal average that people can adapt their driving conditions/habits around.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 02:36 |
|
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml It's not like it's some huge secret as to how they're tested. The base model mustang is rated at 31mpg highway, and ford got 48.5mpg in ideal conditions http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32844
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 03:13 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 10:12 |
|
Powershift posted:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml Yeah, it has a city rating of 19 mpg, and even driving it in the city with no concern for driving efficiently, I've never seen it get less than 11 L/100km (which converts to 21 mpg). I can't imagine how hard you'd have to flog it to get worse economy than that, considering I'm not a particular fan of moderate acceleration or early shifting.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2011 04:27 |