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

«‹›2 »

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Hermansen posted:

I saw a Focus RS in downtown Oslo the other day.
And I have to say, it looked cheap and plasticky. It also looked totally out of place.. almost like a clown car.
Considering the fact that it costs 125000$ over here, I'd never get one. Even if I did have that kind of money to spend on a car..

This is a bit of a derail, but why do cars cost so much in Norway? I mean, I know one US dollar will buy you around six krone, but still, 125k for a Focus RS?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2010 03:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:49

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

frozenphil posted:

That's a 670ci (10.9 liters for you heathens) all aluminum engine sitting between the frame rails. When it is finished it will be wearing twin 106mm turbos.

Guys, for reference, this is a 106 mm turbo (borrowed from the Nova thread)

# ¿ May 8, 2010 02:44

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

All right guys, we're redesigning the QX. We don't have a lot of ideas, but one thing's for sure. It needs to look like the Toyota Sequoia and have even less visibility than before. Raise that beltline to the ceiling!

loving ugh.

# ¿ May 24, 2010 14:23

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

kimbo305 posted:

Yeah. I don't know if the Focus RS would ever have cannibalized Mustang sales, but at least the 412 underrated hp is a helpful differentiator now.

Will it still have the turbo five now that Volvo's been sold off?

# ¿ May 28, 2010 05:45

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

MrBling posted:

The new Citro�n C4 looks pretty ace.

http://www.carsession.com/car-news/2011-citroen-c4.html

Then again, I've always been partial to Citro�ns.

Looks like an Astra to me. Or maybe an A3? Not that that's a bad thing.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2010 10:42

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

InitialDave posted:

Skoda, for example, weathered the storm of a (somewhat deserved) poor reputation, but the cars they've been building for the last few years have been very good, and nowadays you really don't hear the brand used as a byword for crappy, basic transport by anybody.

Isn't that because they're rebadging Volkswagens these days?

# ¿ Jun 19, 2010 06:49

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

2ndclasscitizen posted:

Not rebadging, more VW parts bin specials (that are often as well, if not higher rated than their VW counterparts). But the point is, the Skoda brand was rubbish as they just used to make horrid, cheap and nasty crapboxes. But by just making good cars sold at really good prices compared to their competitors they've shed that image.

Thanks for clearing that up. Skoda isn't sold in the US, so when I looked it up on Wikipedia all I saw was "acquired by VAG in 1990" and pictures of what looked a hell of a lot like a Passat on Google.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2010 09:20

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Autoblog link

quote:

When the 2011 Ford F-150 arrives this Fall, it will reportedly get an all-new powertrain lineup. Ford already officially confirmed several months ago that the light-duty pickups would be getting the first rear-wheel drive application of the 3.5-liter Ecoboost V6. The transaxles in the current Ecoboost applications are torque-limited, so when the twin turbocharged and direct injected V6 lands in the truck, it could produce as much as 400 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque.

This sounds like a great idea. Ford dropped the old 4.2L V6 when they redesigned the F-150 last year or whenever, but replaced it with the two valve 4.6 as the base engine. Don't get me wrong, the Modular is a decent engine, but "only" 239 hp from 281 cubic inches? GM's base V8, the 4.8, starts at 295 hp, and Chrysler's 4.7 does pretty similar. The 3.7 V6 being the new base engine sounds great, though it is down a bit on torque. I gotta wonder about the Ecoboost and the new 5.0 though... Which one will be the top spec engine?

# ¿ Jul 17, 2010 05:17

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

I'm not getting the reasoning behind making that Gran Coupe or whatever. I mean, the 6 series is basically a 5 minus the rear doors. So why would you take the 6 and put the rear doors back on? Isn't it then just a 5 with a different roofline?

# ¿ Jul 28, 2010 21:45

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Less than 700 lbs? Would that make it weigh less than the bike the engine came from?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2010 04:54

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

I might have said this before, but GM is really dropping the ball by not using the OPC/VXR turbo six and all wheel drive in the GS. On paper, the Regal looks like a pig, even with the turbo four. 255 hp and almost 4000 lbs? You get that with a Challenger. 325 hp and AWD would put it close to, if not on par with, its competitors.

...Wait, what are its competitors supposed to be? Audi S4, BMW 335, Merc C350? All of which have high power six cylinders and four wheel drive.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2010 04:22

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Guys, I don't know how to feel about this:
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/02/report-2012-honda-civic-si-getting-new-2-4l-engine-with-200-hp/

quote:

Known internally as "K24," the 2.4-liter engine slated for Civic Si use will be very similar to the powerplant currently used in the Acura TSX. No official power numbers have been divulged, but this engine currently makes 201 horsepower in the TSX, so we'll bet that Civic Si output will be somewhere between 200 and 210 hp. That isn't a huge increase over the 197 hp currently available from the Si's 2.0-liter four, but the 2.4-liter engine should prove to be a bit torquier. Look for something along the lines of 170 pound-feet in the 2012 model, whereas the current car only produces 139 lb-ft of twist.

A Civic Si with torque?!

# ¿ Feb 2, 2011 19:10

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Guys

Guys

GUYS

LISTEN

LOOK AT THIS: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/15/spy-shots-bmw-flings-m3-pickup-around-the-ring/

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Mar 15, 2011 21:48

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

kimbo305 posted:

Or look at this:
http://jalopnik.com/#!5782213/is-this-bmw-m3-pickup-for-real
It's a custom work car.

Knew it was too good to be true...

# ¿ Mar 16, 2011 00:10

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Cream_Filling posted:

Focus SE Sedan 2907 lbs
2012 Impreza Sedan 2910 lbs
Chevy Cruze Sedan 3102 lbs

This gets me every time I see it. My old '89 Celebrity wagon had seating for eight (if everyone was chummy), an iron block V6, and an enormous four speed automatic, and curb weight was listed as 2888. My '92 Century sedan had an all-iron Buick V6 and sat six (again, friendly) and was 2910. Yes, I know, luxury and safety, but goddamn cars are bloated these days. My minivan weighs less than a base model Charger, ffs. :btroll:

# ¿ Apr 26, 2011 05:11

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Internet Meme posted:

It was an attempt to get fobs to buy domestic cars.

Wouldn't have worked anyway, since the Villager was a rebadged Nissan Quest.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2011 22:04

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Motronic posted:

(Minivans) are soul-less crotchfruit transport with no redeeming qualities other than space, relative cheapness and "hey look, I can open the big door on the side with my keychain remote!" and "look, DVD players in the seat backs to keep the snot noses quiet!". No one who is any sort of driving enthusiast would find a single thing about how they drive to be satisfying.

The USDM Honda Odyssey has seating for eight, a 250 hp V6, gets 18-19 mpg city and 27-28 mpg highway, and starts around $28k. A Chevrolet Traverse has seating for eight, a 280 hp V6, gets 17 mpg city and 24 mpg highway, and starts closer to $30k. The Odyssey also has the advantage of not being a boring jellybean. The lightning bolt or whatever at the C pillar is something at least, instead of being inoffensively styled by a committee�and spread across four brands at one point, mind you�to look exactly like every other crossover on the road. So the minivan is cheaper, will cost less to run day-to-day, and has... we'll call it "interesting" styling. My only gripe is holy poo poo why does the Odyssey have to weigh more than two tons (and the Traverse almost two and a half!).

Everything you've said against minivans are, in fact, their strong points. Opening the side door(s) to let the kids in without having to heave the door yourself is a wonderful thing, especially if your hands are full of groceries or what have you. I plan on getting a keyfob for my van, since it was equipped with the option from the factory but I didn't get one from the PO. An entertainment option in the back to "keep the snot noses quiet" is exactly what a pair of frazzled parents need on the way back from the store. You can be an enthusiast while driving a minivan. I am. But three kids don't fit in a Miata or <insert performance car here>. You are obviously not the target demographic.

I wrote all that then this guy goes

Hot Cops posted:

yeah I don't see why they keep marketing the odyssey to driving enthusiasts

and makes my point with far less words. :sigh:

# ¿ Jul 20, 2011 03:12

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Motronic posted:

That statement betrays your lack of knowledge on full sized sedans and wagons. I don't even know where to start with this. I'm partial to Audis. I've driven a Passat wagon that was tuned up really nicely. I'm OK with a lot of Mercs in the full sized sedan category as well.

"Full size sedan/wagon" and "family vehicle" are no longer synonymous in America. As was said earlier in the thread, the Impala is the last bastion of column shift, front bench, six person seating in a car. Literally everything else, aside from trucks, only has five seats. If you need more, there is little choice but to go to an SUV/CUV/minivan. New station wagons simply do not exist anymore. No domestic manufacturer has made one since the previous generation Taurus/Sable (8 seats option with the front bench) and the Magnum (buckets, no third seat). Volkswagen have said they will not be offering a Passat wagon, which leaves the Jetta, which doesn't have a third row seat. Honda gives us the Euro-spec Accord wagon with an Acura badge and price tag to match, and only offers a four cylinder, and no third seat. Audi and Merc are too damned expensive. BMW wants you to buy a godawful GT or X-series instead. Volvo was the last holdout, but they've said they'll be discontinuing station wagons in the US and shifting their focus to, you guessed it, crossovers.

Motronic posted:

(Minivans) are horrible

Why? "Because they don't handle all that well"? They're not designed to be cone whores. They're designed to get you and your brood around in comfort.

"Because they don't get very good fuel economy"? Vans these days get phenomenal economy when compared to both their predecessors and their contemporaries in the CUV market.

"Because... because... they're big and stupid and ucky and I hate them!!" I hate crossovers just as vehemently. I can see their niche though�for people who are too cool to admit they need a van.

Motronic posted:

My snotnoses sit in the back of a Rover or a Porsche because I won't drive a minivan. Amazingly enough, everything works out just absolutely fine.

How many? Two grade-schoolers will fit pretty snugly in the back of a 911, I'm sure. As for Rover, that means you're not American, and don't see why us dumb Yanks need enormous everything.

Motronic posted:

I don't actually need a schoolbus/living room combo with a steering wheel. I'd bet most people who drive them don't need that either.

You're probably right. I don't need a van. I made do with a Fox-body Mustang several years ago. It sucked harder than you think. Having a school bus on beck and call makes lots of things incredibly easy. It means I don't need to borrow or rent a truck next time I buy a bed or couch. Same for when I move next year. Or when my brother needs his poo poo heap Deville towed to the shop again. Or when I want to take my three kids, wife and mother-in-law to the park.

Motronic posted:

I's bet that most of us who are old enough to have children on here grew up being ferried around in a full sized sedan or wagon as the largest. That all worked out too.

Well, in my case, my family didn't have a "proper" family vehicle until I was in high school. In order of my recollection, my childhood rides were: '78 Firebird, '69 Beetle, none (public transport), 1986 GMC Sierra, and 1987 Chrysler Fifth Avenue.

Cream_Filling posted:

Anyone have experience with the Mazda 5? That has 3 rows.

Three rows of buckets, total of six.

And once again, in the time it took me to write this, someone else said what I'm trying to say in less words.

TrueChaos posted:

Good luck transporting camping equipment + for a week + 2 canoes, a family of 5, and a dog in your Porsche, without the added cost of towing a trailer. On a 5 hour drive to the campsite. When you've got 3 teenagers, meaning whoever has to sit in the damned middle seat very unlucky.

Does driving a minivan mean you've given up on your driving enthusiasm? Hell no. If anything, it means you've got the right vehicle for the job - hauls lots of equipment and people for long periods of time in relative comfort. This is why you get a minivan, and something like an older 3-series for the 2nd car for the household.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2011 05:13

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Cream_Filling posted:

I bet there's still a market out there for a minivan the size of the original Caravan. See also the strong sales of the Scion xB (before they made it bigger, too).

Only thing I can find that comes close is the Mazda5. It's ever so slightly smaller than my Trans Sport in all measurements, and a quick search says it's somewhat smaller than the Caravan as well, though a bit heavier.

pre:

             Mazda5       1995 Trans Sport      1995 Caravan
Wheelbase:    108.3             109.8              112.3
   Length:    180.5             192.2              178.1
    Width:     68.9              74.6               72.0
   Height:     63.6              65.7               66.0
   Weight:   3457 (auto)       3523 (auto)        3305 (auto)

Left Ventricle fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Jul 26, 2011

# ¿ Jul 26, 2011 06:35

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Left Ventricle fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Aug 10, 2011

# ¿ Aug 10, 2011 21:57

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

tobu posted:

Let's not forget the Jukes sports-bike inspired centre console which I think looks awesome but it's just going to get scratched to poo poo right?

Have car makers forgotten that people have arms, and that said arms sometimes need to be somewhere other than pointing at the steering wheel or shifter? Resting on something, if you will?

# ¿ Sep 28, 2011 19:34

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

dissss posted:

The new Tiida looks pretty good, available with the same turbo 1.6 as the Juke just with a more conventional body style.

Wikipedia says its coming to the US as the Versa hatch, although who knows what engine options it'll end up with

Cold day in hell before the US market Versa gets a turbo. The people who buy the Versa wouldn't know what to do with it. They'd probably fill up with 87 ('cause it's cheaper, why does an econobox need premium?) and blow the drat thing.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2011 19:52

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

dissss posted:

You could say the same thing about the Cruze and whatever the smaller one's called yet they got the option.

Right, but the Cruze has 148 hp. The Juke engine, which I'm guessing is the one everyone is talking about possibly being put in to the Versa, is about 180 or so hp. That would make it potentially quicker than the Sentra SE-R, maybe even the Spec-V.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2011 22:27

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Franco Caution posted:

Where this gets fun is what happens with the Corvette now as the C7 draws closer. I can see a lot of people springing for the ZL1 that would normally have went with a Grand Sport. That goes for the Base vette as well as you can deck it out with options and have it up ZL1 cost while not even being close power wise any more.

Well, there's a big difference between the Camaro and the Corvette: the Corvette doesn't weigh two tons and have the outward visibility of an M1 Abrams.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2011 00:42

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Not seeing the point of the 6 GC. It's competing against the Mercedes CLS, right? Well, they're just a little late to the game, since the CLS has been around for over six years, and VW beat them to it with the Passat CC in '08.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 21:14

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Yeticopter posted:

What country do you live in where a Passat is comparable to a 6 series?

America, land of historically terrible cars. My point is the CC looks a hell of a lot like the CLS, close enough to fool the casual passer-by. Even setting the CC aside, BMW is trying to get into a segment that has been a one-car race for six years. They and Audi (A7) are a little late to that, and I don't see this as anything other than another ill-conceived cash grab attempt, much like the 5 GT.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2011 00:58

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Speaking of Acura, the 2013 Acura RDX will drop its turbo four in favor of a V6.

Autoblog posted:

With a generational switch comes big changes, and the biggest for the new RDX is Acura's decision to buck the industry trend and drop its turbocharged four-cylinder engine in favor of Honda's venerable 3.5-liter V6. Horsepower will jump from 240 to 273, and despite the addition of two more cylinders to feed, fuel economy will also increase significantly. The best the current RDX can muster is an EPA-rated 19 miles per gallon in the city and 24 highway, while the V6-powered 2013 model is projected to achieve 20 city and 28 highway. Aiding that new-found efficiency is a six-speed automatic transmission (one more gear than before) with a lock-up torque converter.

Honda is pretty far behind the times if they're just now putting a six speed auto into front wheel drive cars. It's an option on the Odyssey, and you have to get the top trim level to get it. And why is it noteworthy that this "new" transmission has a locking converter? That hasn't been a thing to tout for, what, almost thirty years? Or is that just Autoblog running out of things to say?

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 19:34

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Throatwarbler posted:

Hondas don't seem to be any worse for it. Considering all the problems GM and Ford have had with their 6 speeds. Most people don't even like the way 6+ speeds hunt for gears anyway.

I guess I was too subtle with the point I was trying to make. There's been something of an arms race as of late with regards to how many ratios you can cram into an autobox. Honda is lagging in that regard.

My bolding of the locking torque converter part still stands though. Why is that something that deserves mention?

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 20:19

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

iv46vi posted:

Doesn't Honda still use their own version of an auto transmission that's different fom everyone else's?

Looks that way.

"Wikipedia posted:

Honda's automatic transmissions are unusual in that they do not use planetary gears like nearly all other makers. Instead, the Hondamatic and its successors use traditional, individual gears on parallel axes like a manual transmission, with each gear ratio engaged by a separate hydraulic clutch pack. This design is also noteworthy because it preserves engine braking by eliminating a sprag between first and second gears

Honda was forced to invent their new system due to the vast array of patents on automatic transmission technology held by BorgWarner and others.

I've heard their five speed auto is (or was) quite terrible and had a pretty high failure rate.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2012 21:25

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Thwomp posted:

Still, I think the Magnum is ugly as gently caress.

I probably would have liked the Magnum if they had given it the same front end as the Charger. The Magnum looks so derpy. The Angry Charger Face would have been a lot better.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2012 23:22

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

travisray2004 posted:

Now, that. I'd drive the poo poo out of that.

Don't we already have that? As in, the CTS wagon?

# ¿ Feb 9, 2012 01:31

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Whip Slagcheek posted:

I would buy this tomorrow, minus the wood paneling. Put the new 6.0 V8 in that bad boy and you'd have a fun to drive, stylish wagon. On that same note, put the new Caprice into widespread release.

That kink on the rear door... unf. Slap a Chevelle badge on that fucker and I'd do whatever it takes to buy one. Keep the vinyl woodgrain. Classy as gently caress.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2012 04:12

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

KozmoNaut posted:

The current Opel lineup is very solid.

Agreed, except replace AUS with US. All the Opels we've got in the last decade or so have mostly been badged as Saturns, and seem to be quite good.
-Saturn L-Series and Chevrolet Malibu (04-08) were the Vectra
-Saturn Aura, Pontiac G6, Chevrolet Malibu (08-12) were/are the Insignia. The Pontiac version was a HUGE improvement over the Grand Am it replaced.
-We also got the Astra for a bit just before Saturn tanked. Big step up from the Ion.
-I think the current Buick Regal is an Insignia too, and I've heard nothing but praise for it, aside from Autoblog bitching about the shifter in the GS.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2012 02:56

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

DEUCE SLUICE posted:

I wish more sedans had liftbacks.

Chevy did it twice, and it was horrible to look at both times. Corsica and Malibu. I'm having a hard time coming up with a picture of the Corsica though. The Malibu Maxx is just so awkward-looking.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2012 20:57

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Cream_Filling posted:

If you're going to make a chunkity-assed car with a liftback, why not go whole hog and make a proper wagon? No-one on earth is going to buy a Malibu Maxx for looks, so you might a well haul as many boxes as possible.

Americans hate wagons, you know. Enough that, rather than just import and rebadge the existing Vectra wagon (which looked pretty good, I gotta say), GM went with what looks like a slightly modified version of the Holden ZC Vectra hatch (which also looks good), and expected it to sell. I don't think it did all that well.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2012 04:54

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

The new Impala is a good-looking car, but something about it saddens me. With this new version, it looks like there will no longer be any new cars that have a column shifter and front bench. Trucks are even going to console shifters. I think the GM trucks are the only ones left, unless the Rams still do.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2012 01:40

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Cream_Filling posted:

Well, at least that Lincoln has a push-button transmission. No idea why it has a console anyway, though. I think the cop-only Caprice has a column shift and front bench, too.

Pretty sure the Caprice is console shifted too. EDIT: yep.

Weirdly, I think the cop Taurus will have a column shifter with a console and buckets.

2ndclasscitizen posted:

All I see there is some GM designer who has a boner for the XF.

I don't see this as being a bad thing. First thing I said when I saw the pictures was that it looks like an overgrown Cruze.

Left Ventricle fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Apr 5, 2012

# ¿ Apr 5, 2012 03:59

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

kimbo305 posted:

What's weird? That's how Crown Vics are and equipment outfitters have planned accordingly.

Maybe "weird" wasn't the right term. I meant that it will have a console, rather than the empty space between the seats the CV had.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2012 04:04

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

PT6A posted:

Jesus, I didn't know anyone actually liked column shifters.

Love 'em. I'm pretty old-fashioned like that. All of my cars have had column shift/bench seat. I feel that it's a waste of space to have a big old hunk of plastic taking up the space that another person could be sitting in. Maybe it has to do with crash regulations? There's no room for an airbag there since that's where the radio/nav and HVAC controls are?

# ¿ Apr 5, 2012 04:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:49

Left Ventricle: Feb 24, 2006; Right aorta

Powershift posted:

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"

Corollary to that is, does the door still close manually if the auto pull fails in some way? I hope it does. My brother's '90 Deville has one of those for the trunk, and when it failed in the down position, the trunk wouldn't close at all. Had to hold it shut with a bungee. Then I got a motor from the junkyard, put it on, and it failed in the up position very shortly. At least it closes, but it has a gap that makes it look like it isn't.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2012 03:37

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

«‹›2 »