|
I'm 6 foot 1 and daily a first generation Miata with a roll cage that doesn't allow me to recline the seat. Quit 'yer bitching 
|
| # ¿ Jan 30, 2012 23:25 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 25, 2013 17:31 |
|
|
The RX7 got really expensive between its 80's and 90's generations as well, what the hell was japan smoking in the early 90s? Everyone who had an affordable car kept their silvia or FC for a few years so they had to go upmarket?
|
| # ¿ Feb 2, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
I did it, the safest accident is the one you avoid. (my household = 2 miatas)
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 22:14 |
|
|
Key features tab: "100% Subaru engineering". ?
|
| # ¿ Mar 2, 2012 17:38 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:What do you want the marketing department to say? The truth? "Developed in partnership with toyota motor corporation"? On the subject of the 'vert: Could a hatch be heavier or more expensive to make? (Seals spring to mind). Im sure toyobaru are making a loss on all of these cars and are basically paying to offset some of the "boring" image they both carry with young people, so they dont hemorrhage buyers as the years go by. They have to rice it super low and claw back as much profit as possible. (to clarify: For every STI suburu probibly sells 30 outbacks or legacys. Toyota really goes without saying) mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2012 around 21:52 |
| # ¿ Mar 2, 2012 21:50 |
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Some people seem to be stuck in 1990. These are usually the same people who say things like "the NC Miata is a pig" More like stuck in 2005. You dont think the NC's increase in size was a mistake? Mazda does, and has thrown out strong (admittedly unconfirmed) indications that the new model will have a reduction in size.
|
| # ¿ Mar 22, 2012 14:19 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, it's a pretty small thing overall, but the lack of steering wheel controls and possible no voice control of the stereo and bluetooth are big turnoffs for me now that I'm used to them. And like others have said, it's not like any of those features would be particularly detrimental to the performance of the car. Are we allowed to have any barebones sports cars anymore? Asking for poo poo like this (even if buttons aren't heavy, wires are) as standard is the cause of model bloat. 2700 pounds is not light. mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at Apr 8, 2012 around 04:21 |
| # ¿ Apr 8, 2012 04:16 |
|
|
Fucknag posted:List of cars under $50k that are lighter than 2700lb: Im comparing it to older cars obviously. And ideally we relax crash/safety regulations to allow for a simpler car. (my daily driver weighs 2300 pounds and i really want to strip poo poo off it it, but florida is hot and i need A/C)
|
| # ¿ Apr 8, 2012 15:25 |
|
|
japtor posted:Since no one else has asked (or I'm the only one that doesn't know), what car is this? 1996 miata, and its curb weight (source: edmunds) is 2293 pounds. Mine has poo poo removed but we wont get into that. A little extra frame and some "+2 seats" dont weigh 400 pounds, touch screens and electric motors do.
|
| # ¿ Apr 9, 2012 03:35 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Supposedly the Miata is supposed to lose more weight for the next generation, so if you really need a new car just hold out for the redesign coming in the next year or two since it looks like you fit in one anyway. One final point on my stupid ranting derail. I honestly cant stand power steering in cars, if the pump and rack weighed zero pounds, i still would not like this feature. No miata in the future will offer this configuration. Thats really the crux of my stupid argument. Statistically because of you (the reader) demanding convenence features, a paragon example of simple light track cars will feature buttons on the steering wheel and a camera for hooking your phone up to. Something about that feels really wrong. Secondly, do we have a source for "electric windows are lighter"? I've seen that statement morph from "its almost the same" to "they are equal weight" and finally to "electric windows are lighter". I just smell B/S and couldnt find any hard facts for myself. it reminds me of "Automatics these days get the same MPG", forgetting that the example they use often has a 10% reduction in power to achieve this. mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at Apr 9, 2012 around 05:21 |
| # ¿ Apr 9, 2012 04:55 |
|
|
Residency Evil posted:I'm trying to convince myself that yes, a new Subaru BRZ is a good choice over a used GTI when moving to Madison, WI. Get some winter tires and understand weight transfer and traction, it'll make you a better driver and maybe save your car or your life more than a GTI will.
|
| # ¿ Apr 9, 2012 16:11 |
|
|
As i implied before many people dont see the appeal of compromise with a rare opportunity like this vehicle. It clearly fits many peoples lives, but thinking like that brought us the pontiac aztec and the Honda CR-V. "I want a car but i want a truck". "I want a truck but i want a car". Its fine and dandy that we all have free will but dont be confused why people want
|
| # ¿ Apr 9, 2012 17:39 |
|
|
^--- Very good point.Faceless Clock posted:First you tell us this car isn't light, now you're comparing it to the Aztec and the CR-V. Boy, you're on a roll. Sorry. Im not saying its a crossover, im saying the same thought process that made trucks with unibodies and tiny engines the new daily driver of choice is the same thought process that says "I want a comfortable fast car". I simply think that when you ask for comfort you limit your potential for speed, and that when you ask for speed you limit your potential for comfort, so you end up with something in the middle that you know could have been better had it not compromised in the name of mass market appeal. And my point of view on this car is that compromising on a car with spaces in the dash for a rollcage and an interior designed to carry track tires is unlike designing a 4 door german cruiser with a big engine. The car was seemingly designed by engineers with one job in mind and marketing people came in and said it needs luxury features or it wasnt marketable. So the car company isnt so much to blame as it is people who "want it all". mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at Apr 9, 2012 around 18:39 |
| # ¿ Apr 9, 2012 18:32 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:
Read the hellaflush thread around here somewhere, they either tend to claim the handling is much better that way, and if you call them on it they take on a very "Whatever dude..." attitude. if i was going to go that low for aero or CG purposes i'd have to do some pretty crazy modification to the suspension mounting points and fenders, and fender liners, and who knows what else.
|
| # ¿ Apr 10, 2012 18:06 |
|
|
In that case people tend to actually lift the engine and put it on shims or spacers or washers. How would it make the car harder to drive? Less comfortable and practical maybe, but a lot of people (myself included) wouldnt really mind. My car is lowered just a little bit and i put stainless steel on the bottom of the frame and removed the airbags, just in case. I dont know what the crazy people do.
|
| # ¿ Apr 10, 2012 19:19 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Why Mazda refuses to make a Miata coupe is one of those enduring questions that never gets answered. I guess they just don't think people will buy enough to justify its existence over the PRHT? The car is also known as "Roadster". If you put a roof on it its not a roadster. Its like making the new Cheverolet El Camino a minivan. Now if you slap a roof on it and a Skyactive Renesis II under the hood and call it "The RX-5". 
|
| # ¿ Apr 12, 2012 18:02 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Well I originally said RX-2, but that was based on a (then) midsized sedan. The RX-3 eventually became the RX-7 as it got larger, but since this fantasy would be based on the Miata chassis, it would be most similar in size to the original RX-3, which had similar dimensions and wheelbase to the Miata. I was trying to say that reviving a heritage nameplate would be better than making up a new one. There was no RX-5 in America. My thinking didnt go much farther than "Its a MX5 with an R", which would cover both the "coupe miata" market, and make a possible future rotary project (at this point a part of mazda heritage) more realistic from a financial perspective.
|
| # ¿ Apr 12, 2012 20:58 |
|
|
Its electric. Weirdly mounted to the steering shaft itself.
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2012 12:18 |
|
|
All i know is shouldnt this make it easier to delete? Its probibly easier to disable an electric motor than a hydraulic one. gently caress power steering period.
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2012 13:54 |
|
|
Are they likely to make a manual rack for cars like this? I've never owned a car made after 1997 so im out of the loop somewhat.
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2012 14:21 |
|
|
jamal posted:Manual racks are slow as poo poo and not good from a performance driving standpoint. Dont care, not interested in driving a power steering car no matter what, would like to buy one from this century.
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2012 22:51 |
|
|
You Am I posted:Then you are out of luck. Even base model utes with vinyl seats and rubber floor mats have power steering as standard. Get used to it. Its ok as long as i can swap it out at great expense. And make sure i inform you all that you are worse than hitler for driving a power steering car! Whats next? Power windows? AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS?
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2012 01:37 |
|
|
Muffinpox posted:First they came for the hand crank engine starter, and I did not speak up because it had broken my jaw. Thats nothing, dont even get me started on manual spark advance and fuel mixture control. If i can handle it on an airplane, i can handle it on a car. Lycoming swap thread coming soon.
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2012 02:38 |
|
|
I can deal with manumatics i suppose. But I put my foot down at "if it's got a torque converter, it can't be considered any form of manual." I'm sure we can agree on that.
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2012 04:03 |
|
|
Blaise posted:Nobody said it wasn't. I was pointing out that the whole idea of 'manual everything, no assistance' was on it's way out. Isnt that a shame though? Every other preference has this attitude of "Let them think what they want/ Each person has his own opinion". But mention you dont want ABS and Power steering and out comes the "Lol hand crank starter" brigade. I just want one option that fits my preference, not banning yours.
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2012 18:43 |
|
|
Powershift posted:So basically what we anticipated, more of a precise drivers car but still unable to overcome the power advantage in the numbers game. Numbers game or not, "Slower than a v6 mustang on a track" is a hard pill to swallow for a car that is so focused. I think the cross-shopping of the mustand and BRZ is more likely than many think.
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2012 21:55 |
|
|
I thought to mention that but i didnt want to rile up people, willow springs isnt exactly a power circuit, and if ford can deliver 100 more horsepower (matched to good handling) at a comparable price point, thats something to be applauded, not mocked. It got spanked in either handling (stiffer doesnt mean faster, see BMW Z4) or tire quality (my theory).
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2012 23:19 |
|
|
jamal posted:At Willow Spings a more powerful car has a huge advantage. The BRZ probably only has to brake going into 1 and 3, and is probably flat all the way around 8-9. I just dont want to sit back and see people rushing in with "it doesnt count because its got less power", or "it doesnt count because its not the right configuration of racetrack". I'm no mustang fanboy by any means (see name), but credit where credit is due, it wins on the track. If it cant make up for its lack of power with momentum its simply a slower car.
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2012 23:28 |
|
|
mattah posted:
Plain and simple: Ill buy a car without a clutch pedal before i buy a powered rack car. From my cold dead hands. mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at May 5, 2012 around 06:12 |
| # ¿ May 5, 2012 06:08 |
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:From a price perspective I just realized it probably isn't justifiable to buy this car. I heard since Subaru is doing a limited run on it the demand is through the roof and the dealerships are charging enough of a markup on it that it suddenly makes other cars way more appetizing. Get the Scion, dont they have some kind of "Flat price" policy? (edit: nevermind it isnt, they just have to sell it for what they advertise it at.)
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2012 06:43 |
|
|
Muffinpox posted:DBW and its ability to finely regulate throttle is a large part of why there are several dozens of 500+hp street cars. I thought it was because these days people want to not die in a car accident and want a machine to tell them where to turn and merge, and you need the extra power to make the same performance we were getting from 300 horsepower 15 years ago? Das Volk posted:
Fun fact: As a pilot i also want to build an Experimental class 1916 Nieuport replica, complete with dangerous lack of throttle control of any kind. So i'll likely be killed and stop posting, just be patient. I just like old and analog more than new and digital. In my opinion a hydraulic system amplifying the force of my foot compressing the brakes is not the same as a solenoid controlling the throttle. Why would i buy it? Same reason you vote for the politician you know is only 00.1% better than "the other one", its the lesser of the evils. mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at May 7, 2012 around 20:01 |
| # ¿ May 7, 2012 19:52 |
|
|
Also i think holding a car in drive on the brakes (as in in traffic or at a light) after heating them up (like slow moving traffic will do) warps brakes like nothing else. Is this right? If so i can use this to respond to the common "but i need a slushbox for traffics!".
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 15:43 |
|
|
I personally would be ok with a hand crank, but i'm not seeking it out. Cars need too much power, too many accessories and too high compression these days and i doubt i could even turn a modern engine over. I have batshit opinions simply because i was involved in aircraft long before cars so my notions of "controlling a vehicle" involve little things you dont see in cars like manifold pressure and manual fuel mixture, you dont get much more involved in the control in any other vehicle. I like that. So getting in a toyota camry just annoys me as so what the hell i'm supposed to do and how people could desire to be so lazy about the business of driving. In the same way a manual enthusiast bemoans the lack of involvement of a traditional automatic, i on some level desire everything to be run with cables and vacuum lines. Personal preference and all that. Im so loudmouth about it because while someone with opinions other than mine are being served with plenty of vehicles, in 10 years i wont be able to buy anything that i could tolerate/enjoy, even used. I dont expect others to agree, i just one one car out of several thousand to be simple and analog. Ill have to import a Egyptian Lada or something mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at May 8, 2012 around 19:50 |
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 19:44 |
|
|
Sockington posted:But when has anyone ever controlled fuel mixture (not throttle) in a factory made car in the last 40years? I don't expect that I just don't like how cars are relaxing and take care of so many things for you. In any case I'll just accept it and relax. Cut ke a little slack I'm angry and powerless.
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 19:56 |
|
|
ppp posted:Well ok, but this is a thread for a modern sporty car, not a steam-powered jalopy. Maybe look into train simulators on the PC instead? Im glad you mentioned this because i wanted to explain how this ties into the toyobaru over the rest of AI. When the car was being hyped and previewed years ago i was led to believe that it was a barebones, purist "back to basics" car, right up until i saw a Television in the dash. Im over it i just wanted to explain that final thing.
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 20:45 |
|
|
ppp posted:So you thought that barebones meant that you would have to crank start the car and hulk out whenever you want to park? No i did not, nor did i expect unpowered brakes or any other foolishness like that. I was holding out for a stripper model with unpowered steering, but no more than that. (i feel like im going in circles)
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 21:18 |
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:Frankly the whole time I've had my present car I've been wishing for that "creep" feature the auto has as it would make my life so much easier on crowded parking lots and slow moving downtown traffic. Than release the pedal halfway and slip the clutch on purpose. Like brake pads, friction discs are replaceable wear items and are OK to use when you think its the best option.
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 22:29 |
|
|
Muffinpox posted:You can do this if you like replacing your glazed and useless clutch disk every 5,000 miles. You really are exaggerating, admit it. Maybe more like 50,000. And that is a low low number for a clutch. I respect treating your car well but you can slip a clutch for a few seconds if you absolutely must creep at a low speed. mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at May 8, 2012 around 23:09 |
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 23:07 |
|
|
Nodoze posted:A true roadster doesn't have rear seats If we're going REALLY "true", a true roadster doesnt have a fixed folding roof or retractable side windows. Thats a Convertible, which certainly can be a 4 seater. These days roadster means "2 door convertible" in the same way that that new big Mini cooper is some sort of SUV.
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2012 08:01 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 25, 2013 17:31 |
|
|
Plus despite the next-generation miata being (perpetually) one or two years away, i'd say its safe to say the new model is far enough away for mazda to drive a BRS/FRZ and respond directly to it.
mattdizzleZ28 fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 20:39 |
| # ¿ May 14, 2012 20:32 |
|
