|
quote:A far as Chevy is concerend i dont even know what vehicle is supposed to be matching up with the GC because they really dont make a midsized SUV anymore. Just full sized and crossovers. The closest thing GM had was the Hummer H3, and I'm pretty sure its engines were all poo poo.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The closest thing GM had was the Hummer H3, and I'm pretty sure its engines were all poo poo. It had always been the Trailblazer/Envoy until 2009. I guess its closest comparison would be the Lambda platform Crossovers which have a detuned LLT V6 at 288hp. It looks like the GC has the most powerful V6 among the american Suv/crossovers. They really must not want to survive as a company 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:a 6.4l SRT8 is in the wings too. 480hp, 8-speed, nice interior, less like a barn door. Sounds fun. It would be nice if they kept the exhaust off the center, as neat as it looked in the old one. I wonder if you slapped on the normal front with some resonable looking 20's (since I'm sure it will still have giant rotors) it would just look like a normal jeep in Aero mode. vv It's been a few years since I read any of the srt forums, didn't think anyone was running 19's, let alone 18's. Would be a fun sleeper with a bit of badge/front/wheel/exhaust swapping then. REDjackeT fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
REDjackeT posted:480hp, 8-speed, nice interior, less like a barn door. Sounds fun. With the right wheel specs you can run 18"s on an SRT8 no problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
Is the 500 Abarth SS with 160hp a bit low on power for your needs? How about 264hp instead? http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/30/slick-little-number-pogea-racing-develops-fiat-500-ferrari-deal/ 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 11:46
|
|
|
So the more I think about the T25, the more I think I'd love one for my commute. The turbo version that weighs 500kg would be more than nippy enough, and you'd be able to carve your way through traffic because it's so narrow. Murray needs someone to style it though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
sanchez posted:They've always had nicer interiors than anything from Ford or especially GM as well. Who, Chrysler? Ahahahaha suuuure they have.... frozenphil posted:Whatever, I'm not really invested in this discussion as I don't really give a poo poo about the SUV market. They're such a niche vehicle that represent a real danger to others on the road and have gained popularity due to vanity and ignorance. They're basically the anti-AI. How do SUVs represent a real danger to other people on the road? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Dr JonboyG posted:So the more I think about the T25, the more I think I'd love one for my commute. The turbo version that weighs 500kg would be more than nippy enough, and you'd be able to carve your way through traffic because it's so narrow. Murray needs someone to style it though. Bertone. I would love to see a Bertone styled city car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
TurboLuvah posted:Who, Chrysler? Ahahahaha suuuure they have.... By their very nature, SUVs are heavier and taller than a lot of other non-SUV vehicles on the road, which means they are more dangerous in an accident, to both the people in the other vehicle and the SUV itself. Although the same holds true for other vehicles such as buses or dump trucks, it is necessary for them to be that large to perform their function.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I would love to see a Bertone styled city car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 21:41
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:I really doubt creating a separate brand would really help Hyundai. I think these days if they did, pretty much everyone's going to know that they're just Hyundai's with a different badge. But if the Equus is a success, it could help continue moving the Hyundai brand away from being cheap, nasty shitboxes. The Eqqus won't be sold in every Hyundai dealership, just a few selected ones.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Coffee Jones posted:The Eqqus won't be sold in every Hyundai dealership, just a few selected ones. I just image googled eqqus and got a full page of half naked harry potter with a horse. Bad start. edit: make that fully naked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
I don't really like the presenter, but it's a decent ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poWNPlLyoNI I sorta wish the Lambo had gotten the rear loose to turn that corner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 22:19
|
|
Spatule posted:I just image googled eqqus and got a full page of half naked harry potter with a horse. Bad start. Yeah, I know. That's an unfortunate name. (safe search on) I got to sit in an Eqqus prototype at an auto show. No Hyundai badging anywhere, the Eqqus has its own badge, (ala Toyota Crown) no use of the term, "Hyundai Eqqus", it's just "Eqqus". The interior is nearly much of a step over the Genesis as the Genesis is over a well equipped Sonata, and they're definitely wanting to go toe to toe with Lexus's LS.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Coffee Jones posted:Yeah, I know. That's an unfortunate name. (safe search on) It's actually "Equus," latin for "horse."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:It's actually "Equus," latin for "horse." Thanks, that was driving me loving insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/253666/vws_baby_roadster_is_coming.html 2 door MR roadster with a TDI? I guess the platform is going to be shared with porsche as well, with a new 918 coming out. Either way, should be pretty freakin' sweet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 14:39
|
|
|
Oh finally, I've been waiting for a production Bluesport roadster. Not that the US will ever see the diesel version 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
rscott posted:http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/253666/vws_baby_roadster_is_coming.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:Oh finally, I've been waiting for a production Bluesport roadster. Not that the US will ever see the diesel version The lack of decent diesels over here is really pissing me off. Why can't I buy an XF or XJ diesel? For that matter, why are the non-R Jags limited to 121 mph?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
Tire compound would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Tire compound would be my guess. Yup, nine times out of ten, when a car has a seemingly arbitrarily low speed limiter, it's because OEM spec tires only are rated to that speed or slightly above. Hell, back in the day if you bought a fourth-gen Camaro Z28 but didn't tick the Z-rated tire option box, you got a speed limiter on a car that was otherwise identical in every way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
But they know they can fit Z rated tyres because the XFR and XJR have them! Not that I'm doubting you, but I'd been starting to seriously think about getting a Jag in the next few years and now they can gently caress off. My old man's company recently loaned them €75 million, he should have told them they could only have the money if they weren't retarded. It does raise the question though - if you replaced the rubber for something decent, how easy would it be to change the limiter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:Oh finally, I've been waiting for a production Bluesport roadster. Not that the US will ever see the diesel version If it gets the 2.0t it will be a barrel of fun and still get pretty decent mpg. Dr JonboyG posted:But they know they can fit Z rated tyres because the XFR and XJR have them! Not that I'm doubting you, but I'd been starting to seriously think about getting a Jag in the next few years and now they can gently caress off. My old man's company recently loaned them €75 million, he should have told them they could only have the money if they weren't retarded. Z rated tires tend to have shorter life expectancy, and most people buying a non-R jag really don't give a poo poo about 121mph but do care if they're eating a set of tires that usually run $200+ per every 20k miles. Limiters are pretty easy to defeat. Muffinpox fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
Dr JonboyG posted:But they know they can fit Z rated tyres because the XFR and XJR have them! Not that I'm doubting you, but I'd been starting to seriously think about getting a Jag in the next few years and now they can gently caress off. My old man's company recently loaned them €75 million, he should have told them they could only have the money if they weren't retarded. I bet you could get the dealer to do it, I'd imagine it's software. Of course they can fit Z-rated tires, but like Muffinpox says, most people don't give a poo poo about Z-rated tires. And it'd be kind of irresponsible to let the car go faster than the tires are rated for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I bet you could get the dealer to do it, I'd imagine it's software. Bizarrely, the 2011 Mustang is limited at 113mph, yet comes with Z-rated tires. I don't quite see the point, but I assume there is one. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Bizarrely, the 2011 Mustang is limited at 113mph, yet comes with Z-rated tires. I don't quite see the point, but I assume there is one. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:That's a straight up 180kph, so maybe it's a legal thing in a market they sell them in, and it's easier to just have it on all vehicles. Anyone know if this is a Canadian thing? I know BMWs are all limited at 203 km/h in Canada, so I don't think it's that, and I meant to say specifically the V6 Mustang was limited at that speed; the GT is limited at something like 130 mph instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:That's a straight up 180kph, so maybe it's a legal thing in a market they sell them in, and it's easier to just have it on all vehicles. Anyone know if this is a Canadian thing? All "american" rental cars I tried in canada would hit 180 and stop, at least from what I drove working for a rental company. Although when I had a grand prix GTP that it 120mph before I ran out of road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I know BMWs are all limited at 203 km/h in Canada, so I don't think it's that, and I meant to say specifically the V6 Mustang was limited at that speed; the GT is limited at something like 130 mph instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
grover posted:How does the new Mustang handle at high speeds if the governor is removed? Could the governor be related to aerodynamics? I don't know, but the aerodynamic profile of the V6 and the GT should be nearly identical, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't know, but the aerodynamic profile of the V6 and the GT should be nearly identical, no? grover fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
I can guarantee that Ford did not design a car with 415hp stock yet was not safe aerodynamically above 120. The weight difference would be negligible if it was that drastic of an aero problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
This probably has more to do with the speed limit on the v6 than anything else. A v6 Mustang is for girls and rental agencies.Crustashio posted:All "american" rental cars I tried in canada would hit 180 and stop, at least from what I drove working for a rental company. Although when I had a grand prix GTP that it 120mph before I ran out of road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Dr JonboyG posted:But they know they can fit Z rated tyres because the XFR and XJR have them! Not that I'm doubting you, but I'd been starting to seriously think about getting a Jag in the next few years and now they can gently caress off. I know it's a principle thing, but are you really going to track your bigass XF or XJ sedan? I suspect the brakes will cook long before you have a chance to bemoan top speed issues. I recall you being from the US. If you're storming the autobahn, that'd be different. oh yeah -- 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I know it's a principle thing, but are you really going to track your bigass XF or XJ sedan? I suspect the brakes will cook long before you have a chance to bemoan top speed issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I'd say that the two are (almost) mutually exclusive, though - long, high-speed hauls don't really do much to your brakes, whereas even intensive track use in a road car isn't that likely to see you sitting at extremely high speeds. That's part of what I'm saying -- on the track in the US is the best shot you have of getting to 120 mph. As an addition, I mentioned that those Jags might not have the brakes to haul down safely from 120 repeatedly. But yes, I think going past 120 might be reasonable when on the autobahn (and certainly brakes would play a different role there).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
kill me now posted:I can guarantee that Ford did not design a car with 415hp stock yet was not safe aerodynamically above 120. The weight difference would be negligible if it was that drastic of an aero problem. Pure speculation here, but could Ford have optimized the aerodynamics for fuel economy to meet federal mandates, while cheaping out on the pop-up spoiler it would take to stay stable at higher speeds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I know it's a principle thing, but are you really going to track your bigass XF or XJ sedan? I suspect the brakes will cook long before you have a chance to bemoan top speed issues. No, that's the sad part, it is just the principle of the thing. I think the lack of a diesel is more of an issue for me (and yes, I live in the US now but grew up in the UK). It's basically as fast as the V8, but does 33 mpg as opposed to 23. You'd hope that at some point we start seeing more decent diesels over here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
grover posted:I agree, it just doesn't make sense, but neither do such low governor limits. I can't seem to find anything on google about this, aside from complaints that the fox body would get real light above 120-125mph. Surely someone has unlocked a new mustang and seen how fast it can REALLY go? Or do people track these with the governor on? A 120mph trap speed in the 1/4 mile equates to a low 10 second ET in a naturally aspirated car. You're not going low 10s in a stock car, and you're not going low 10s without a tune. It is trivial to turn off the governor in the tune. Basically, the only people the speed limiter effects are people bombing down public roads, Bonneville, or the Autobahn. No company is going to cater to the first group and the second and third groups are such a small percentage of the potential owner's demographic that no one gives a poo poo about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 01:10
|
|