|
Cream_Filling posted:It is a little ironic that despite that robots ad, the Charger isn't even available with a manual transmission. I thought the exact same thing the first time I saw that commercial too. travisray2004 posted:drat, for a Fast and Furious movie that scene was pretty good actually. Now I kind of want to see it in theaters. It definitely owns and is worth seeing. It was definitely mostly 'Merkin cars and big ol' trucks, but obligatory Jap-Crap (Skyline, WRX, Supra) and exotics (GT40, GT3, LF-A, Konignigseggeggegg) get cameos as well as lots of classics. They even tossed in a few surprise classics from across the pond. V V V 
oRenj9 fucked around with this message at 04:35 on May 9, 2011 |
#
?
May 9, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
oRenj9 posted:It definitely owns and is worth seeing. It was definitely mostly 'Merkin cars and big ol' trucks, but obligatory Jap-Crap (Skyline, WRX, Supra) and exotics (GT40, GT3, LF-A, Konignigseggeggegg) get cameos as well as lots of classics. They even tossed in a few surprise classics from across the pond. Vintage Skyline at the beginning was aces.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
Crustashio posted:I've been hearing the "sonata engine in new genesis" for awhile now, but 274hp in the genesis would have me giving it serious consideration. That would put it way below the MS3, WRX, and GTI for pricing. You don't get an LSD, but here the base genesis starts at 5k cheaper than the other 3. If the ft-86 is the same price as the genesis I don't see it doing that well. Hyundai has to step it up to stay competitive. The 370Z, Mustang, and Camaro, which seem to be the Genesis Coupe's competition, keep getting more and more powerful. If they don't put the direct injection in the Genesis to bump the power, they will fall behind considerably. I would seriously have went out and bought an '11 Genesis Coupe last week if I didn't see there was a chance for this new engine. If I bought an '11 and then 6 months later it had 64 more horses I'd be pretty pissed off. And the Genesis Coupe does come with an LSD, just not in the base model. In fact, I'm a little annoyed with the Genesis options. I want a Genesis Coupe with the 2.0 Turbo, LSD, leather, sunroof, and 6 speed manual. But you can only get the leather and sunroof on the Premium 2.0T model, which is automatic only and no LSD. The LSD comes with the Track and R-Spec models, which are 6 speed, but no sunroof or leather. The only way to get the LSD, leather seats, sunroof, and 6 speed, is the 3.8 Track version, which is not the engine I want. I really hope they fix this for 2012.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:The only way to get the LSD, leather seats, sunroof, and 6 speed, is the 3.8 Track version, which is not the engine I want. I really hope they fix this for 2012. This sucks on a bunch of cars and it's just baffling sometimes. I think it was the IS250 and IS350 where the 350 only comes in RWD and automatic, while the 250 you can get AWD and with a stick. Considering how they build them these days I don't see why you can't just pick every individual option.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:Hyundai has to step it up to stay competitive. The 370Z, Mustang, and Camaro, which seem to be the Genesis Coupe's competition, keep getting more and more powerful. If they don't put the direct injection in the Genesis to bump the power, they will fall behind considerably. I would seriously have went out and bought an '11 Genesis Coupe last week if I didn't see there was a chance for this new engine. If I bought an '11 and then 6 months later it had 64 more horses I'd be pretty pissed off. Funny, the Canadian market gets all variants with all transmissions (except the 2.0T GT, which is only available with the 6-speed), but we have different variants to begin with (base 2.0T, premium 2.0T, 2.0T GT, V6, V6 GT). It seems everything you want would be available with the 2.0T GT.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Not a production car at all but you have to admit, the VW Polo R WRC looks pretty good (for a VW).  bonus video of its heritage on here: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/05/volkswagen-to-contest-wrc-with-polo-r-in-2013/
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Looks like it's the end of the road for the GM 60* OHV V6 (and the 4T60E too?)  . The Impala is going to the new 3.6l DI V6 and 6 speed auto. quote:Chevrolet Car (2012) Impala Kind of warms the heart to know that I'll still be able to pick up a 2 year old W-body for a couple grand 5 year from now. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:Hyundai has to step it up to stay competitive. The 370Z, Mustang, and Camaro, which seem to be the Genesis Coupe's competition, keep getting more and more powerful. If they don't put the direct injection in the Genesis to bump the power, they will fall behind considerably. I would seriously have went out and bought an '11 Genesis Coupe last week if I didn't see there was a chance for this new engine. If I bought an '11 and then 6 months later it had 64 more horses I'd be pretty pissed off. You can live without a sunroof and you can always get the interior redone in leather with better quality leather for a grand or even less depending on who does it. It does suck that you can't pick options "a la carte" as much as you used to be able to.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Funny, the Canadian market gets all variants with all transmissions (except the 2.0T GT, which is only available with the 6-speed), but we have different variants to begin with (base 2.0T, premium 2.0T, 2.0T GT, V6, V6 GT). It seems everything you want would be available with the 2.0T GT. Yeah, Our 2.0GT gets the premium + GT stuff from the states, and we don't seem to have a track model. Of course, by the time you do that you're almost into base WRX territory. While it doesn't have the leather/sunroof, it is a hell of a lot more enticing than a 200hp motor in a 3400lb car. If they throw in the sonata motor I'd seriously consider getting a base 2.0 since I can live without an LSD, but otherwise I'd spend my money on the WRX.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Well Google's been getting away with it, so I think eventually it might happen. It might just be super helpful steering and throttle control at first... but eventually, the machines will get us My thesis adviser just visited a major automaker's plant and took a ride in their prototype automated car (based on the same paper/algorithms that google based theirs on). He said it was really impressive - it navigated the neighborhood just fine and seemed to take account of and adjust to other cars on the road - but somewhat jerky. Anyway, supposedly all the real interest is in collision avoidance rather than fully automated driving.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
The only way I'd accept an automated driving system is if it were highway based. Local driving absolutely should not be automated.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
Naky posted:The only way I'd accept an automated driving system is if it were highway based. Local driving absolutely should not be automated. I'd rather run into something at 25, than, oh, a deer at 65.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Viggen posted:I'd rather run into something at 25, than, oh, a deer at 65. Detection and evasion would be easier and safer at 65 mph on a highway than at 25 mph in the city ... and no one only goes 25 mph in the city.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
Naky posted:The only way I'd accept an automated driving system is if it were highway based. Local driving absolutely should not be automated. I think it will depend on how good it gets. People will be uneasy about them at first, naturally, but over time if the systems are truly safe then that will erode. I work on object recognition and things have been improving really, really rapidly over the past few years, and it's not hard to imagine a day when an automated system could be more observant and reactive than average human drivers in every day driving. If collision avoidance systems - which will surely be the first thing to get actually implemented and sold - ever get really good and people start to trust them, then automated driving would probably gradually follow. People would probably already trust its navigation, and if you trust it not to crash or hit pedestrians as well then what's left?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Viggen posted:I'd rather run into something at 25, than, oh, a deer at 65. I imagine any automated system that would get implemented would have sensors and systems put into place for that that have a far higher reaction time for stopping than a human ever would. Also remember that it is better to hit deer at high speeds than it is to swerve and miss them. The car is designed to take a hit but if you go flying into a ditch/tree/rollover, etc the odds are much higher that you're a lot deader then.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:... and no one only goes 25 mph in the city. v  v Guess I have an excuse because what isn't full of casinos is full of schools, and trust me you will get incredibly hosed if you go one iota over the speed limit there. Usually, though, I'll just take the highway and bisect as much of the city as physically possible.Naky posted:I imagine any automated system that would get implemented would have sensors and systems put into place for that that have a far higher reaction time for stopping than a human ever would. Sure, I won't get into an argument to being faster, but the only logic you have is what the computer has programmed into it, and not to further derail, but people can do what computers can't even simulate. I'm not making an argument that a person will be better than a computer every time, that'd be stupid - but I'd rather put my life in my own hands than a computer with some predefined rules.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
wav3form posted:You can live without a sunroof and you can always get the interior redone in leather with better quality leather for a grand or even less depending on who does it. It does suck that you can't pick options "a la carte" as much as you used to be able to. It's either this car or a used S2000. I'd rather be able to split the difference between a convertible and no sunroof at all. My last 3 cars haven't had a sunroof and it'd sure be nice. I think I'm going to walk into a dealership and tell the first person I see exactly what options I want and see if they can earn their commission making me happy, Frank Rizzo style. Probably not, but it's worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
I keep thinking of Demolition Man when the automatic driving ideas are discussed. Or the taxis in Total Recall. It'd be a fine system for city and state vehicles, but good luck getting the public to get them for themselves anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
There are already mechanisms like radar-guided cruise control, assisted braking and assisted parallel parking in cars available today. Very high-end cars like the Merc S-class, but that means those things will become mainstream in 10 years or so -- like ABS brakes, traction control, airbags and all that. Some cars will even warn you if you leave your lane absent-mindedly or make no adjustments at all for a preset period of time (a sign that you may be asleep). It's not sci-fi stuff really. People think "automated driving" means the driver takes a completely passive role, but that's pretty far-fetched. Driving is increasingly assisted in cars today, and that's not really a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
el topo posted:People think "automated driving" means the driver takes a completely passive role, but that's pretty far-fetched. Driving is increasingly assisted in cars today, and that's not really a bad thing. This is my standard argument in favor of smarter cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBxQL7u7rxk#t=31s
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
Funny you mention that because here's the new official Taxi of New York City:  Looks like something you'd see on one of those movies.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Funny you mention that because here's the new official Taxi of New York City: I wonder how many screens/entertainment bullshit they've added to this one. Although I do have to say I loved seeing the GPS screen in the back compartment when I first saw them in NYC.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
On the topic of collision avoidance systems: I always wonder how these systems deal with vehicles entering the path of travel momentarily. Say you're going through an intersection and a car zips through the red light and narrowly zips in front of you, what does the car do? Or what if somebody makes a left turn at a reasonable distance then something happens and the car stops, at what point does your car realize "Oh poo poo his car is stopped I better slam on the brakes!" It just seems that, unless it's very well refined, it could be a terrifying system to have in place with it constantly freaking out about "close" calls and slamming on the brakes.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Morphix posted:I wonder how many screens/entertainment bullshit they've added to this one. Although I do have to say I loved seeing the GPS screen in the back compartment when I first saw them in NYC. How useful can a GPS be in NYC? In downtown Pittsburgh mine routinely tells me I am two blocks away and also driving my car inside a building.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
I'd play cash cab in one.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
heat posted:How useful can a GPS be in NYC? In downtown Pittsburgh mine routinely tells me I am two blocks away and also driving my car inside a building. This was my first time in NYC, so whenever we did take a cab it was awesome seeing exactly where in the city we were, as cellphone GPS was often hosed by the tall buildings. It was a neat little feature because it also gave you an estimated time of arrival, and in a big rear end city like NYC that was helpful. edi- misread your question, ya the GPS system was really accurate. Must have had some sort of compass thing, because the speed seemed fairly accurate and it never jumped you into a building or anything. It definitely didn't look like a Google Maps or Bing API thing. Morphix fucked around with this message at 21:15 on May 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
heat posted:How useful can a GPS be in NYC? In downtown Pittsburgh mine routinely tells me I am two blocks away and also driving my car inside a building. The ones in cabs seem to work well within the city, I think they use distance/compass in addition to GPS to get your position.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
I think the rationale behind having a stupid GPS entertainment screen in every cab is so that it's harder for the cabbie to cheat you by going in circles or something. Either that or it's just some retarded feature bullshit cooked up to flash up some subcontractor's proposal to whatever committee of Bloomberg buddies is in charge of the taxi commission. At least hopefully now with a purpose-built cab, they can make sure that the stupid "security divider" won't inflict massive facial injuries on even seatbelted passengers in low-speed crashes. Honestly, the London cabs seem much more suited to a dense urban area than this van.  edit: well, maybe not... the Nissan is actually shorter than even the TX4.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Honestly, the London cabs seem much more suited to a dense urban area than this van.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:At least hopefully now with a purpose-built cab, they can make sure that the stupid "security divider" won't inflict massive facial injuries on even seatbelted passengers in low-speed crashes. I'm not sure about the personal injury risk to people in cars, I was always under the impression that people outside the car were the real issue. I do know a bad idea when I see one though: deploying an import van with completely unique body panels for use as a taxi in one of the highest fenderbender risk areas in the country. They could've picked the Transit... not tacky enough? Not enough potential for massive cost overruns?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:They could've picked the Transit... not tacky enough? Not enough potential for massive cost overruns? Why would the Transit Connect be any different - don't they all get manufactured in Europe anyway? That would make it an import van with completely unique body panels too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Since it came up: Google Lobbies Nevada To Allow Self-Driving Cars http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/science/11drive.html quote:Google, a pioneer of self-driving cars, is quietly lobbying for legislation that would make Nevada the first state where they could be legally operated on public roads.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
In regard to taxis: The first point I was making regarding injuries was specific to NYC taxis, which are required to have a stupid plastic "safety barrier". Various carmakers like to repeat their official line that they disapprove of this because the barriers, which are quite substantial, have not been crash tested and often cause facial injuries from passengers slamming into them, even with seatbelts on. Ford has also been rumbling about shifting production of the Transit Connect to the US in the future if it proves to be successful. The Nissan is supposed to be built in Mexico, but has yet to be produced. The other competitor was some Turkish company (incidentally the Ford is currently made in Turkey) that had the highest rated project but didn't actually produce a product and submitted some sort of concept.  Also, they all look better than that hideous "taxi of tomorrow" concept that came up a couple years ago that had interchangeable front/rear fenders and super-cheap parts-bin lights (since headlights/tails are some of the most expensive parts to replace in a fender-bender).  Still, I can't see the cutlines for the front bumper on that Nissan concept. Surely boring sealed-beams or equivalent and old-fashioned external bumpers would make much more sense in this application? At the very least, the Ford Transit Connect is already being sold in the US - you can't walk two blocks in NYC without seeing one on the street. But the NV200 still looks better than the new NV line of nissan vans. Ick.  I mean I think utilitarian designs can be quite fetching in their own way (hell, Jeep made it an icon). But somehow most of these are all terribly ugly because they use parts from the progressively uglier counterpart truck designs. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:38 on May 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:And the Genesis Coupe does come with an LSD, just not in the base model. In fact, I'm a little annoyed with the Genesis options. I want a Genesis Coupe with the 2.0 Turbo, LSD, leather, sunroof, and 6 speed manual. But you can only get the leather and sunroof on the Premium 2.0T model, which is automatic only and no LSD. The LSD comes with the Track and R-Spec models, which are 6 speed, but no sunroof or leather. Save some money and get the R-Spec, then buy some leather seats off someone on a genesis forum that's swapping them for aftermarket buckets or something. The R-spec at $24,500 + (<$1000) in seats < the Premium ($26,750 with auto only). Plus you'll have a lower CG without the sunroof hehe. Weird though, according Hyundai's site the 2.0t premium is the exact same price as the 3.8l R-spec? moloo fucked around with this message at 01:52 on May 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Still, I can't see the cutlines for the front bumper on that Nissan concept. The cutline is there going at a 45 degree angle between the wheel well and the bottom corner of the head light. Cream_Filling posted:But the NV200 still looks better than the new NV line of nissan vans. Ick. I think the Italians do ugly best:  At least it looks somewhat unique
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
dissss posted:Why would the Transit Connect be any different - don't they all get manufactured in Europe anyway? They sold 27k Transit Connects last year, and sales are up 50% this year. Production is shifting to the US in 2012. The NV200 isn't sold in the US, and there are tons of things that aren't very good about it - Chinese build quality, crappy 1.6L engine (103hp, compared to the Transit Connect's 136hp 2.0L), tiny windows better suited for a work van, etc. Cream_Filling posted:I mean I think utilitarian designs can be quite fetching in their own way (hell, Jeep made it an icon). But somehow most of these are all terribly ugly because they use parts from the progressively uglier counterpart truck designs. There's definitely a good reason for the awkward vans, though. This looks much nicer...  ...but it's terrible to sit in, really cramped thanks to the plastic barrier. I haven't sat in the NV200/Transit but it must be a lot more comfortable with the height and all. I remember my family (5 people, minus dad in the front passenger) routinely cramming into the back of crown vic taxis when I was a kid. You definitely can't do that anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
dissss posted:The cutline is there going at a 45 degree angle between the wheel well and the bottom corner of the head light. That's almost ordinary by Fiat standards. Behold the (in)famous Multipla... 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:I remember my family (5 people, minus dad in the front passenger) routinely cramming into the back of crown vic taxis when I was a kid. You definitely can't do that anymore. I'm sad my kids will never get to enjoy sitting on one of those little round jumpseats the cabs used to have when I was a kid. They were like these sweet little collapsible seats designed specifically for seven year olds who were tired of walking in the city all day.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Dave Inc. posted:It just seems that, unless it's very well refined, it could be a terrifying system to have in place with it constantly freaking out about "close" calls and slamming on the brakes. It would be far less susceptible to such things, since it would be able to very accurately calculate distance, speeds, rates of acceleration, etc. much faster than a human, and be immune to panic.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
dissss posted:The cutline is there going at a 45 degree angle between the wheel well and the bottom corner of the head light. I'm strangely ok with this design. Putting the lights that high up has a legitimate practical reason to try and protect them from collisions (right?) and also might simplify changing the bulbs or whatnot. The lower air intake/grille thing looks aerodynamically sound, and there isn't an unnecessary big chrome picture frame dominating the front end. The only problem might be difficulties accessing the engine compartment, but if that front grille part also opens or easily removes, then maybe not so much? Also, the British TXs still have jump seats, don't they? They can be folded up to fit a wheelchair in. Wheelchair accessibility is also the reason for the change to microvans in NY, and a good reason at that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2011 21:51
|
|