|
Made a thread so this one can go back to talking about.....other cars. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3446803
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:I WANT THIS CAR because I love throwing small light cars into corners at ridiculous speeds! CT with the thread title. Automotive Insanity > FT-86/FR-S/BRZ If it Doesn't Handle it Can Go To Hell Eh, somebody already made one 
Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Has anyone heard of this BMW ActiveE 1 series? From the little research I was able to do on my phone it looks like an all electric version of the 1. According to Wikipedia they're only being tested right now. The 10 or so I saw all looked to be driven by people in their mid-late 20's. Not a whole lot of info on BMW's website. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
You didn't look very hard then http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/uniquely/bmwefficientdynamics/ExploreActiveE.aspx It's a pilot program comprised of 700 of their electric 1-series cars over 2 years. They are leasing them to the general public instead of just doing internal testing. Sign ups begin later this year. They've started hyping it up a bit, and that one looks like it has dealer or manufacturer plates or something like that, probably driving around for final testing and to raise awareness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Guinness posted:You didn't look very hard then http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/uniquely/bmwefficientdynamics/ExploreActiveE.aspx I was looking at it on my phone so maybe it was lot of flash (?) but not much was popping up when I clicked on stuff. I'll check it out when I get home. All the cars I saw were in a line not near the BMW holding lot for the port. Not sure where they'd be going since it was a very rural road. Definitely not trying to raise awareness - probably the opposite. jvick fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Ah yeah, it's almost all Flash, that's probably why. Looks like a neat car, I think it's primarily field testing for technology they'll be implementing in their upcoming i3 and i8 cars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
i just felt my dick move i'm fully prepared to trade the 1er on that subaru version as soon as it's available. is there any remote chance in hell we get a turbo version ever because that would be the cats mother loving pajamas edit: yeah re the 1 EV it's roughly the drivetrain that will go in the ground-up electrics they're just making sure it works
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Ah yeah, it's almost all Flash, that's probably why. I signed up for the waiting list to be a Lessee. One of my concerns is having to pay $100 for a consultation on the install of a charging station (which can be applied to the cost of the install). The other concern I have is the annual allotted mileage. I didn't see it clearly listed anywhere when I was reading through, though it's probably hidden in the fine print somewhere. I drive a few hundred miles per week, so hopefully I'll be a qualified candidate...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
I just spent the evening at the Seattle international auto show, and I've got to say I was really surprised at how uninspired and cheap-feeling most news cars are across the board, especially the interiors, even in the "premium" segment. I checked out first-hand most of the major offerings from virtually every major brand available in the US, and more often than not I found myself thinking "they want HOW much for this??". Granted, I didn't actually drive any of them, but from just settling into the driver's seat and checking out the interior feel, I was left unexcited at best by most cars, and appalled by others. I'd say the most impressive interiors IMO across all sub-75k cars were the Hyundai Genesis (sedan and coupe), Acura TL (best interior under 75k IMO, too bad the outside is so frumpy), Mazda 3 and MX-5 (simple, but nice and clean), and the Ford Focus (for the price). The most disappointing/shocking were pretty much all Volkswagens (man, talk about moving down-market), Volvo S60 (  -inducing layout), and Audi, especially the big boy Audis like the A6/7/8 - for $60-100k, they were just pathetic and cheap feeling, although cleanly designed.I walked away from the show thinking 95% of all the new cars were crap for how much they cost. The interior of my 04 BMW 330Ci and my dad's 03 Acura TL-S have way better materials and layout than almost everything being sold new right now. As a big BMW/Audi fan, it feels really weird to say that some of the best interiors on the market belong to Hyundai. How times have changed. On a positive note, my dad is seriously considering going to test drive a Genesis Coupe as a potential new DD after being so impressed by it and Hyundai in general. They are legitimately nicer cars than most stuff that costs 10k+ more. poo poo, I could even see myself going from a BMW to a Hyundai. Never in a million years did I think I would ever utter those words. Guinness fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 07:49
|
|
|
Guinness posted:I'd say the most impressive interiors IMO across all sub-75k cars were the Hyundai Genesis (sedan and coupe), Did they change the interior for 2013? My friend has a 2011 and while the ergonomics of it are pretty good, the quality and feel of it leave a lot to be desired, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
I don't know if they refreshed the interior, but I thought the fit and finish were really overall quite good, especially in the Genesis Sedan. Which is not to say it was the best in fit and finish, but as far as interior goes I really do think it is a top-tier car. Doubly so when you consider it costs 10-20k less than its competitors. But I haven't actually driven one, so I'm just strictly comparing interior. I have no doubt that the 5-series or A6 are still a better driver's car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Mazda 3 and MX-5 (simple, but nice and clean) I really dislike the console on the Mazda 3. They have totally different font/illumination color on the two displays which is a giant  to me. It looks like something aftermarket slapped on with no design constancy. Edit: this doesn't count the gauge or other meters which use a different size/type/color of font.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Guinness posted:But I haven't actually driven one, so I'm just strictly comparing interior. I have no doubt that the 5-series or A6 are still a better driver's car. There is a Genesis Sedan R-Spec, which has a 5.0L V8 and a modified suspension, but it's no 5-series, and I don't think it ever will be. It's intended as a cheaper Lexus, and Lexus doesn't make any really amazing driver's cars either. It's easier to build it for old people, since the equation for that market is just ( gadgets * size ) - (relative price) = sales. Edit: Missed the point NOTinuyasha fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Viktor posted:I really dislike the console on the Mazda 3. They have totally different font/illumination color on the two displays which is a giant I think a lot of manufacturers are guilty of that, although its far worse on that Mazda as the two displays are right next to each other. Kind of related - why are we still stuck with such poor resolution, terrible looking displays in this day and age? You can buy a $100 cellphone with a comparatively excellent high resolution screen after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:It's intended as a cheaper Lexus, and Lexus doesn't make any really amazing driver's cars either. Are you sure about that? It would be one hell of an accomplishment if Hyundai managed to make a cheaper IS-F.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
dissss posted:Kind of related - why are we still stuck with such poor resolution, terrible looking displays in this day and age? You can buy a $100 cellphone with a comparatively excellent high resolution screen after all. Because those cell phones cost a lot more then $100
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
D C posted:Because those cell phones cost a lot more then $100 Sure high end ones do, but even an unsubsidised very low end smartphone will have a comparatively good screen compared to the one in that Mazda and cost about $100 unlocked and unsubsidised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
dissss posted:Sure high end ones do, but even an unsubsidised very low end smartphone will have a comparatively good screen compared to the one in that Mazda and cost about $100 unlocked and unsubsidised. The problem is that Mazda is a car company, and they don't necessarily see the display quality (a variable cost) and design (a big fixed cost that's easy to gently caress up: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/30/fords-second-gen-sync-system-off-to-a-buggy-start/ ) as being worth the extra cost. A car with a '90s crappy cabin infotainment system that works is a lot better than one with an extremely ambitious cutting-edge one that falls flat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:The problem is that Mazda is a car company, and they don't necessarily see the display quality (a variable cost) and design (a big fixed cost that's easy to gently caress up: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/30/fords-second-gen-sync-system-off-to-a-buggy-start/ ) as being worth the extra cost. A car with a '90s crappy cabin infotainment system that works is a lot better than one with an extremely ambitious cutting-edge one that falls flat. While that's true (also I imagine those in car screens are designed to last much longer than a cheap phone) I still think they should be paying a lot more attention to that type of thing - it'd be a relatively cheap way to give the interior a fairly noticeable quality boost. Not suggesting they over complicate things like Sync or iDrive, just pay a bit more attention to making the display, graphics, fonts etc nice looking and readable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:Are you sure about that? Even if the IS F can match the performance of an C63 AMG or an M3, why bother spending all that money just to roll around in something that your average pedestrian might mistake for a previous-gen Mazda 3? Sure, all the gadgets will still be working in ten years time, but is it really worth it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Viktor posted:I really dislike the console on the Mazda 3. They have totally different font/illumination color on the two displays which is a giant Now that you point that out, that's really grating. I wonder how I didn't notice that, I bet the 3 that I sat in wasn't fully powered on. It's obnoxious when the display cars aren't all lit up, as it allows for dumb design decisions like that to go by unnoticed. I still really like the MX-5 dash, though, but mostly because it isn't cluttered with all these multiple displays and techno crap and is just nice and simple and clean (kind of like the MX-5 in general...). It's funny, I love technology and even like it in some new cars, but it has to be non-intrusive and not obnoxious looking. So few manufacturers pull it off well, and maybe that's why I hate so many new car interiors. All the loving displays and LCDs and brightly colored gauges and buttons and AGGHHH drives me nuts. Blinding white/blue is NOT a good color for gauges, especially at night no matter how much you can dim them. Give me a good old fashioned BMW/Audi-style solid orange/red gauge cluster any day. Guinness fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:Even if the IS F can match the performance of an C63 AMG or an M3, why bother spending all that money just to roll around in something that your average pedestrian might mistake for a previous-gen Mazda 3? Sure, all the gadgets will still be working in ten years time, but is it really worth it? Why buy a C63 or M3 when your average pedestrian will mistake it for a kitted C180 or 318d?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
dissss posted:Why buy a C63 or M3 when your average pedestrian will mistake it for a kitted C180 or 318d? Because a 318d is still expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Not in M3 terms it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:Because a 318d is still expensive. In the US a new C class or 3 series can be leased for under $350/mo, they're not exactly unobtainable or uncommon. It's nice to fly below the radar sometimes as well, the average pedestrian is an idiot (who was probably cut off on their way to work by a leased C class and would be happy to key one) sanchez fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
sanchez posted:In the US a new C class or 3 series can be leased for under $350/mo, they're not exactly unobtainable or uncommon. That's pretty hosed. Here in Canada, you get a base model C series for about 1000/mo with 0 down leased. Literally pissing money away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
Naky posted:That's pretty hosed. Here in Canada, you get a base model C series for about 1000/mo with 0 down leased. Literally pissing money away. These are not $0 down, $3500-4500 is needed. Still not out of reach for someone with any kind of decent income though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:Even if the IS F can match the performance of an C63 AMG or an M3, why bother spending all that money just to roll around in something that your average pedestrian might mistake for a previous-gen Mazda 3? Sure, all the gadgets will still be working in ten years time, but is it really worth it? Because I thought we were talking about driver's cars, not pretentious fashion model cars. I'd drive the gently caress out of an IS-F.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
On that note, is there some reason that Xenon/LED headlights have to be so blindingly blue? Blue light is really pretty bad for eyestrain and night vision. That's why we used to have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_yellow
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:On that note, is there some reason that Xenon/LED headlights have to be so blindingly blue? Blue light is really pretty bad for eyestrain and night vision. That's why we used to have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_yellow I would give money, votes and time to any political campaign to restrict all forward automotive lamps. Whether or not it's possible with Xenon lamps shouldn't matter - LEDs can do it no problem, of course incandescents as well. With all of our nonsense automotive legislation, I don't understand why practical safety restrictions fall by the wayside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:Even if the IS F can match the performance of an C63 AMG or an M3, why bother spending all that money just to roll around in something that your average pedestrian might mistake for a previous-gen Mazda 3? Sure, all the gadgets will still be working in ten years time, but is it really worth it? Because you're not buying the car to impress pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
Naky posted:That's pretty hosed. Here in Canada, you get a base model C series for about 1000/mo with 0 down leased. Literally pissing money away. Leases in Canada are probably the worst thing I've ever seen, Financing would be the same cost, and you keep the car and can sell it whenever you want. I dont know what is different then in the States, but it is huge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
MarsellusWallace posted:I would give money, votes and time to any political campaign to restrict all forward automotive lamps. Whether or not it's possible with Xenon lamps shouldn't matter - LEDs can do it no problem, of course incandescents as well. With all of our nonsense automotive legislation, I don't understand why practical safety restrictions fall by the wayside. I would generally prefer that things not be banned - guns, gas guzzlers, gay marriage, prostitution, gambling, weed is all cool in my book - but if there is one thing I want banned, it's projector-beam headlights. Whether they're halogen, HID or LED, they are usually deliberately aimed down, theoretically in order to avoid shining in other drivers' eyes, but of course they're on tall SUVs, so down means right at my car. What is the purpose of a separate low-beam headlight if it's just as blinding as the high beam? I don't know about you, but I like being able to see where I'm going. Bright lights are bad for other drivers' vision. If there aren't any other drivers around, knock yourself out, but where I live, you're never the only driver on the road, even at 3AM on a Tuesday. edit: In  terms, they pose a demonstrable and unnecessary risk to drivers' safety that cannot be mitigated by the aid of common sense in their use. I fully support people's right to stupidity, but not when it puts others at risk with little to none to the user.
Friar Zucchini fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
D C posted:Leases in Canada are probably the worst thing I've ever seen, Financing would be the same cost, and you keep the car and can sell it whenever you want. Yeah, the only reason you lease here in Canada is if you're one of those guys who gets bored with cars and trades them in after two years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Naky posted:Yeah, the only reason you lease here in Canada is if you're one of those guys who gets bored with cars and trades them in after two years. Pretty much. The few people I've ever known with leased vehicles had company cars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
D C posted:Leases in Canada are probably the worst thing I've ever seen, Financing would be the same cost, and you keep the car and can sell it whenever you want. Leases can be thought of as a hedge against excessive depreciation. If you buy a car and get into an accident or that model becomes undesirable or whatever, you are under no obligation to buy the car outright at the end of the lease. Conversely, if the used car market experiences massive inflation and you can get $20,000 for a car with a buy-back of only $15,000, then you can come out ahead by just buying the car and selling it. Leases can be a good idea if you know for a fact you're going to sell the car at the end of the lease. You can finance the car and spend an extra $140/mo for three years to just get $5,000 extra back from selling the car. Or you can choose to lease and not spend that extra $5,000 to begin with and go with a lower payment. Also, in the U.S., I believe the payments made on a lease are tax deductible for businesses. If the same business owns the car instead, they would only be able to deduct the interest costs. (( This is overly simplified though and ignores a lot of important factors )) Of course, there are a magnitude of reason why leases are terrible ideas, but they aren't completely idiotic all the time; just most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:Of course, there are a magnitude of reason why leases are terrible ideas, but they aren't completely idiotic all the time; just most of the time. Ohh, they can make sense in the US, but in Canada the lease payments are often higher then the financed payments, its a massive difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Until I bothered to look at what Americans paid for leases I couldn't understand why anyone would possibly enter into one. Our cars also don't depreciate as fast, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Until I bothered to look at what Americans paid for leases I couldn't understand why anyone would possibly enter into one. Our cars also don't depreciate as fast, though. a lease is basically paying down depreciation (really simplified) so if your cars depreciate less rapidly you should pay LESS for leases. that's odd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Until I bothered to look at what Americans paid for leases I couldn't understand why anyone would possibly enter into one. Our cars also don't depreciate as fast, though. My buddy leases cars but only because he has massive car ADD. He gets bored of them really fast and has accepted that he will always have a car payment as a result of this; one that would get worse and worse if he bought cars. That's why he leases instead even here in Canada. Sure, he's pissing 800-1k a month away, but he also doesn't have snowballing debt from trade-ins and poo poo either so that payment stays more or less constant depending on what he drives. Some view it as waste but he views it as another bill to pay like an internet bill or a water bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 22:44
|
|