|
Fucknag posted:The grill seems a lot more GMC to me, actually. Grill looks GMC definitely, but I agree with him on the body/side styling being reminiscent of Audi SUVs. It doesn't look that bad at all though, I'd drive that over most of the trash looking SUVs around the road today.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Fucknag posted:The grill seems a lot more GMC to me, actually. It's basically a Tiguan/Touareg with a Hofmeister kink in the greenhouse and vents on the hood.    Also there's a world of difference for Chinese cars between renderings and the real thing. It will probably look far worse in real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The grill seems a lot more GMC to me, actually. It's probably closest to a Tiguan/Touareg with a Hofmeister kink in the greenhouse (basically identical to the old X5) and vents on the hood. Also there's a world of difference for Chinese cars between renderings and the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
You can see a bunch of actual pics here. http://car.autohome.com.cn/pic/series/2124.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
The grill and lights say Chrysler Pacifica to me, the running boards and hood vents do look straight off the Merc GL. While I'll agree it certainly has derivative elements, I wouldn't particularly care, if it's a nice and good-looking car at a good price. At some point all modern cars are amorphous blobs, CUVs especially.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You can see a bunch of actual pics here. Yeah the display model there looks pretty different from the renderings, and if anything, looks much, much more like the Touareg. Then after that, the gap between a display model and the actual car you buy is another leap. I'm no expert, but the handful of Great Wall cars I saw in real life were all awful and had terrible workmanship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
The pictures show the actual production car, maybe it was not clear in the post but the car is already on the market, I was posting more because the new drivetrain they are bringing out which is more interesting to me than the car. Maybe the hi-po version will have rear disc brakes too!  quote:I'm no expert, but the handful of Great Wall cars I saw in real life were all awful and had terrible workmanship. GW does have sort of 2 product lines - their bread and butter products are light commercial trucks and that's what they mostly export. Mostly these are exported to Latin America and Africa (and Australia  ) and I wouldn't expect them to be terribly well finished considering the target market. The Haval series are aimed at the consumer market, and I would expect them to be a little more focused on the fit and finish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The pictures show the actual production car, maybe it was not clear in the post but the car is already on the market, I was posting more because the new drivetrain they are bringing out which is more interesting to me than the car. I got that. But the difference between a show model and an actual model in the hands of customers is still quite present. Most of their consumer models are currently direct copies of existing cars, and the few I saw were all really poor in terms of basic things like fit and finish, nvh, etc. Also I recall there was an asbestos scandal around that time about asbestos in the parts. Honestly this probably applies to most Chinese auto manufacturers, especially when producing for the domestic market and not for export.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Official BMW announcement of the 2015 M3/M4 specs: http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=923203 Highlights from the  -3,300lb curb weight, a reduction of 176lb from the old M3 coupe. Both M3 and M4 have CF roof. -Twin turbo 3.0L I-6, 425 HP from 5500-7300 RPM, 406 LB-FT torque  from 1850-5500 RPM, 7,600 RPM redline-6 speed manual or 3rd generation 7 speed M-DCT -Contrary to previous reports of 20" bling wheels, standard wheels are lightweight 18", 19" optional -Carbon ceramic brakes optional Specs look pretty  to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The Haval series are aimed at the consumer market, and I would expect them to be a little more focused on the fit and finish. The old one definitely isn't - its an unmitigated disaster
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Official BMW announcement of the 2015 M3/M4 specs: The specs do look really nice, I just wish the car did too. This is just a matter of personal taste, but I never liked the front fascia of the F30 and the M3/M4 take it and make it even busier/worse. Or maybe I’m just getting old.  Crazy how the M3 compares to the F-Type V6S Coupe though. The M3 weights 100kg less, has better fuel consumption and it’s a whole second (!) faster to 100 km/h than the Jag. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Official BMW announcement of the 2015 M3/M4 specs: I think brand purists will like the I6 (although it's turbo... :P).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
eames posted:The specs do look really nice, I just wish the car did too. This is just a matter of personal taste, but I never liked the front fascia of the F30 and the M3/M4 take it and make it even busier/worse. Or maybe I’m just getting old. That's the price you pay for looks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
eames posted:The specs do look really nice, I just wish the car did too. This is just a matter of personal taste, but I never liked the front fascia of the F30 and the M3/M4 take it and make it even busier/worse. Or maybe I’m just getting old. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the front/rear fascia either. It's way too busy for how "boring" the 3 series is. Any word on price? I have a feeling they're going to be pretty expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
"Front seats visually inspired by bucket seats, with illuminated M logo on seat backrests" So the little M badges on the seats light up? Hey another car available with a HUD!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Looks like a C30 revamp. I am okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
rarbatrol posted:Looks like a C30 revamp. I am okay with that. But without the cool rear glass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:But without the cool rear glass. ..but ALL of the oogly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
West SAAB Story posted:..but ALL of the oogly. If you are claiming that the old C30 has any oogly I beg to differ. I think the old C30 is one of the best looking hatches ever, period. It's a pity they never made a true performance model worth speaking of. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:If you are claiming that the old C30 has any oogly I beg to differ. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
 Pretty much this. Word for word.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
Next Chrysler 200 spotted? This has the potential to be a pretty nice car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:Next Chrysler 200 spotted? This has the potential to be a pretty nice car. Greenhouse looks insanely similar to the ford fusion 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
It's certainly not groundbreaking, but if it's competitive with the Fusion/Accord/6 in terms of quality and performance; it will be vastly superior than the current car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
The current car is competitive in terms of engine performance already. The 3.6L is pretty powerful. The rest of the car is not so good though. It looks like those rumors that the 200 replacement would be RWD are false. There is no way that car isn't FWD looking at those proportions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
I think the engine is the only standout of the current car, and I hope they put that big V6 in the new one. The current 200 is still just a heavily refreshed Sebring and that car was poo poo the second it rolled off the line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:I think the engine is the only standout of the current car, and I hope they put that big V6 in the new one. The current 200 is still just a heavily refreshed Sebring and that car was poo poo the second it rolled off the line. The current V6 car is merely OK, for the amount of power it has it's really not that fast to 60 compared to the likes of the Accord V6 or the VR6 Passat, both of which are larger cars. Probably because of fuel economy minded transmission gearing or lovely tires or some such. Hopefully the 9 speed trans will fix most of that. PBCrunch posted:
There was never any doubt that it would be FWD as it was already determined to be platform shared with the Dart. There is some rumour that the Avenger might be RWD, there's also a more plausible rumor that the Avenger is just dead. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The current V6 car is merely OK, for the amount of power it has it's really not that fast to 60 compared to the likes of the Accord V6 or the VR6 Passat, both of which are larger cars. Probably because of fuel economy minded transmission gearing or lovely tires or some such. Hopefully the 9 speed trans will fix most of that. I did some googling to double check all my facts, and it seems that TTAC, generally not known for being Chrysler apologists, managed to get an insane 5.5s to 60 in their test car. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/review-2012-chrysler-200-touring-take-two/ So I dunno, maybe they got a press-fleet ringer with the biggest engine and the least extra weight? Or is Chrysler really sandbagging their official acceleration figures to keep it below the V6 Charger/Challenger?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
All the figures and YouTube videos I've seen have V6 200s and Avengers doing it in about 6.3-6.5, which definitely puts it off the pace of some of those shockingly quick V6 cars. I remember when my V6 SHO was hot poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Saw a 2014 Corvette Stingray on the road yesterday, and holy poo poo is it a seriously good looking car. Was bright red and looked every bit as mean and exotic as a Ferrari. The tail lights and rear are fantastic. I can't wait for these to be available moderately used in 3-4 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Acura is going to try and stuff every single god drat thing in their cars except RWD or forced induction or a V8 or good looks. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/12/first-drive-review-2014-acura-rlx-sport-hybrd-with-video/#postcomments The new RLX will have:  - V6 engine feeding power to 6 speed dual clutch gearbox which then feeds power to a planetary gearset CVT, for a total of i^6 gear ratios. - 3 electric motors, one in the middle and 2 in each rear wheel, for an AWD hybrid electric powertrain. - torque vectoring all the time, even when you're not actually on the gas. - 2 giant LCDs on the center stack, the bottom one is a touchscreen and the top one is controlled by the iDrive knob.  - Push button transmission control where each setting (P,R,N,D) is a different shaped button, some of which face different directions. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
No 4-wheel steering? Pshhhh
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:No 4-wheel steering? Pshhhh The regular non-hybrid version actually does have 4 wheel steering, I guess the addition of the motors on each rear wheel sort of have that effect already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Acura is going to try and stuff every single god drat thing in their cars except RWD or forced induction or a V8 or good looks. What is the presumed benefit from these features?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
blk posted:What is the presumed benefit from these features? They get to sell a lot of new Acuras in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Acura is dead in the next 10 years unless the go back to the basics. If they had spent as much effort developing the RWD platform the market has demanded for the past 15 years as they have on gadgets and technology no one uses, they'd have knocked one out of the park.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Goober Peas posted:Acura is dead in the next 10 years unless the go back to the basics. If they had spent as much effort developing the RWD platform the market has demanded for the past 15 years as they have on gadgets and technology no one uses, they'd have knocked one out of the park. Or even just if they'd have designed a car that doesnt look like either dogshit or an overpriced Honda. Also brilliant moves like makign their naming system incomprehensible and canceling their only popular volume car the RSX for being too "low-rent" before replacing it with a Civic. Because 4 door sedans are way more upscale than sports coupes. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
It's like they couldn't decide which new technology to use in each area so they just said "both!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
I will assume the engineers wanted the fast shifts of a DSG but they couldn't engineer the low-speed harshness out of it (no one really has). The AWD is a decent answer to the problem of AWD systems and their negative effects on fuel economy. This system probably adds about the same amount of weight as a beefed up rear subframe, driveshaft and differential but has near zero additional friction. Being a Honda all this technology probably works pretty well and with good reliability. I can't understand the crying about shifter button shapes. Who gives a poo poo? Acuras have been pretty ugly lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 23:53
|
|