|
howling_mad posted:Haha, it'll be interesting to see how many people get the reference. It would be an amazing day to see someone complain that a Miata had too much power to drive on the street and that it was a useless gas hog.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
I just had a terrible thought about the new Miata! What if a V8 won't fit anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:I just had a terrible thought about the new Miata! Anything fits if you apply a BFH and a welder. Just don't do it to a small, light, underpowered car cause then they suck and it just means you can't drive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Can't you guys stay quarantined to the Toyobaru thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Pr0kjayhawk posted:I'd love to see a Maserati engine (derived from Ferrari of course) in a hopped up Jeep. I didn't dislike Luca Di Motezemolo as much as some people but that would be a hilarious FU in his direction. Here's a future Maserati SUV test mule in a Ghibli body. I'm sure it would be easy to drop a Jeep body on it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:This will still be dominated by the same pony cars. So the Hellcat weighs 4000 lbs and has 707 horsepower, can you point out to me a 2000 lb car with 350? http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=85140 v  vEdit: http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=89408 KillHour fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:I just had a terrible thought about the new Miata! You'd have to have a really tiny engine bay to keep an LS engine out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
fknlo posted:You'd have to have a really tiny engine bay to keep an LS engine out of it. True, I think given how far back they've pushed the engine in the new Miata that fitting the larger transmission would be more of an issue. On the Miata topic, is there any word even unofficially on when we can expect to see the Fiat version? Even with the taillights as they are I love the new Miata but I can't help but think I'll love the Italian version with an Abarth engine and exhaust even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Phone posted:Can't you guys stay quarantined to the Toyobaru thread? Or just banish them to the Miata thread where they'll be torn apart by a hundred well-manicured hands
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Hellcat chat got me thinking, HP/$ ratio is all well and good, but useless if it's in a fat pig. What we need is some way to rank cars by horsepower per pound... per dollar. Twerk from Home posted:This will still be dominated by the same pony cars. So the Hellcat weighs 4000 lbs and has 707 horsepower, can you point out to me a 2000 lb car with 350? Even if the ND Miata hits their weight target of 2200 lbs, and magically makes 175hp a V6 mustang is cheaper and has more horsepower per pound. Quickly took the data from here, so it's probably not complete and limited to cars under $100k. http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/02/best-car-power-to-weight-ratios-feature/ Also I added in the Hellcat I just multipled lbs/hp by the MSRP to get Dollar-pounds per horsepower. Lower is better. code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
As always, the V6 Mustang is the best performance bargain on the market. As always, it will never get respect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:As always, the V6 Mustang is the best performance bargain on the market. "as always", well i guess since 2011MY, before that it was truly a pitiful engine Ive never driven the newer ones but the suspension is probably not that good, the tires usually suck, and the rear axle always has some 3.11 ratio that sucks the life out of the engine. If you pay to fix all of that stuff then you might as well just have gotten a used GT with the coyote engine. Thats why it still doesnt get much respect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
coolskillrex remix posted:"as always", well i guess since 2011MY, before that it was truly a pitiful engine True. As of next year the V6 gets detuned to protect the mid-range Ecoboost as well so I guess it will forever be remembered as a poo poo car that was good for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
And it's sad too, because a nicely-built 6 cylinder can put out some decent power. Just look at what foreign car companies have been doing with 6 bangers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
In a few years its going to be remembered as that car that was a bit better than usual but still less value than the GT. Seriously, just spring the couple extra grand, no one is ever satisfied with the six.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
I rented a V6 convertible a few months ago while on vacation, and was really unimpressed. It was "perky" but it did not feel like a 305hp car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:I rented a V6 convertible a few months ago while on vacation, and was really unimpressed. It was "perky" but it did not feel like a 305hp car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Out of curiosity what 300hp vehicle were you comparing it to? I drive a Nissan Titan, and have owned an S60R, RX8, and a bunch of far less powerful cars. (I like to buy new cars that are heavily discounted, obviously)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:I rented a V6 convertible a few months ago while on vacation, and was really unimpressed. It was "perky" but it did not feel like a 305hp car. I had the same feeling; got allocated a V6 Convertable Mustang for a rental and it felt like I was driving a slow bathtub. After driving it for a week I was wondering why it seemed so great on paper (300hp! 280ft/lb torque!) but felt like something way slower. My wife felt that it was slower than our 4 cylinder X1. She was surprised when I told her the spec of the engine were almost the same as our G37.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:I had the same feeling; got allocated a V6 Convertable Mustang for a rental and it felt like I was driving a slow bathtub. After driving it for a week I was wondering why it seemed so great on paper (300hp! 280ft/lb torque!) but felt like something way slower. All of your guys experiences are because the rental car spec Mustangs get 2.73 gears in the rear, and the automatics all get terrible tires. If you're actually buying one as a driving enthusisast, you're almost definitely getting the 3.31 gears and manual with passable tires, and probably getting the performance pack which adds completely ridiculous tires that make the car faster around VIR than 2010's GT and stuff like an Evo X, at least according to C&D. http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-to-2011-page-8 I know that bench racing isn't relevant, but the setup from the factory of rental spec V6es is ruining the car. With a stick and shorter rear gears, they're great. Yes, I am a 2013 V6 mustang owner who think it's a good compromise car. If I drove less miles annually a GT's slower depreciation might have made it cheaper, but I'm betting that really high mileage Mustangs aren't worth much whether it's a V6 or a base GT, and the gas savings do add up over time. Actual transaction prices on new V6 Premium Performance Packs are around $23-24k, and if you are OK with cloth seats then V6es sold new in the $17-20k price around me. I can't think of another car in that price range that can possibly compare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
I drove a rental v6 Mustang in Las Vegas that had the baldest of tires. Any single turn or speed bump would chirp the tires. Most fun I ever had in a slow car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:All of your guys experiences are because the rental car spec Mustangs get 2.73 gears in the rear, and the automatics all get terrible tires. If you're actually buying one as a driving enthusisast, you're almost definitely getting the 3.31 gears and manual with passable tires, and probably getting the performance pack which adds completely ridiculous tires that make the car faster around VIR than 2010's GT and stuff like an Evo X, at least according to C&D. http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-to-2011-page-8 Good points. I haven't driven one how I would have specd it
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
I thought my rental convertible last year was cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I thought my rental convertible last year was cool. TrinityOfDeath posted:I drove a rental v6 Mustang in Las Vegas that had the baldest of tires. Any single turn or speed bump would chirp the tires. Most fun I ever had in a slow car. Thirding. Beats the everliving hell out of most rentals on the fun scale, even with the garbage rental tires.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Ah, so this is the target market for wheel/tire rental!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Devyl posted:And it's sad too, because a nicely-built 6 cylinder can put out some decent power. Just look at what foreign car companies have been doing with 6 bangers. Did you have any specific foreign car companies in mind? because i don't see anybody building a 6 cylinder worth buying that doesn't have a turbo or two. Pretty much everybody makes a 3.5-3.8 295-305hp v6 that makes gently caress all torque at a million RPM and enough gears to keep most drivers well away from that torque.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Did you have any specific foreign car companies in mind? because i don't see anybody building a 6 cylinder worth buying that doesn't have a turbo or two. All I can think of is BMW's straight six and even that might have gotten lamer since I last drove one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Did you have any specific foreign car companies in mind? because i don't see anybody building a 6 cylinder worth buying that doesn't have a turbo or two. Accord V6?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:All I can think of is BMW's straight six and even that might have gotten lamer since I last drove one. If anything they've gotten better. The turbo S55 I6 in the M3/M4 is insane, it's basically all the torques all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:If anything they've gotten better. The turbo S55 I6 in the M3/M4 is insane, it's basically all the torques all the time. He specified NA 6s though
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Yeah, ford makes a great turbo 6 they could drop into the mustang if there was ever demand for it. For the navigator, they even have it turned up to 380hp/460ft/lb. Does BMW even make an N/A i6 anymore? looking at the other brands 6 MB: 3.5l 302hp/273ft/lb BMW: turbo only audi: turbo only jaaaaag: supercharger only subaru: 3.6l 256hp/247ft/lb nissan: 3.7l 332hp/269ft/lb and it goes on and on, a nice horsepower number, a meh torque number, and a 6-7 second 0-60. the n/a v6 is done. I4 turbos are replacing the n/a v6, turbo i6/v6 is replacing most n/a V8s. The only n/a V8 holdovers being from cars sold to the "from my cold dead hands" crowd. There won't be any buyers nostalgic about V6s enough to save them. I've had "300hp" impalas as rental cars, and on paper it has more power, less weight, and better econ numbers than my V8 BMW. Reality is completely different. That new power figure for the navigator has me dreaming again though. Regular cab 2015 f-150 at 4300lbs and 380hp/460ft/lbs for 25 grand sounds pretty awesome. The last lightnings built were 380hp/450ft/lb and 4700lbs. Powershift fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Accord V6? I really like the way it sounds, at least from a youtube of somebody driving the 2014 Accord Coupe V6. I don't know it's performance compared to the rest of the class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Yeah, ford makes a great turbo 6 they could drop into the mustang if there was ever demand for it. For the navigator, they even have it turned up to 380hp/460ft/lb. *cough* Ford straight six *cough* it ain't dead (yet)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Accord V6? That's down like 30hp/tq though. Not that you could tell much of a difference outside of a drag race.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
I think the VR6 sounds pretty awesome and is pretty powerful too. If only they weren't surrounded by VWs or Cayennes. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Chevy 4.3L v6 is pushrod and pretty small but decent power. 285HP @ 5300rpm and 305FT/LBS @ 3900. Would go good in the Camaro over the 3.6L 323hp @ 6800rpm and 278FT/LBS @ 4800.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Powershift posted:and it goes on and on, a nice horsepower number, a meh torque number, and a 6-7 second 0-60. This reminds me of something I noticed a couple weeks ago when looking at a bunch of newer cars: a lot of the newer Audi/Merc/Lexus/Acura/Caddy 3 series competitors are actually slower 0-60 than my ten year old, 235 HP non-M E46, despite in most cases having a 50-80 HP advantage*. Just shows how bad the weight bloat over the past decade combined with overly tall gearing to squeeze those last few MPGs out of each model in the fleet is hurting overall performance. It's just sad. *Stock 0-60 for my car is 5.3 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:*Stock 0-60 for my car is 5.3 seconds. Maybe with a tail wind. car and driver tested it at 5.6, motor trend at 6.0. basically identical to the modern 328i which has 5 more horsepower 33 more lb/ft of torque, and is dragging around an extra 110 lbs. But still, the "321hp" ATS takes the same 5.6(Motor trend), despite being 400lbs lighter and 31hp up on my 290hp 540.(5.6 motor trend, 5.7 car and driver) Compare that to the "320hp" m235i that does it in 4.4 seconds.(and is somehow $3,000 cheaper than the 3.6 ats coupe) This all supports my point, if you're stuck with 6 cylinders, you'd better bring a turbo or lose some weight because the advertised peak numbers really don't tell you much. Christobevii3 posted:Chevy 4.3L v6 is pushrod and pretty small but decent power. 285HP @ 5300rpm and 305FT/LBS @ 3900. Would go good in the Camaro over the 3.6L 323hp @ 6800rpm and 278FT/LBS @ 4800. Better idea, the 3.6 TT out of the CTS V-sport. Also, god drat, the base engine in the ATS is the same as the base engine in the malibu and colorado. Could they possibly phone it in any harder? Even the 2.0 fails to live up to the advertised numbers. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Heh, just heard on Autoline that the Challenger Hellcatte is limited to 205 (or whatever) only by aero. There are no mechanical or electronic speed limiters. The Charger Hellcatte will actually be faster because it has better aero.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Powershift posted:
Wow that's pretty bad fuel mileage from a 2.0 liter on their 1200 mile trip. A buddy of mine is looking at the ATS 2.0T as he loves Cadillacs and is bored of his STS but one of his big reasons for wanting that engine was the supposed fuel efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 12:02
|
|
