Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«29 »
  • Post
  • Reply
dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

el topo posted:

VW did the Golf GT a while ago, it also had a turbocharger and a supercharger, but apparently it never really worked well.

Its one of the standard models and works quite well (or at least as well as any other VW).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.


Are they referring to the small capacity turbocharged Cruze (getting 40MPG I mean)? Because the current petrol models we get are utter garbage in the engine department (and pretty much everywhere else for that matter). Also I don't see how its fair to compare a Fiesta to a Civic.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

kimbo305 posted:

It's conceivable that a person might look at the Fiesta, the Fit, and the Civic when deciding on a car.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they're natural competitors. Honda shouldn't be worrying about cars in other classes when designing a new Civic.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Rhyno posted:

Kyoon is probably right. Between the Focus and the Fiesta Ford is going to leave Honda, Toyota and Nissan in the dust.

In the words of the zen master - we'll see.

The newest Fiesta has been available for some time here and its hardly kicking rear end in that segment. Yes its a great little car, but its not packaged nearly as well as a Jazz/Fit, doesn't have the combination of cutesy looks and cheap prices of the Suzuki Swift nor the perceived build quality and fancy gearbox of the newer VW Polos.

Nissan is a strange one. They lack anything compelling in the small car market (they've even replaced the Sentra with a hideous Dodge Calibur type crossover here) but I don't see there is anything necessarily wrong with their larger cars.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

Maybe it doesn't sell well in NZ for the same reason it won't sell well in the US - Americans and New Zealanders don't want small cars, they want ever larger cars with ever larger V8s.

I guess its all about market positioning and final specification. In the USA the Fiesta should slot in a little below the Fit in price correct (With the cheaper options being quite terrible)?

Here its close enough to the Fit that many would rather choose that because its basically turns into a small van, and for now the auto Fiesta is crippled with a four speed auto and comparatively crappy 1.4 (meaning fuel economy is the same as an auto Fit). Meanwhile the Swift takes most of the small car sales by virtue of the base being a few thousand cheaper than anything else (well aside from the crappy Barina/Aveo) and the Sport model costing about the same as a Fiesta/Mazda 2/Fit and being better to drive.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Seat Safety Switch posted:

No, I believe the Fit is a 5-speed manual. It turns like four grand in top gear going 100kph. A 6-speed Fit would be pretty keen.

Low gearing is pretty typical for cars that size. Even with a 6 speed I doubt they'd have made top gear much taller.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Some newer cars seem to be relying entirely on mirrors for visibility anyway. Take this for instance:


I've been driving it for a few days now and while there is no point in doing the usual look over your shoulder thing its not a problem if the mirrors are adjusted properly.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Q_res posted:

Oh, and I daily drive an '07 Civic Si. The new V6 Mustang is faster, gets better gas mileage, and has a nicer interior.

Thats going to depend on where you do the bulk of your driving.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Professor Bling posted:

With the V6? Not really.

19/31 vs 21/29. Pretty clear really.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

As an someone from outside the USA I think it looks horrible - like a caricature rather than an actual design.

Same goes for the Camaro, Charger, Mini and all the other pseudo retro designs around these days.

I definitely wouldn't say the Civic or Genesis are great looking cars either but neither looks quite as silly to me.

Edit: it wouldn't stop me from buying a Mustang if they were available for the same type of price they are stateside of course, at the end of the day results are more important than looks.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

travisray2004 posted:

He thinks it's ugly, that being said, if it was cheaper (assuming he's in Canada) then he would buy it sheerly from the performance aspect.

Exactly this - although I'm a bit further afield than Canada.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

How does that work? A Corvette and a Mustang aren't even close to the same size.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Mr. Apollo posted:

I wasn't talking about handling or anything. The original post commented that the GT-R was a huge car, and I just said it wasn't that big it was about the same size as the Corvette and Mustang which are similiar in size. I don't deny they're different cars with different characteristics, I was only commenting on their exterior dimensions.

So a Corolla is a similar size to a Camry? And a Yaris is a similar size to a Corolla?

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

sacre posted:

I moved from Melbourne, Australia to London and the contrast is incredible. I used to live in a city where poublic transport is barely an option and car ownership is more-or-less compulsory.

Melbourne's public transport isn't even that bad - I know a lot of people who've moved there chasing better pay and even the few who have cars barely use them.

Edit: of course that does depend on where you live in Melbourne

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

wav3form posted:

You mean you don't need AWD to drive to the mall like what 99% of people who buy AWD sport sedans do?

If you're going to look at it like that then 99% of people can't justify anything more than a base Civic/Corolla.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

kimbo305 posted:

Though it's a bigger car, the new 9-5 does represent some of GM's latest serious efforts, and in that car, the AWD has not significantly boosted the 9-5's handling. In fact, some noted the FWD car had better feel to it.

Sure 4wd isn't a magic bullet but compare a high power FWD like a Mazdaspeed3 or Focus XR5 to a high powered 4wd like a WRX and see which is more usable.

Saab really isn't know for making good handling vehicles full stop, just because theirs suck that doesn't mean all 4wd does.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

More usable for what? Taking off from a standing stop maybe. I see little evidence that the WRX is any faster than the MS3 around a track. Here's an example:

Round a track maybe. On a typical winding road with a less than perfect surface things are quite different.

Have you driven both and made your own judgement?

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

*shrug* I make judgments based on evidence.

Track times <> evidence of real world drivability

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

kimbo305 posted:

Saab's influence on the nature of the car is limited by their freedom to work with GM platform and components. The Regal would be lucky to get a system as nice as the Haldex XWD. Which reinforces my point -- wishing for AWD on that car isn't going to get you what you want.

Saabs have never been particularly good dynamically, and that goes back way before GM involvement.

You don't NEED 4wd just like you don't NEED a turbocharger, but on occasion its nice to have.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

BonzoESC posted:

I think it'd be a lot safer if all cars were required to be Miatas or other short and low-slung cars with minimal blind spots.

Only works with the top down - Miatas (well NAs at least) have massive blindspots with the top up.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Mr. Wiggles posted:

I read some really good reviews of the Mazda 2, so I went and test drove one this weekend. It was very fun! The ergonomics are nice, and it wears that big Mazda grin pretty well. But most importantly if felt good. The switchgear was awesome, the shifter was really, really sweet. The clutch felt good, and throttle response was nice, especially at higher revs. Mostly, though, it corners extremely well for a front driver. It is genuinely a joy to toss around. Next car I still think is going to be a Fiat, but this Mazda certainly joins the shortlist as a competitor if dealers start asking $20k for a 500, though.

You should look at the Fiesta too, better engine and transmission same basic chassis

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

kimbo305 posted:

Everyone who's reviewed the American Fiesta says it feels much deader than the 2, unfortunately. They managed to tack 200lbs onto it from the Euro model.

Typical. I'd still check it out and see whats what with it though.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Have you driven a car with the high output K24?

Sure its not a K20a but peak power is still at 7000rpm (which is still what I'd call rev-happy compared to most other stuff in the class like the Mazda 2.5 and the Nissan 2.5 V6)

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

It'd be interesting to see what ratings a diesel Hilux/Ranger/Colorado/Navara would get under the US regime. I'll bet they wouldn't do as well as they do elsewhere.

For reference a 4l auto 4wd Navara is rated 17mpg combined here, a 2.5 auto diesel 4wd is 26 combined (with a Hilux being slightly better in each case).

Speed is a huge enemy of economy in diesels, especially those without a lot of power thus requiring short gearing, and I'll bet US specific emissions gear can't be helping any.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

IF they are going to bring in a DOHC engine to replace the 3.9l OHV and a 6 speed trans too, I can see the weight going up and fuel economy suffering, although the power and torque might be up too.

The modern V6 + six speed should be more than efficient enough to offset the weight penalty.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

The 3.6l DOHC/6 speed Malibu, a smaller, lighter car, gets worse fuel economy than the 3.9l OHV/4 speed Impala.

Hmmm would not have picked that. Although it does appear the Malibu and Impala only ~60 lbs different in weight

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

The direct injected 3.6l in the Camaro does about the same, although it is 312hp. It's unlikely they will use the DI engine on the Impala anyway.

I guess the 3.9 is a better design than the old Buick 3.8 they put in the Commodore - even with the same four speed auto and no direct injection the newer 3.6 was a bit better on fuel

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Dave Inc. posted:

Question: How insane would one have to be to buy a first year model from Alfa?

(I'm already toying with the idea of getting a used one a few years after release)

The good thing about Alfas is the issue show up so quickly you'll know one way or the other by the time a few years are up.

Also resale is horrendous, I could pick up an early 166 for ~$3500 USD

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

InitialDave posted:

I don't think a G-Wagen needs stupid bodykits or bling wheels, true enough. I'd view the sweet spot as being the mechanicals and exterior of a challenge truck combined with the full-luxury interior accoutrements.

Does the European model even have cupholders? If it does I'll bet they're only there because the US market demanded them anyway.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

InitialDave posted:

The trouble is, that's one of those "it depends" statements. On certain terrain it's true, but given a different scenario, it's not.

There are a lot of circumstances where the Range Rovers sheer size (particularly width) and weight count against it. Its somewhere around 250mm wider than a Defender remember.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Morphix posted:

Why dumb Americans? It's a luxury SUV, I'm not sure what 'image' it's supposed to be projecting that the Range Rover doesn't, they're both 'gently caress off I'm driving here' status mobiles with various levels of utility and comfort.


People keep saying this but in reality its nothing of the sort - its expensive but not supposed to be a luxury entry.

Also I doubt they've lost a single sale from the gaudy chrome trim, in fact I'll bet many of the same have come from the sheer vulgurness of it all.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Seat Safety Switch posted:

Too bad midsize/compact cars are so cheap here, otherwise we could probably have a North American version of the performance kei car segment - tiny engines with well-matched turbocharging. Just look at cars like the Honda City Turbo II. We could have that instead of a Smart Fortwo.

Neither of those were kei cars, they were both much larger and much more powerful. Actually the Fourtwo isn't the right shape either (too wide) which is why the Japanese equivalent (The Mitsubishi iCar) is much longer but narrower.

Unless you've driven an actual kei car I don't think your realise just how small (in particular width) they are.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

kimbo305 posted:

I don't know if a RWD drivetrain could ever fit under a snub Mini hood.

If could be the same configuration as the Smart cars or the Mitsubishi i (really compact rear engine).

BMWs 1-series has proved that FR packaging just can't work well in a small hatchback

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

What I meant was there isn't one hell of a lot of space inside the 1-series for its external size. Which perhaps isn't a problem for the segment its in but I don't see the same applying to the Mini.

I'd say ease of servicing is not something the average consumer contemplates when buying a new car - very few people change their own oil let alone would attempt to replace a belt. Also I don't see what drivetrain layout has to do with headlight bulbs.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Saga posted:

Because...people who don't do this themselves pay someone else to do it. And if your car is a nightmare to work on, you get shafted. If FR is a failed concept in a hatch because the cabin space is slightly reduced, why is FF not a failed concept because the car becomes a bitch to work on? And therefore expensive and/or extremely time consuming for the owner.

The thinking is your carry stuff in the car far more than you have to work on it (or as is normal have work done on it). As for servicing costs well that simple isn't true in most cases - modern BMWs and Mercedes are still more expensive to get serviced than the vast majority of Japanese cars most of which a fwd or 4wd

Saga posted:

Really? Again, have you looked under the hood of a modern FWD car with the regulation transverse engine? Cabin space is maximised by having stupid-rear end packaging. Stuffing a transmission and two half shafts between the front wheels and then squeezing everything as tight as possible to generate that extra cabin space means stupid poo poo happens as soon as you have to try to reach anything.

If for example you own a Modus, prepare to remove the bumper or alternatively wheelarch trim or alternatively both in order to replace a dead bulb. On our Clio 182, which is at the sensible end of things, you still needed to be Oskar Schindler to get the job done. Timing belt is a five-hour (plus) job by the book. Dealers like to go for 1,000.

Lets leave weird French cars out of this for a moment as they've alwasy been a terror to work on, even going back to my mates ancient Renault 21 which has pelnty of space under the bonnet but all the important stuff was still magically inaccessible. I have an FR Nissan Skyline, a Ford Fiesta and a Suzuki Swift sitting in the driveway. There certainly isn't any more room for changing bulbs, belts or anything else under the Skylines bonnet, I doubt its any easier than a front wheel drive Maxima with the same engine.

Really the problem isn't drivetrain layout its modern packaging cramming everything in tight regardless of drivetrain layout.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

People need to be reminded that Toyota makes a shitload of RWD cars, both in the past and present. Right now they have a compact RWD car (the IS, which is the same size as an Impreza and smaller than the Corolla IIRC), 3 or 4 midsize RWD cars (GS, Mark X, Crown, probably more that I'm forgetting), a MR supercar and a RWD flagship. You think they can't afford to drop a 4 banger in an IS and take out the leather and HIDs? Because that would be a perfectly good RWD sports car and much better than this flat 4 engine business.

The IS is still bigger than a Corolla, at least externally (so is an Impreza sedan for that matter).

The issue with the IS that its a heavy car, not just because it has a load of luxury stuff but because it shares a platform with the bigger RWDs (GS, Mark X, Crown etc). I don't think there is any way to take enough weight out of it to put it where this new coupe is supposed to be positioned.

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

Most Imprezas aren't sold in the US and most Imprezas sold are FWD as you describe. A large percentage, if not a majority, of Audi A8s sold are also FWD. The US market has a peculiar snobbery about their car drivetrains that the rest of the world doesn't share. The conclusion from the last thread we had on this was that no one could come up with a good reason why this car is as they described, and that it was probably vaporware dreamed up by Subaru fanboys who didn't understand cars very well.

Where is Subaru selling FWD Imprezas? Its not the UK, or Europe, or Australia, or Japan, or North America where does that leave?

Preemptive edit: Yes I know you CAN get a 2WD Impreza in Japan but I'm pretty sure most of them sold are actually AWD.

dissss fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Mar 2, 2011

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

Imprezas are relatively expensive small cars


That is market dependent. Here you'd expect to pay slightly less for an Impreza than you would for a Corolla (Civic and Impreza are almost the same prices at the lower end)

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

The Cruze is supposedly pretty good, but I haven't had the opportunity to drive one or even sit in one.


The basic one is still not as good as the competitors and most of those are approaching end of line (Civic, Corolla, Focus etc)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

dissss
Nov 10, 2007

I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Throatwarbler posted:

It's safer and larger, especially in the trunk. The Holden/Asian market model is also lower spec than the NA model. NA model gets the Watts linkage in the rear.

EDIT: I guess the facelifted Holden version is also getting the 1.4l engine and Watts lingage rear.

Just like Holden - stuff up the cars rep by initially bringing in a terrible version just to fix it too late to make a difference.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«29 »