The General Car Thread.

[Licana]

The McLaren had to be simply fast and nobody had to care too much about other stuff.

So?

The Camry was probably a subject of many disputes

Ah, I see. You're probably thinking that if a vehicle's purpose is clear and narrow, then it's simple and boring.

from the car size ("we cannot make it any bigger, because Japanese car classification" "but we have to, to appeal to Americans"), through engine size ("25% of people in focus groups said they would like a V6 Camry" "yeah, but do you realise how much would it cost") to pricing ("the base model needs to sell for x to attract buyers" "no, it needs to cost y to turn a better profit").

Meanwhile, the McLaren team would have to figure out how to best create a vehicle to outclass their peers, knowing that their peers will show a similar lack of restraint. In pursuit of that, they sat down, thought everything out, and created a vehicle that is still, to this day, one of the fastest naturally aspirated vehicles in the world. A simple purpose does not translate into a simple approach to that purpose.

[Patridam]

They Fiat is more comparable, because it shows the shift in compact/midsize car buyer purchases in practically all parts of the world other than USA, Canada and, to a lesser extent, Australia.

You weren't trying to show shifts in compact/midsize car buyer purchases in Europe from the 1960s to now. You only brought up that comparison NOW. When you started, and through the whole debate, you were trying and failing to show the change in the ride quality of compact/midsize cars since the 1960s by giving one very particular example.(and you never specified Europe with that change, either, you applied it to ALL compact/midsize cars since the 60s).

I refuted your hypothesis that "new cars are much much more comfortable, because I rode in an old car and it wasn't comfortable" by giving a very obvious example where older cars were more comfortable with old US full size cars. But then you said that full size cars don't matter, that you only mean compact/midsize cars. And then I gave an example of a comfortable 60s compact/midsize car, several examples in fact. And after you tried and failed to change the definitions of size classes just so you could protect your flawed hypothesis, now you are telling me, "Oh no I wasn't talking about ride quality, I was just examining changes in compact/midsize purchasing pattern shifts in Europe over the past 50 years". Jesus Christ, stop moving the goddamn goalposts.

[Petrolheadia]

They Fiat is more comparable, because it shows the shift in compact/midsize car buyer purchases in practically all parts of the world other than USA, Canada and, to a lesser extent, Australia.

You weren't trying to show shifts in compact/midsize car buyer purchases in Europe from the 1960s to now. You only brought up that comparison NOW. When you started, and through the whole debate, you were trying and failing to show the change in the ride quality of compact/midsize cars since the 1960s by giving one very particular example.(and you never specified Europe with that change, either, you applied it to ALL compact/midsize cars since the 60s).

I refuted your hypothesis that "new cars are much much more comfortable, because I rode in an old car and it wasn't comfortable" by giving a very obvious example where older cars were more comfortable with old US full size cars. But then you said that full size cars don't matter, that you only mean compact/midsize cars. And then I gave an example of a comfortable 60s compact/midsize car, several examples in fact. And after you tried and failed to change the definitions of size classes just so you could protect your flawed hypothesis, now you are telling me, "Oh no I wasn't talking about ride quality, I was just examining changes in compact/midsize purchasing pattern shifts in Europe over the past 50 years". Jesus Christ, stop moving the goddamn goalposts.

I was examining changes in the suspension, taking the purchasing patterns into the consideration.

And you are behaving like the USA and Canada were the only countries in the world, ignoring that most, if not all others have more Euro-sized cars.

[Petrolheadia]

from the car size ("we cannot make it any bigger, because Japanese car classification" "but we have to, to appeal to Americans"), through engine size ("25% of people in focus groups said they would like a V6 Camry" "yeah, but do you realise how much would it cost") to pricing ("the base model needs to sell for x to attract buyers" "no, it needs to cost y to turn a better profit").

Meanwhile, the McLaren team would have to figure out how to best create a vehicle to outclass their peers.

Yeah, because Toyota did not have to worry about Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Volkswagen, Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, Rover and many others.

[Licana]

Yeah, because Toyota did not have to worry about Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Volkswagen, Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, Rover and many others.

Cherry picking, for when you really just don't have anything to say but need to get the last word!

A simple purpose does not translate into a simple approach to that purpose.

But I'm sorry that you don't want to acknowledge that there could be an iota of worth to a vehicle that is unobtainable to you. :>

[Petrolheadia]

I'm thinking that the next "Let's design a car together" should be about building a custom car, from choosing the rolling chassis, through building the motor, to the paintjob, and choosing parts.

What do you think about this?

[Auzkhia]

A story which is of no interest to 99.99% of the population.

Now, if you had an old Ford that Bonnie & Clyde stole and used as a getaway car in a bank robbery, then you'd have an interesting car.

Still, at least the Camry would have a story.

Also, it would have a more interesting conception.

The McLaren had to be simply fast and nobody had to care too much about other stuff.

The Camry was probably a subject of many disputes, from the car size ("we cannot make it any bigger, because Japanese car classification" "but we have to, to appeal to Americans"), through engine size ("25% of people in focus groups said they would like a V6 Camry" "yeah, but do you realise how much would it cost") to pricing ("the base model needs to sell for x to attract buyers" "no, it needs to cost y to turn a better profit").

The enthusiast doesn't chiefly care about the business stuff that businesspeople had to and other design stuff to make affordable or something like that, the enthusiast cares about the sensation of using the product: driving. Mind you, supercars have lot of engineering stuff going into them, they need to know the numbers and figures in order to make the fastest car possible with what the resources they have.

Sure a good story helps too, but we only care about the backstory if we fall in love with the product through the experience and a thrilling sensation. Small cheap cars can be interesting too, but on a different level than an exotic supercar, plus, you need the right reasons, like the small size lending itself to good handling.

[Patridam]

I was examining changes in the suspension, taking the purchasing patterns into the consideration.

Nowhere in your original statement do you mention purchasing patterns whatsoever. Nowhere, NOWHERE. You are only changing your discussion NOW. The only thing you said was:

Modern suspensions are also very good, compared to older ones. I've just finished riding in a car with 60s suspension technology, and they don't make them like they used to. They used to make them crap. The car I was in had let you know about every bump in the road, both physically and audibly. New cars just absorb them.

You said all 60s cars have lousy suspensions and uncomfortable rides, but you made that conclusion by riding in ONE car, one car that is a very bad example of how comfortable any 60s car can be, or how comfortable a compact can be. You have refused to acknowledge that was a faulty conclusion with a lack of evidence, instead just telling everyone else they're wrong.

And you are behaving like the USA and Canada were the only countries in the world, ignoring that most, if not all others have more Euro-sized cars.

The 183.1 inch long Toyota Corolla is sold, as a compact, in 156 countries around the world. The one for North America has a different grille but is otherwise exactly the same. I'm not behaving in any sort of US centric way, in fact, it's more like you're behaving in a US-ignoring way. "Oh all 60s cars have shit ride quality, except American ones, but American ones don't count".

[Auzkhia]

I was examining changes in the suspension, taking the purchasing patterns into the consideration.

Nowhere in your original statement do you mention purchasing patterns whatsoever. Nowhere, NOWHERE. You are only changing your discussion NOW. The only thing you said was:

Modern suspensions are also very good, compared to older ones. I've just finished riding in a car with 60s suspension technology, and they don't make them like they used to. They used to make them crap. The car I was in had let you know about every bump in the road, both physically and audibly. New cars just absorb them.

You said all 60s cars have lousy suspensions and uncomfortable rides, but you made that conclusion by riding in ONE car, one car that is a very bad example of how comfortable any 60s car can be, or how comfortable a compact can be. You have refused to acknowledge that was a faulty conclusion with a lack of evidence, instead just telling everyone else they're wrong.

And you are behaving like the USA and Canada were the only countries in the world, ignoring that most, if not all others have more Euro-sized cars.

The 183.1 inch long Toyota Corolla is sold, as a compact, in 156 countries around the world. The one for North America has a different grille but is otherwise exactly the same. I'm not behaving in any sort of US centric way, in fact, it's more like you're behaving in a US-ignoring way. "Oh all 60s cars have shit ride quality, except American ones, but American ones don't count".

Had he been in a Rolls Royce Phantom V, I'm sure his worldview on automobiles would be rather different.

[Petrolheadia]

I was examining changes in the suspension, taking the purchasing patterns into the consideration.

Nowhere in your original statement do you mention purchasing patterns whatsoever. Nowhere, NOWHERE. You are only changing your discussion NOW. The only thing you said was:

Modern suspensions are also very good, compared to older ones. I've just finished riding in a car with 60s suspension technology, and they don't make them like they used to. They used to make them crap. The car I was in had let you know about every bump in the road, both physically and audibly. New cars just absorb them.

You said all 60s cars have lousy suspensions and uncomfortable rides, but you made that conclusion by riding in ONE car, one car that is a very bad example of how comfortable any 60s car can be, or how comfortable a compact can be. You have refused to acknowledge that was a faulty conclusion with a lack of evidence, instead just telling everyone else they're wrong.

And you are behaving like the USA and Canada were the only countries in the world, ignoring that most, if not all others have more Euro-sized cars.

The 183.1 inch long Toyota Corolla is sold, as a compact, in 156 countries around the world. The one for North America has a different grille but is otherwise exactly the same. I'm not behaving in any sort of US centric way, in fact, it's more like you're behaving in a US-ignoring way. "Oh all 60s cars have shit ride quality, except American ones, but American ones don't count".

1. Well, I've done it automatically, the same way you suggested me the Valiant. We were raised in different cultures and we both used the definition of what is and was a compact/midsize in our culture. And from what I know, Corolla is one of the biggest, if not the biggest midsize, while the 1500 was the smallest midsize of its time.

2. Yes, but I assume there is pretty similar consistency among older compacts/midsize as among modern ones. And even if not, it's very hard to bridge that gap.

3. I am behaving in an US-ignoring way, because your country is an anomaly. Most of the other countries (maybe except Arab) have had European-sized car segments and similar growth of a typical car of a certain segment. The USA and Canada, with 455 cm "60s compacts" and downsizing in the 70s and 80s, are an anomaly.

[Petrolheadia]

Nowhere in your original statement do you mention purchasing patterns whatsoever. Nowhere, NOWHERE. You are only changing your discussion NOW. The only thing you said was:



You said all 60s cars have lousy suspensions and uncomfortable rides, but you made that conclusion by riding in ONE car, one car that is a very bad example of how comfortable any 60s car can be, or how comfortable a compact can be. You have refused to acknowledge that was a faulty conclusion with a lack of evidence, instead just telling everyone else they're wrong.



The 183.1 inch long Toyota Corolla is sold, as a compact, in 156 countries around the world. The one for North America has a different grille but is otherwise exactly the same. I'm not behaving in any sort of US centric way, in fact, it's more like you're behaving in a US-ignoring way. "Oh all 60s cars have shit ride quality, except American ones, but American ones don't count".

Had he been in a Rolls Royce Phantom V, I'm sure his worldview on automobiles would be rather different.

Do you think I would be such an idiot to compare a Phantom V to a Corolla? Even if I had ridden in one, I would need a modern Phantom/Maybach to compare it to.

And even if I did that, the change in cars for 1-percenters does not necessarily reflect changes in cars for the everyman - and that is what I wanted to see.

Still, at least the Camry would have a story.

Also, it would have a more interesting conception.

The McLaren had to be simply fast and nobody had to care too much about other stuff.

The Camry was probably a subject of many disputes, from the car size ("we cannot make it any bigger, because Japanese car classification" "but we have to, to appeal to Americans"), through engine size ("25% of people in focus groups said they would like a V6 Camry" "yeah, but do you realise how much would it cost") to pricing ("the base model needs to sell for x to attract buyers" "no, it needs to cost y to turn a better profit").

The enthusiast doesn't chiefly care about the business stuff that businesspeople had to and other design stuff to make affordable or something like that, the enthusiast cares about the sensation of using the product: driving. Mind you, supercars have lot of engineering stuff going into them, they need to know the numbers and figures in order to make the fastest car possible with what the resources they have.

Sure a good story helps too, but we only care about the backstory if we fall in love with the product through the experience and a thrilling sensation. Small cheap cars can be interesting too, but on a different level than an exotic supercar, plus, you need the right reasons, like the small size lending itself to good handling.

A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

[Elwher]

A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

Them's fightin words, sir. In what way are the late MG's a bad car? No, they were not as fast as the Ferraris or Lotuses (Lotui?) of their era, but they could give a good performance in their class and price range, and they handled very well. I am driving a late MG to this day (1978 Midget) and it still is peppy and tight around the curves. The only place I give credence to your comment is that they did have the atrocious Lucas electrics, but that was a very livable flaw.

[Petrolheadia]

A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

Them's fightin words, sir. In what way are the late MG's a bad car? No, they were not as fast as the Ferraris or Lotuses (Lotui?) of their era, but they could give a good performance in their class and price range, and they handled very well. I am driving a late MG to this day (1978 Midget) and it still is peppy and tight around the curves. The only place I give credence to your comment is that they did have the atrocious Lucas electrics, but that was a very livable flaw.

I thought about it and it seems like the 61 HP Fiat X1/9 with its bad electrics and rustproofing would fit the category better.

[GreatestBanks]

Had he been in a Rolls Royce Phantom V, I'm sure his worldview on automobiles would be rather different.

Do you think I would be such an idiot to compare a Phantom V to a Corolla? Even if I had ridden in one, I would need a modern Phantom/Maybach to compare it to.

And even if I did that, the change in cars for 1-percenters does not necessarily reflect changes in cars for the everyman - and that is what I wanted to see.

The enthusiast doesn't chiefly care about the business stuff that businesspeople had to and other design stuff to make affordable or something like that, the enthusiast cares about the sensation of using the product: driving. Mind you, supercars have lot of engineering stuff going into them, they need to know the numbers and figures in order to make the fastest car possible with what the resources they have.

Sure a good story helps too, but we only care about the backstory if we fall in love with the product through the experience and a thrilling sensation. Small cheap cars can be interesting too, but on a different level than an exotic supercar, plus, you need the right reasons, like the small size lending itself to good handling.

A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

Interesting is entirely subjective. Also, cars don't need to be "fast," which is a subjective term. The Chevy Cruze for instance, it isn't fast, yet it's one of the superior compact cars on the market. Cars need to be superior to competitors in their class and or accomplish what the consumers of the car want. (E.g: have 5 star safety rating)

I think that chrome trim is much nicer and much more interesting than the glossy wood that is ever so present in modern day cars, that's subjective.

For a car to be "good," it has to accomplish purposes and be superior to other automobiles in its class.

[Auzkhia]

Do you think I would be such an idiot to compare a Phantom V to a Corolla? Even if I had ridden in one, I would need a modern Phantom/Maybach to compare it to.

And even if I did that, the change in cars for 1-percenters does not necessarily reflect changes in cars for the everyman - and that is what I wanted to see.



A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

Interesting is entirely subjective. Also, cars don't need to be "fast," which is a subjective term. The Chevy Cruze for instance, it isn't fast, yet it's one of the superior compact cars on the market. Cars need to be superior to competitors in their class and or accomplish what the consumers of the car want. (E.g: have 5 star safety rating)

I think that chrome trim is much nicer and much more interesting than the glossy wood that is ever so present in modern day cars, that's subjective.

For a car to be "good," it has to accomplish purposes and be superior to other automobiles in its class.

Mind you, that rented Chevrolet Impala my parents had when they went to Disneyworld was the fastest car in the world, because it was not their car.

[The Two Jerseys]

Interesting is entirely subjective. Also, cars don't need to be "fast," which is a subjective term. The Chevy Cruze for instance, it isn't fast, yet it's one of the superior compact cars on the market. Cars need to be superior to competitors in their class and or accomplish what the consumers of the car want. (E.g: have 5 star safety rating)

I think that chrome trim is much nicer and much more interesting than the glossy wood that is ever so present in modern day cars, that's subjective.

For a car to be "good," it has to accomplish purposes and be superior to other automobiles in its class.

Mind you, that rented Chevrolet Impala my parents had when they went to Disneyworld was the fastest car in the world, because it was not their car.

You're related to P.J. O'Rourke?

[Ethel mermania]

A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

Them's fightin words, sir. In what way are the late MG's a bad car? No, they were not as fast as the Ferraris or Lotuses (Lotui?) of their era, but they could give a good performance in their class and price range, and they handled very well. I am driving a late MG to this day (1978 Midget) and it still is peppy and tight around the curves. The only place I give credence to your comment is that they did have the atrocious Lucas electrics, but that was a very livable flaw.

Lucas, and poor build quality is what killed those cars.

[Elwher]

Them's fightin words, sir. In what way are the late MG's a bad car? No, they were not as fast as the Ferraris or Lotuses (Lotui?) of their era, but they could give a good performance in their class and price range, and they handled very well. I am driving a late MG to this day (1978 Midget) and it still is peppy and tight around the curves. The only place I give credence to your comment is that they did have the atrocious Lucas electrics, but that was a very livable flaw.

Lucas, and poor build quality is what killed those cars.

I cannot defend the Lucas electrics, obviously. As the joke went, why do the English drink their beer warm? Because Lucas also made refrigerators. As to poor build quality, however, I would like to know what your evidence is. Mine, admittedly, is anecdotal but I see no reason to make that claim among my fellow aficionados of the LBC (Little British Car). Are there any statistics available showing the percentage of cars built in the time period still on the road, for example?

In my opinion, what killed these cars was the effective closure of the American market by the extensive safety requirements adopted in the 1970's. The selling point of these cars was the affordability of entry into the sports car arena, and that became impossible with the increased regulatory scrutiny. A high end car like a Lotus or a Ferrari did not have its price impacted as much by an extra $1000 in required features, but an MG or TR saw its price raised by a third or more.

[Ethel mermania]

Lucas, and poor build quality is what killed those cars.

I cannot defend the Lucas electrics, obviously. As the joke went, why do the English drink their beer warm? Because Lucas also made refrigerators. As to poor build quality, however, I would like to know what your evidence is. Mine, admittedly, is anecdotal but I see no reason to make that claim among my fellow aficionados of the LBC (Little British Car). Are there any statistics available showing the percentage of cars built in the time period still on the road, for example?

In my opinion, what killed these cars was the effective closure of the American market by the extensive safety requirements adopted in the 1970's. The selling point of these cars was the affordability of entry into the sports car arena, and that became impossible with the increased regulatory scrutiny. A high end car like a Lotus or a Ferrari did not have its price impacted as much by an extra $1000 in required features, but an MG or TR saw its price raised by a third or more.

Even the wiki article mentions it. The tr6 wasn't horrible to drive, the tr7 was a nighmare.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_TR7.

[Elwher]

I cannot defend the Lucas electrics, obviously. As the joke went, why do the English drink their beer warm? Because Lucas also made refrigerators. As to poor build quality, however, I would like to know what your evidence is. Mine, admittedly, is anecdotal but I see no reason to make that claim among my fellow aficionados of the LBC (Little British Car). Are there any statistics available showing the percentage of cars built in the time period still on the road, for example?

In my opinion, what killed these cars was the effective closure of the American market by the extensive safety requirements adopted in the 1970's. The selling point of these cars was the affordability of entry into the sports car arena, and that became impossible with the increased regulatory scrutiny. A high end car like a Lotus or a Ferrari did not have its price impacted as much by an extra $1000 in required features, but an MG or TR saw its price raised by a third or more.

Even the wiki article mentions it. The tr6 wasn't horrible to drive, the tr7 was a nighmare.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_TR7.

You may well be correct about the Triumphs; that would be supported by the fact that I know of very few TR owners past the Spitfire. The MG's, however, did not suffer from the same problems to the best of my knowledge and experience.

[May Mays]

A car that is fast and handles well is a good car. A good car is not necessarily an interesting car.
Here is a sort of a list, according to my opinion:
- Good and interesting - Tesla Model S,
- Good, but not interesting - McLaren F1,
- Bad, but interesting - late MG MGB,
- Bad and uninteresting - Plymouth Acclaim.

What is uninteresting about the McLaren F1?

I think their tweaks to the M70 engine, use of gold foil as a heat shield and 3 seat design are all very unique.

[May Mays]

Do you guys think it would be possible to middle or rear mount a front mounting engine designed for FWD, in order to create a MR or RR layout?

Like say a Honda K20A?

[The Two Jerseys]

Do you guys think it would be possible to middle or rear mount a front mounting engine designed for FWD, in order to create a MR or RR layout?

Like say a Honda K20A?

Theoretically, I don't see why it wouldn't.

[Ethel mermania]

Do you guys think it would be possible to middle or rear mount a front mounting engine designed for FWD, in order to create a MR or RR layout?

Like say a Honda K20A?

Sure, you would just have to design the car around the engine. Probably rear mount as the engine and drivetrain is already set up to drive wheels to its side.

[May Mays]

Do you guys think it would be possible to middle or rear mount a front mounting engine designed for FWD, in order to create a MR or RR layout?

Like say a Honda K20A?

Sure, you would just have to design the car around the engine. Probably rear mount as the engine and drivetrain is already set up to drive wheels to its side.

Alright that's pretty much what I thought.

I was just musing on how I would go about making a mid or rear engine car, basically like a Porsche GT3 or Lotus Exige, without the ridiculous brand-name price tag.

Sadly I lack both the money for such a project and the skills to weld an aluminum tube chassis.