Advertisement
by Auzkhia » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:10 pm
by Petrolheadia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:38 am
Auzkhia wrote:5 ways to make cars better
1: Leather's alright, just clean it, I like it, but seems like it's becoming more common, even basic cars have it as an option or standard on the high level trims.
2: All people really want is to connect their smartphones to the audio, the phone can be updated, but will the car ever be? So, good call.
3: Turbos are more prevalent now, and sometimes, you'll be hard pressed to find a new car without forced induction, maybe more turbos show that is more reliable than has been, I prefer a simpler NA engine. So, good idea.
4: Wheels have gotten way too big, it could be a styling trend, but some cars look like they have big tacky rims, and it's stock.
5: Just buy a wagon or hatchback over that crossover.
by Petrolheadia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:34 am
by Auzkhia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:44 am
Petrolheadia wrote:Auzkhia wrote:5 ways to make cars better
1: Leather's alright, just clean it, I like it, but seems like it's becoming more common, even basic cars have it as an option or standard on the high level trims.
2: All people really want is to connect their smartphones to the audio, the phone can be updated, but will the car ever be? So, good call.
3: Turbos are more prevalent now, and sometimes, you'll be hard pressed to find a new car without forced induction, maybe more turbos show that is more reliable than has been, I prefer a simpler NA engine. So, good idea.
4: Wheels have gotten way too big, it could be a styling trend, but some cars look like they have big tacky rims, and it's stock.
5: Just buy a wagon or hatchback over that crossover.
3. The turbo engines are probably cheaper to build, that's why so many manufacturers use them, and can be reliable (see: Volvo T5). Also, they aren't gas-guzzling; they consume less fuel than NA ones, but not as much less as the carmakers claim.
4. I have completely no problem with the brakes, (Baruth's a racing driver, so he is a bit biased as to what's good braking) though the tires could get fatter.
5. Come and say it right at my face. I'm 6'2", and thank God I'm not 6'6" or something.
5. If We Can’t Have Longer or Wider, We Should at Least Have Lower
With the exception of the Lamborghini Huracan, which finally allows both the use of the optional quilted headliner and a racing helmet, every car on the market today could benefit considerably from a one- or even two-inch reduction in the overall height of the body. Today’s cars are so unreasonably tall that they are starting to take on the proportions of the Model A Ford. This height and bulk isn’t just ugly; it’s expensive, it’s wasteful, and it’s heavy. If we took two inches of body out of everything from the HR-V to the Dodge Power Wagon we could save millions of pounds of steel, glass, and plastic while decreasing fuel consumption, improving rollover safety, and making life on the freeway a little easier for everybody who didn’t choose a Super Duty 4x4 as their daily commuter.
by Petrolheadia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:54 am
Auzkhia wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:3. The turbo engines are probably cheaper to build, that's why so many manufacturers use them, and can be reliable (see: Volvo T5). Also, they aren't gas-guzzling; they consume less fuel than NA ones, but not as much less as the carmakers claim.
4. I have completely no problem with the brakes, (Baruth's a racing driver, so he is a bit biased as to what's good braking) though the tires could get fatter.
5. Come and say it right at my face. I'm 6'2", and thank God I'm not 6'6" or something.
Last paragraph proposed that vehicles, from CUVs to Trucks should be lower, but standard cars are already sufficient.5. If We Can’t Have Longer or Wider, We Should at Least Have Lower
With the exception of the Lamborghini Huracan, which finally allows both the use of the optional quilted headliner and a racing helmet, every car on the market today could benefit considerably from a one- or even two-inch reduction in the overall height of the body. Today’s cars are so unreasonably tall that they are starting to take on the proportions of the Model A Ford. This height and bulk isn’t just ugly; it’s expensive, it’s wasteful, and it’s heavy. If we took two inches of body out of everything from the HR-V to the Dodge Power Wagon we could save millions of pounds of steel, glass, and plastic while decreasing fuel consumption, improving rollover safety, and making life on the freeway a little easier for everybody who didn’t choose a Super Duty 4x4 as their daily commuter.
by East Fredonia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:36 am
Petrolheadia wrote:Auzkhia wrote:Last paragraph proposed that vehicles, from CUVs to Trucks should be lower, but standard cars are already sufficient.
If Jaguar, Kia, BMW or Nissan agrees with him and does it, I'm going to get other people above 6' tall, and we're going to set their HQ on fire.
Also, Jack Baruth is just a rank above homophobes or racists. The same "It makes me uncomfortable, so it needs to go" logic.
Cannot think of a name wrote:Well, that's part of a larger problem in general where the younger generation is being priced out of f***ing everything and instead of addressing the mess they made the older generation is blaming it on f***ing avocado toast. But that's another thread.
by Auzkhia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:10 am
by Arkinesia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:55 am
East Fredonia wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:If Jaguar, Kia, BMW or Nissan agrees with him and does it, I'm going to get other people above 6' tall, and we're going to set their HQ on fire.
Also, Jack Baruth is just a rank above homophobes or racists. The same "It makes me uncomfortable, so it needs to go" logic.
I would happily join the party and burn their HQs. I'm 6' 1-3/4" and physically unable to fit in a 2017 Camaro, Toyobaru, Versa Note, Fiesta, the back seat of an Impala, etc.
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by Arctica-Aleutia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:14 am
Petrolheadia wrote:Imagine it's 1992. You are a 16-year-old from Richmond, VA, searching for his first car. It would be a manual 3-door subcompact, one that would be reliable, good for autocross and fuel-efficient. The options are:
- 1986 Honda Civic 1.5,
- 1986 Nissan Sentra 1.6,
- 1986 Mazda 323 1.3,
- 1986 Subaru GL 1.6,
- 1987 Mitsubishi Mirage 1.3,
- 1987 Dodge Colt 1.5,
- 1988 Pontiac LeMans 1.6,
- 1987 VW Golf 1.6,
- 1989 Hyundai Excel 1.5.
Which one would you buy? I'd choose the Honda.
NEWS: Army helping Ottoman Republic forces attack the last ISIS strongholds in the region -- Prussian kaiser meets with President Larisa aboard the battlesteamer Kennedy -- This year's October Festival a grand success, larger than ever due to this being the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution -- Geologists express concern about submarine mining operations near Aleutian fault lines -- Egalitarian Front wins election, at least one more year for President Larisa
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:52 am
East Fredonia wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:If Jaguar, Kia, BMW or Nissan agrees with him and does it, I'm going to get other people above 6' tall, and we're going to set their HQ on fire.
Also, Jack Baruth is just a rank above homophobes or racists. The same "It makes me uncomfortable, so it needs to go" logic.
I would happily join the party and burn their HQs. I'm 6' 1-3/4" and physically unable to fit in a 2017 Camaro, Toyobaru, Versa Note, Fiesta, the back seat of an Impala, etc.
by Petrolheadia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:40 am
The Two Jerseys wrote:East Fredonia wrote:I would happily join the party and burn their HQs. I'm 6' 1-3/4" and physically unable to fit in a 2017 Camaro, Toyobaru, Versa Note, Fiesta, the back seat of an Impala, etc.
Wait, how can you not fit in the backseat of an Impala? It's positively cavernous back there!
by Arkinesia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:09 pm
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:24 pm
by East Fredonia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:41 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Well, that's part of a larger problem in general where the younger generation is being priced out of f***ing everything and instead of addressing the mess they made the older generation is blaming it on f***ing avocado toast. But that's another thread.
by Petrolheadia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:44 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:50 pm
by Auzkhia » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:37 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:East Fredonia wrote:I wasn't thinking while I was typing, meant to put down 'my aunt's 2013 Camry'. My hair brushes the headliner if I'm in the back seat.
OK, now that makes more sense.
The problem that I usually have with roofs in newer cars is that the side of my head hits the C-pillar because the things curve inward so much.
by Elwher » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:05 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:East Fredonia wrote:I wasn't thinking while I was typing, meant to put down 'my aunt's 2013 Camry'. My hair brushes the headliner if I'm in the back seat.
OK, now that makes more sense.
The problem that I usually have with roofs in newer cars is that the side of my head hits the C-pillar because the things curve inward so much.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:14 pm
by Petrolheadia » Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:44 am
by Elwher » Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:38 am
by Petrolheadia » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:43 am
by Auzkhia » Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:23 pm
Petrolheadia wrote:Some time ago, I thought 70s US cars were shit distilled.
Now, I'm defending the point that a 1977 Cadillac Eldorado was better than Mercedes' 1977 range in the YouTube comment section.
One of my copypastas:
"Nope. They ['77 Eldorados] are cars for people who want to get as much for their money as possible.
$12k Mercedes 230 equipment sheet: manual A/C, power mirrors, central locking, AM/FM radio, cloth seats, midsize body, mediocre trunk space.
$12k Cadillac Eldorado equipment sheet: automatic A/C, high altitude package, towing package, HD radiator, performance axle, power mirrors, windows and driver seat, central locking, signal-seeking AM/FM/cassette radio, CB radio, self-levelling suspension, anti-theft system, pinstriping, leather seats, fullsize body, cavernous trunk."
by Petrolheadia » Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:59 pm
Auzkhia wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:Some time ago, I thought 70s US cars were shit distilled.
Now, I'm defending the point that a 1977 Cadillac Eldorado was better than Mercedes' 1977 range in the YouTube comment section.
One of my copypastas:
"Nope. They ['77 Eldorados] are cars for people who want to get as much for their money as possible.
$12k Mercedes 230 equipment sheet: manual A/C, power mirrors, central locking, AM/FM radio, cloth seats, midsize body, mediocre trunk space.
$12k Cadillac Eldorado equipment sheet: automatic A/C, high altitude package, towing package, HD radiator, performance axle, power mirrors, windows and driver seat, central locking, signal-seeking AM/FM/cassette radio, CB radio, self-levelling suspension, anti-theft system, pinstriping, leather seats, fullsize body, cavernous trunk."
They were bad in some ways, a 20 feet long car with a 7.0 liter V8 could only muster 180hp. Sure, Cadillacs were never about performance until the Catera came along, and GM wanted Caddy to fight BMW, but emissions in the 70s were bad and GM, Ford, and Chrysler had to comply and had yet to engineer around the regulations to preserve power and fuel economy. The 70s weren't a good time for the American auto industry, and also the British auto industry. But, good for the Japanese and German auto industries.
But, a 1978 Mercedes Benz 300CD, adjusted for inflation, was a 90k car, and for its time it was higher quality, but high price. The Cadillac was a good value. American brand luxury cars are comparatively cheaper. A Lincoln Town Car in 2011 was 46k, and the comparable Mercedes Benz S500 was 85k, you get a full size car that costs the same a Midsize Mercedes. That's the biggest advantage, value. Sure, in hindsight, A W123 Mercedes is more modern and a classic you could daily, but if I lived 40 years, a Cadillac, or maybe a Lincoln Continental Mark V, would look better, and be cheaper to buy.
by Auzkhia » Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:55 am
Petrolheadia wrote:Auzkhia wrote:They were bad in some ways, a 20 feet long car with a 7.0 liter V8 could only muster 180hp. Sure, Cadillacs were never about performance until the Catera came along, and GM wanted Caddy to fight BMW, but emissions in the 70s were bad and GM, Ford, and Chrysler had to comply and had yet to engineer around the regulations to preserve power and fuel economy. The 70s weren't a good time for the American auto industry, and also the British auto industry. But, good for the Japanese and German auto industries.
But, a 1978 Mercedes Benz 300CD, adjusted for inflation, was a 90k car, and for its time it was higher quality, but high price. The Cadillac was a good value. American brand luxury cars are comparatively cheaper. A Lincoln Town Car in 2011 was 46k, and the comparable Mercedes Benz S500 was 85k, you get a full size car that costs the same a Midsize Mercedes. That's the biggest advantage, value. Sure, in hindsight, A W123 Mercedes is more modern and a classic you could daily, but if I lived 40 years, a Cadillac, or maybe a Lincoln Continental Mark V, would look better, and be cheaper to buy.
Except that the 170 HP V8 was one of the most powerful engines of 1977, having more power than any US-bound Japanese car and being less powerful than only a handful of Euro cars, all of which were significantly more expensive.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cheblonsk, Duvniask, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Neu California, Pingu 2nd, Spirit of Hope
Advertisement