The General Car Thread.

[Auzkhia]

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.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

[Auzkhia]

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.

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.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

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.

[East Fredonia]

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.

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.

[Auzkhia]

Today on mildly interesting.

TIL the Dodge Ram 2500/3500 is the only full size pickup truck that offers a manual transmission, but you can only have it on lower trims with the Cummins I6 diesel engine.

[Arkinesia]

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.

Y'all must have no legs or something. I'm 6' even and I fit quite comfortably in Mustangs, Camaros, and even my 2013 Hyundai Sonata quite comfortably.

[Arctica-Aleutia]

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.

I'd probably go with the 1931 Dodge Sedan Volkswagen, perhaps a cabriolet version. Hard to say, though.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

Wait, how can you not fit in the backseat of an Impala? It's positively cavernous back there!

[Petrolheadia]

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!

How tall are you? Because when I was in 4th grade, the Corolla seemed cavernous.

Now it's... meh.

[Arkinesia]

Redditor buys Dodge, predictable shenanigans ensue.

[The Two Jerseys]

Wait, how can you not fit in the backseat of an Impala? It's positively cavernous back there!

How tall are you? Because when I was in 4th grade, the Corolla seemed cavernous.

Now it's... meh.

I'm 5'9". My toes can barely reach the backs of the front seats.

The Corolla is also a full two sizes below the Impala.

[East Fredonia]

How tall are you? Because when I was in 4th grade, the Corolla seemed cavernous.

Now it's... meh.

I'm 5'9". My toes can barely reach the backs of the front seats.

The Corolla is also a full two sizes below the Impala.

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.

[Petrolheadia]

How tall are you? Because when I was in 4th grade, the Corolla seemed cavernous.

Now it's... meh.

I'm 5'9". My toes can barely reach the backs of the front seats.

The Corolla is also a full two sizes below the Impala.

I don't really know, but I'm sure the XF, Maxima and Optima have a tight rear seat.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm 5'9". My toes can barely reach the backs of the front seats.

The Corolla is also a full two sizes below the Impala.

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.

[Auzkhia]

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.

Some new cars are a bit cramped on the inside due to the design, especially "4 door Coupes" like the Mercedes Benz CLA which is the worst offender. I'm not particularly tall (180cm/5'11" in freedom units), but I could not sit in the back seats, even the driver seats were cramped.

[Elwher]

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.

Get a roadster and you can drive with no roof to worry about.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

Get a roadster and you can drive with no roof to worry about.

My typical drives are so short that they wouldn't even justify putting the top down.

Plus we get all four seasons here, so a roof is a bit of a necessity at times.

[Petrolheadia]

Imagine it's 1995. You are a 19-year-old singer from Richmond, VA. You are searching for another car to supplement your 1986 1.5 Civic. It would be a fun-to-drive, reliable and fuel-efficient small manual sports car, not necessarily a 4-seater. The options are:
- 1990 Honda CR-X 1.5 Si,
- 1988 Toyota MR2 1.6 NA,
- 1987 Toyota Corolla AE86 1.6 GT-S,
- 1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.8,
- 1984 Porsche 944,
- 1986 Mazda RX-7 1.3 NA.

Which one would you buy? I'd get the MR2.

[Elwher]

Get a roadster and you can drive with no roof to worry about.

My typical drives are so short that they wouldn't even justify putting the top down.

Plus we get all four seasons here, so a roof is a bit of a necessity at times.

As to the four seasons, that is a problem here as well. I tend to walk a lot during the winter and keep the MG in a garage.

My typical drives are so short they wouldn't justify putting the top up, I keep the car parked with the tonneau cover on only.

[Petrolheadia]

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."

[Auzkhia]

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.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

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.

[Auzkhia]

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.

Just a few years ago the same engine made a lot more, over 300 hp, emissions technology were bad, it's why the 1960s were seen as a golden age among many American car enthusiasts.