TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Cars you Love
Pages (53): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 »

Just because a car goes fast doesn't make it good. It can still have a shitty interior, rubbish reliability, terrible design and more.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Kind of reminds me of something Jeremy Clarkson said when he was testing the Viper SRT-10: "It's internal combustion, with a hint of spontaneous combustion. It's wayward, it's backward, and I just don't care." He ultimately walks away with favorable impressions, despite spending the largest percentage of his airtime with it listing grievance after grievance. I think it's the 'raw simplicity' (which he alludes to) of some American cars that endow them with so much appeal. Hilarious episode, by the way: Dodge+Viper+SRT10+Top+Gear+Road+Test+and+Review

lol that was pretty funny

clarkson seems to approve of the interior ergonomics and comfort of the zr1, and i love his final words "this is a masterpiece"

http://jalopnik.com/5081442/top-gea...-they-like-them


Top Gear tested the Challenger, ZR-1, and CTS-V a few seasons ago on the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Each came away incredibly impressed. James May went to far as to say the CTS-V was by leaps and bounds the finest American Car he's ever driven.

It also, by the way, holds the title as the fastest production sedan to go around the 'Ring. I've had the pleasure of driving one..what a friggin' beast!










In the end though, it's easy to point to our supercars to use as an example. But what was said overall above about the arguement that American cars are crap should be applied 15-20 years ago is exactly on point.

Take a look at today's Ford Fusion (and Hybrid). It just won Motor Trend's Car of the year for 2010. I'd take that any day over a comparable Honda or Toyota. The quality is there, plus you get a little sportiness and excitement too. My dad and I were at a local auto show a few weeks ago, and it was amazing how when we reached the Honda and Toyota sections of the show, there was just nothing to get excited about in their current lineups in the way you could then walk over to a Camaro, Vette, or CTS, for example. It's probably why both Jap. companies are scrambling to get out a rear-drive sports car as quickly as they can.

New 2010 Buick Regal vs. a Lexus ES 350 - Buick has been wining comparisons hands down.

Buick Enclave vs. any comparable small-midsize SUV, wining as well.


Point is, from the range of $$$$ to $, you can no longer make generalized statements as Domesticated did and have any credibility among gearheads. (Unless you're talking Chrysler, so help us all.)

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Oh man, my mistake! Fixed, immediately. Anyway, I worked at a Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep dealership for a while, and yes, I can vouch for the absolute and utter mechanical ridiculousness that is the 300 lineup. I once took an SRT-8 out, and a block away from the dealership, the power steering went out. Apparently, that was a recurring problem with the 300's, so much so that the service technicians were used to it by now. Oh, and the interior felt like I was riding in a glorified bicycle. Still, though, compared to the 'luxury interiors' of American cars from the mid to late 90's, I will gleefully roll around in one of their 2009 offerings. As for the Cadillac you drove, did you drive the base model CTS or CTS-V? I can't verify this at the moment, but I'm fairly confident that the CTS doesn't have the 6 and 4 piston Brembo's that the CTS-V comes equipped with, which will most certainly produce a difference in stopping power between the two cars. There are also some blatant differences in interior materials.

I drove the base CTS but still, we are talking about an reasonably upper market car here, it should not have brakes made out of butter (im exagerating a bit here the CTS does not have brakes made out of butter of course...the 300C does). Even the bottom of the range should be quite decently equipped. I wont bring out a BMW for comparison again, so i will bring out the bottom of the range E-Class instead the E200 diesel. That car was not in any way bult for speed, its suspension is soft, the engine barely turns, it takes two weeks to get from 0 to 100...bottom of the range what can one say....but the brakes they work, and the soft suspension about which you are not too sure about when driving works under braking as well. And for me, that just puts it in the lead. You may not need excellent brakes every day, o ever for that matter but one day they might come in useful and then spending a couple of thousand more will seem as a bargain compared to the alternative. I use that philosophy on my car as well. SUre it may only be a small fiat, and sure there may be a bit of rust here and there that i cant be bothered to fix because i plan to drive the car untill it falls apart and then ill replace it with another small beate for city use but the breakes and the tires...they are always in top condition.


Also theres a reason why the Buick regal gets good reviews...thats thats actually an european car

Also the Caddy is not the fastest sedan around the ring anymore...the germans have allready reclaimed that honour with the panamera turbo

And not all of american cars are rubbish. Some are quite good...for instance the Current gen Ford mondeo or the Ford Focus RS, Or the Ford S-max which may be the 2nd people carrier ever made that is not so embarrasing to drive that you want to shoot yourself. So not all american cars are rubbish...just most of them

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH why settle for a mustang when the corvette is the best car to ever come out of Bowling Green, Kentucky?

Fixed

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Also i saw one of these today going for less than 20k 4 seat Ferraris really do depreciate as fast as they accelerate. So, going by that in a few years time the 612 will cost less than a decent family sedan. Excellent, ill be standing in line.

20k what? That sounds seriously cheap, at that price I'd almost park it in my driveway and just admire it

If there is an online ad I'd be interested in seeing it for my own amusement...

quote:

Originally posted by fbgdavidson Fixed

nah, detroit

quote:

Originally posted by miamitranceman http://jalopnik.com/5081442/top-gea...-they-like-them Top Gear tested the Challenger, ZR-1, and CTS-V a few seasons ago on the Bonneville Salt Flats. Each came away incredibly impressed. James May went to far as to say the CTS-V was by leaps and bounds the finest American Car he's ever driven. It also, by the way, holds the title as the fastest production sedan to go around the 'Ring. I've had the pleasure of driving one..what a friggin' beast! In the end though, it's easy to point to our supercars to use as an example. But what was said overall above about the arguement that American cars are crap should be applied 15-20 years ago is exactly on point. Take a look at today's Ford Fusion (and Hybrid). It just won Motor Trend's Car of the year for 2010. I'd take that any day over a comparable Honda or Toyota. The quality is there, plus you get a little sportiness and excitement too. My dad and I were at a local auto show a few weeks ago, and it was amazing how when we reached the Honda and Toyota sections of the show, there was just nothing to get excited about in their current lineups in the way you could then walk over to a Camaro, Vette, or CTS, for example. It's probably why both Jap. companies are scrambling to get out a rear-drive sports car as quickly as they can. New 2010 Buick Regal vs. a Lexus ES 350 - Buick has been wining comparisons hands down. Buick Enclave vs. any comparable small-midsize SUV, wining as well. Point is, from the range of $$$$ to $, you can no longer make generalized statements as Domesticated did and have any credibility among gearheads. (Unless you're talking Chrysler, so help us all.)

Yes but why do your designers insist on making every car look so damn muscly and boxy? They must have taken the word "sleek" from their vocabulary.

It seems that the trend in American cars over the years has always been petrol guzzling, fuck off big, muscle cars.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz It seems that the trend in American cars over the years has always been petrol guzzling, fuck off big, muscle cars.

are you surprised by that? our culture is very masculine, our roads are very wide and straight, our gas is very cheap. american cars have been like that pretty much since the 1930s. we invented automotive racing, top fuel, hot rods, derbies and the monster truck. it's ingrained in our culture.

quote:

Originally posted by fbgdavidson Fixed 20k what? That sounds seriously cheap, at that price I'd almost park it in my driveway and just admire it If there is an online ad I'd be interested in seeing it for my own amusement...

20k EUR...and yes it surprised me that it awas so cheap as well...suaally these will go at least for 25k. Also it was put online by the dealer and not someone who was just messing around for fun. The site seems to be down atm, but ill repost it tomorrow when they fix it up.

And i sooo fucking love both th 456GT and especially the 612...All the benefits of having a Ferrari but with back seats!

quote:

are you surprised by that? our culture is very masculine, our roads are very wide and straight, our gas is very cheap. american cars have been like that pretty much since the 1930s. we invented automotive racing, top fuel, hot rods, derbies and the monster truck. it's ingrained in our culture.

Oh i cant let that slide

quote:

he beginning of racing Racing began soon after the construction of the first successful petrol-fueled automobiles. The first race ever organized was on April 28, 1887 by the chief editor of Paris publication Le V�locip�de, Monsieur Fossier.[citation needed] It ran 2 kilometers from Neuilly Bridge to the Bois de Boulogne. It was won by Georges Bouton, in a car he had constructed with Albert, the Comte de Dion, but as he was the only competitor to show up it is rather pointless to call it a race. On July 22, 1894 the first real contest was a reliability test from 'Paris to Rouen', (Concours des Voitures sans Chevaux (Horseless Carriage Competition)), organised by the Parisian magazine Le Petit Journal. The Comte Jules-Albert de Dion was first to arrive in Rouen on his steam car, but a Panhard et Levassor was judged to be the winner. In 1895, the Paris-Bordeaux-Paris Trial was held and this was the first real race as all competitors started together. The winner was �mile Levassor in his Panhard-Levassor 1205 cc model. He completed the course (1,178 km or 732 miles) in 48 hours and 47 minutes, finishing nearly six hours before the runner-up. The first regular auto racing venue was Nice, France, run in late March 1897 as a "Speed Week." To fill out the schedule, most types of racing event were invented here, including the first hill climb (Nice - La Turbie) and a sprint that was, in spirit, the first drag race.

Ill let you have top fuel, hot rods and monster trucks...you know stuff nobody else really cares about (while a monster truck running over other cars is awesome, racing them is just silly )




Thouh i will give the americans some credit

quote:

The first auto race in the United States took place in Chicago, Illinois. The course went from the South side of the city, North along the lakefront to Evanston, Illinois and back again on November 28, 1895 over an 54.36 mile(87.48 km) course, with Frank Duryea winning in 10 hours and 23 minutes, beating three petrol-fueled and two electric cars.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH ya i'll give it a rest i guess. i doubt he'll ever say a damn thing to me about the vette. he probably did some google research and realized he was full of shit.

I already answered your question. As I said, it's not so much the physicalities of any American car that galls me. It's the ethos behind them. The Corvette is no different. I couldn't give a fuck how good you think the brakes or engine are. Like all American cars, it has no finesse or subtlety. All brawn, no brain.

Since you ask, no, I don't know a lot about the Corvette. I don't bother to follow American cars. Answer me this though. At a time when every car manufacturer in Europe is using CVT and DSG or equivalent, what kind of transmission is the Corvette using?

And the thing that most annoys me about corvettes, the cheap plastic bodywork. 1:35 - 1:40 in the video shows what im on about. i dont want my car to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Since you ask, no, I don't know a lot about the Corvette. I don't bother to follow American cars. Answer me this though. At a time when every car manufacturer in Europe is using CVT and DSG or equivalent, what kind of transmission is the Corvette using?

The fact that the Corvette and related American muscle continues to rely upon a basic stick and clutch transmission isn't something that necessarily works against it, and I think this relates to the point I was outlining earlier. Whether by consequence or by intent, there's a classic (stupid?) simplicity to these cars that have their own sense of appeal, and you more or less find this with enthusiasts of, say, classic roadsters, who prefer the sports car built upon that simple, straightforward template. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that a car like the ZR1 has the elegance and character of a late 60's/early 70's European roadster, but I am saying that not being the brainiest member of the club doesn't necessarily detract from the value and pleasure of owning one.

Jeremy Clarkson in the above video serves as an example of one such enthusiast, as he remarks during the test drive as to how the ZR1 has a 'proper gearbox,' rather than some electronic semi-manual gearbox.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost The fact that the Corvette and related American muscle continues to rely upon a basic stick and clutch transmission isn't something that necessarily works against it, and I think this relates to the point I was outlining earlier. Whether by consequence or by intent, there's a classic (stupid?) simplicity to these cars that have their own sense of appeal, and you more or less find this with enthusiasts of, say, classic roadsters, who prefer the sports car built upon that simple, straightforward template. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that a car like the ZR1 has the elegance and character of a late 60's/early 70's roadster, but I am saying that not being the brainiest member of the club doesn't necessarily detract from the value and pleasure of owning one.

Okay, I suppose I can partially understand that sensible explanation. However, two things:

a) Does sticking with a basic formula make the car any easier to drive? Having a CVT or DSG transmission affects the way a car drives, but it doesn't make any difference to the actual effort the driver has to put in. What is the advantage in sticking with old technology?

b) If manufacturers purposely pursue a simplistic, classical approach, how long are they going to stay with it? Are Chevrolet still going to be making combustion engine cars with basic transmissions 100 years from now?

No, it seems implausible to me that this approach is followed on purpose. Rather, I think it's a response to what the consumers want. Or, more likely, what the consumers have been led to believe they want after so many years.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Okay, I suppose I can partially understand that sensible explanation. However, two things: a) Does sticking with a basic formula make the car any easier to drive? Having a CVT or DSG transmission affects the way a car drives, but it doesn't make any difference to the actual effort the driver has to put in. What is the advantage in sticking with old technology? b) If manufacturers purposely pursue a simplistic, classical approach, how long are they going to stay with it? Are Chevrolet still going to be making combustion engine cars with basic transmissions 100 years from now? No, it seems implausible to me that this approach is followed on purpose. Rather, I think it's a response to what the consumers want. Or, more likely, what the consumers have been led to believe they want after so many years.

You're probably right in your conclusion that these production decisions aren't made in some spirit of preserving an automotive tradition, but it nevertheless has its appeal in that regard, but perhaps more importantly, it's a cost-reducing decision that makes supercar performance more accessible. If the Corvette were to even approach the production quality of its Italian rival, the 'bang for the buck' factor quickly goes out the window, and that's one of the biggest cards this car has to play. The ZR1 is a real 'if it doesn't bother you...' kind of car; the typical plastic, no frills GM interior and body, the gaudy and bit crude appearance- if these things don't bother you, then you will have scored yourself a remarkable deal in comparison to what you could be paying for such performance (assuming that's most of what you care about).

It also needs to be said (in response to your above points) that the ZR1 is an atypical example of GM's overall production mindset. That is, this car will only fall in the hands of the few, but their more commonplace cars have come an impressively long way in terms of sophistication and class (like the mid-sized Malibu).

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose And the thing that most annoys me about corvettes, the cheap plastic bodywork. 1:35 - 1:40 in the video shows what im on about. i dont want my car to do that.

that's the dumbest complaint i've ever heard. the corvette body panels are made of fiber glass and carbon fiber. the clear coat of the carbor fiber costs $60k per gallon. composite materials strip unnecessary weight off the car, lower its center of gravity, and in the event of a collision transfer energy away. cheap plastic bodywork would not be able to withstand 205 mph speeds. also i have bad news about your car, i can bend metal body panels just the same. i can try to bend them just as much as i can a composite, but then you'd have to pay someone to bend them back.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Okay, I suppose I can partially understand that sensible explanation. However, two things: a) Does sticking with a basic formula make the car any easier to drive? Having a CVT or DSG transmission affects the way a car drives, but it doesn't make any difference to the actual effort the driver has to put in. What is the advantage in sticking with old technology? b) If manufacturers purposely pursue a simplistic, classical approach, how long are they going to stay with it? Are Chevrolet still going to be making combustion engine cars with basic transmissions 100 years from now? No, it seems implausible to me that this approach is followed on purpose. Rather, I think it's a response to what the consumers want. Or, more likely, what the consumers have been led to believe they want after so many years.

why do corvettes use pushrod v8s and leaf springs also? because they can. you can blab all you want about how much more advanced coilovers and dual overhead cams are, but at the end of the day the corvette still pulls 1.1 lateral gs on the skid and turns out over 100 hp per liter. and they don't break. what can you really say about the corvette's design when it outperforms cars that cost 2, 3, 6, 11 TIMES the zr1? that's why they're made the way they're made. some people don't like paying $400 for an oil filter (ferrari) when they can get the same performance out of a car that takes a $40 filter.

yea thats an italian supercar being introduced with Evanescence

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH that's the dumbest complaint i've ever heard. the corvette body panels are made of fiber glass and carbon fiber. the clear coat of the carbor fiber costs $60k per gallon. composite materials strip unnecessary weight off the car, lower its center of gravity, and in the event of a collision transfer energy away. cheap plastic bodywork would not be able to withstand 205 mph speeds. also i have bad news about your car, i can bend metal body panels just the same. i can try to bend them just as much as i can a composite, but then you'd have to pay someone to bend them back. why do corvettes use pushrod v8s and leaf springs also? because they can. you can blab all you want about how much more advanced coilovers and dual overhead cams are, but at the end of the day the corvette still pulls 1.1 lateral gs on the skid and turns out over 100 hp per liter. and they don't break. what can you really say about the corvette's design when it outperforms cars that cost 2, 3, 6, 11 TIMES the zr1? that's why they're made the way they're made. some people don't like paying $400 for an oil filter (ferrari) when they can get the same performance out of a car that takes a $40 filter.

Uh, carbon and fiberglass don't bend like that bumper cover did. That's plastic. Sure, there's a lot of composites in the Vette - there always have been, but that bumper cover has to be made of the cheapest, thinnest glass-reinforced-plastic body shit ever if it deforms like that with a simple touch.

It's a simple car that punches well above it's weight in terms of performance. Where it's lacking is refinement and sophistication. If you can do without such things, this is a great performance car. If you enjoy more quality fit & finish, better interior materials and sophistication, it's not the car for you.

I don't think that they'll be able to squeeze much more life out of it in it's current form though. Hell, at 7 liters for the engine, it's bloody massive, so it relies only on the domestic US market where fuel is cheap (I can't see anyone wanting to put 1.70 euro / L of high-grade fuel into this thing). At some point, the power will overwhelm what few more chassis improvements they can get from their leaf springs and they will either have to evolve or stay where they are as an automotive anachronism.

The Pratt & Miller GT1 Vettes that run in the ALMS and FIA GT's all run coil-over suspension like all the other sportscars they compete with.

Why do people insist on saying that the Corvette still uses leaf springs for its rear suspension?



Do you see leaf springs in this image?

THIS is a leaf spring suspension.



The engine size in the Corvette also doesnt correlate to shitty feul economy. the LS series engines actually get pretty good mileage for a huge horsepower V8. On the highway they will get 15mpg City and 24mpg highway. That's better than the new 2010 M3 that will do 13/19, and still better than my VW R32 that is rated at 18/23.

I will agree that the corvette isn't in the least a refined car, but it's not supposed to be. Its a performance bargain for those who love raw power, and lots of people love the feeling of a raw power sports car.

And I don't even like Corvettes. I just hate badge whores and snobs that slag North American cars when some of them are actually good vehicles.

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Andrews Why do people insist on saying that the Corvette still uses leaf springs for its rear suspension? [IMG]http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Chevrolet-Corvette-C6-rear-suspension-1024x768.jpg[IMG] Do you see leaf springs in this image?

do you see any other type of suspension besides leaf springs? i see mounts for a transverse leaf spring assembly and its corresponding monotube shock absorber. this is the setup the corvettes have been using since 84, when they ditched coilovers.

here's a better pic for you...

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Uh, carbon and fiberglass don't bend like that bumper cover did. That's plastic. Sure, there's a lot of composites in the Vette - there always have been, but that bumper cover has to be made of the cheapest, thinnest glass-reinforced-plastic body shit ever if it deforms like that with a simple touch. It's a simple car that punches well above it's weight in terms of performance. Where it's lacking is refinement and sophistication. If you can do without such things, this is a great performance car. If you enjoy more quality fit & finish, better interior materials and sophistication, it's not the car for you. I don't think that they'll be able to squeeze much more life out of it in it's current form though. Hell, at 7 liters for the engine, it's bloody massive, so it relies only on the domestic US market where fuel is cheap (I can't see anyone wanting to put 1.70 euro / L of high-grade fuel into this thing). At some point, the power will overwhelm what few more chassis improvements they can get from their leaf springs and they will either have to evolve or stay where they are as an automotive anachronism. The Pratt & Miller GT1 Vettes that run in the ALMS and FIA GT's all run coil-over suspension like all the other sportscars they compete with.

how is the corvette not mechanically refined when it has literally perfected all the technologies it employs. 15/24 epa is a pretty impressive fuel economy for a 7 liter 427 big block that turns out 505 hp and 470 tq. find me another sports car that does the same or better. 75 mph avg on the slalom, 1.1 lateral gs on the skid, enough said about the chassis. people have been doubting the technological limits of the corvette for decades and yet it manages to make performance gains in every iteration without impacting the sticker price significantly.

the vette is a simple, raw and honest driving machine. it has never pretended to be anything else. it's pure lasting performance for the performance-minded customer. maybe the leather in the lamborghini feels better against your gucci slacks, but a real driver of performance cars doesn't give a shit about that. you can own a monster corvette and a fully loaded mercedes sedan for less the 'ultra-plush supercars'. the corvette has more aftermarket than any other production car so its stock refinements are not really an issue. the bottom line is if you like the performance of cars like the porsche gt2 and ferrari 599, but aren't a millionaire and value every dollar you make, then the corvette is the de facto sports car for your money. that applies to the 99% of us that like and talk about fast cars.

none of the gt1 cars are anything like their production counterparts. by regulation they are all spec'd within very tight tolerances of each other, thus their suspension dynamics are all close and drastically different from production. you're basically pitting chassis and engine block against chassis and engine block. not even the engine is mounted at the same spot. none of this means the coilover they use is better. it could cost 1000% more, offer 10% stiffness gain and ruin the ride quality on city streets.

quote:

Originally posted by leph555 yea thats an italian supercar being introduced with Evanescence

ugly as fuck. looks like a cheap "ricer"

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH do you see any other type of suspension besides leaf springs? i see mounts for a transverse leaf spring assembly and its corresponding monotube shock absorber. this is the setup the corvettes have been using since 84, when they ditched coilovers. here's a better pic for you...

I stand corrected. That image proves me wrong. Regardless, their application of the technology yields increbile performance results. I still stand by my statement that people hating on the Corvette are just being badge whores and aren't true auto enthusiasts.

Thanks for the info and picture.

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear ugly as fuck. looks like a cheap "ricer"

exactly, it is a fucking abomination

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Andrews I stand corrected. That image proves me wrong. Regardless, their application of the technology yields increbile performance results. I still stand by my statement that people hating on the Corvette are just being badge whores and aren't true auto enthusiasts. Thanks for the info and picture.

ya it's an easy trap to fall into, hating on american cars and lumping the corvette in with the geo storm. badge whores are a funny bunch. they pick a team and bicker it out like it's a sport. there's the car they love and the cars they hate, no middle ground. they don't tinker, they don't test drive, they don't research. they compartmentalize facts and opinions and yell until they drown out the whole picture. i equate them with political party line-toers. the type who vote for the party rather than the candidate or the issue because it's easier to understand that way. i've said before i'm not particularly a fan of american cars, mainly because i'm a buyer of practical cars now, but the corvette is a machine of distinction that every true car enthusiast has to appreciate. the only people that can't are those who've never been behind the wheel of one. right domesticated?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.