| Not going to be popular, but, new cars suck... - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| ehos |
And I don't mean, this year or last year. I mean since the 80's or even 70's. Cars technology has advanced soo much, but we're getting crap shit garbage. Why?
The speed limit hasn't changed (hell, it's gone down in some places). It's 50-60. And highway it's 70-110. And it will NEVER increase. It's not going to happen (not politically correct).
So, why is it that the only technological improvement we get is horsepower increases and creature comforts? I want to drive my car not live in it. Every year we get the same car, tweaked with a few more horsepower and a few styling changes. OOOH! (Sarcasm for those that missed the drive by...).
I don't want 300, then 305 HP, then the next year 310HP models. What's the point? I can only drive 60! That's it! I enjoy and love my FD, but I see the idiocy of it at the same time.
Why can't the technology give me something that could actually benefit me and the rest of mankind? I want a lighter and lighter car, that gets better and better fuel mileage with great 0-60 KM/hr driveability. How hard is that?
And it should be cheap. What a joke someone played inventing 50-60K cars. We're getting what we don't want or need, and we have to overpay for it too. Crazy! But it must not be that crazy, because the buying public is craving these huge behemoths that are impossible to recycle, horrible for the environment, bad for the roads etc etc.
I always hear that gas companies work with auto companies to bring in inefficient vehicles to the market. But that makes no sense to me (unless you like conspiracy theories). Auto makers should be building cars for their customers. These new hybrid cars are big joke. They're worse for fuel efficiency (factor in cost) than some cars of the 90's. Factor in their weight and all the mess they will leave behind and it's no contest.
The other thing is people's perceptions/wants. Everyone (me included) will choose the sexy/good looking car over the efficient one. Why? No one cares what you're driving, you won't impress anyone (bulletin: Everyone has a nice car now).
Let's not bring sexy back. Let's bring ugly back. No hate intended, just thinking out loud... |
|
|
| n0c7 |
| You bring up some good points. People often ask me how much hp my car has and my answer usually is "What does it matter? I street drive the car. I'm pushing around the 300 mark, and even thats more than enough for the street." |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
You honestly don't think gas mileage his improved over the years or that cars are lighter? Cars today are mostly made out of lightweight plastic, with power equal to older cars but using half (or less) the displacement. One of those old Chevy 454's would be almost 7.5L. Oh sure, it put down 460+ bhp and 500+ ft-lbs, but the car was 4 times as heavy.
Personally, my beef is that cars are getting uglier. So I guess we're seeing opposite side. Not even opposite sides of the coin though, literally opposites. I get gas mileage now that my parents would've only dreamed of getting 20 years ago, and cars shatter when they get in accidents because they're all plastic......But they're all so ugly.
If you're looking at $50-60k cars, I'm not surprised your upset though. Look at the Yaris. $14k, super light, amazing mileage, ugly as sin. The options you want are there. You just need to stop looking at Hummers and Explorers.
Why do we care about cars? Same reason we care about clothes, and sanitation. It says something about us. If people are judging you based on what you drive or how you dress, I'd love to live in your world.
You want something else to puzzle over? Try and figure out why everyone is running out and getting tattoos and peircings to show how "unique" they are. When everyone I meet in my age range has at least a couple of one or the other, it makes me wonder just how "unique" it really is.
Sheep man, the world is full of sheep. That's why people buy behemoths, that's why people do things that everyone else does and claims it makes them "unique", that's why emo punks cry and everyone else beats them up. Ever been stopped at a HUGE line in traffic waiting for 20 minutes when suddenly some jackass zips by on the shoulder? Next thing you know, there's a few dozen jackasses on the shoulder. Baaa. Sheep.
The real question is, which flock do you chose to follow? |
|
|
| EK9Hatch |
Its all about BUSINESS. Auto manufactuers don't care that you can only go 110km/h on the highway. HP numbers sell. The more power, the better...thats the consumers opinion. It has to do with branging rights, etc etc.
Even auto comericals show unrealistic activities with the new cars. Drifting around corners, passing every other car on the road, etc.
Anyways, it comes down to sales. Auto manufacuers don't give a shit what would be "better" for the consumer, its about what sells.
Humans naturally want the most powerful, looked at car on the road. This is the case in many aspects of life. People look up to people with money, big houses, being in great shape, etc, etc.
The gas "friendly" cars that are on the market today will not be seriously consider by most, until gas gets WAY out of hand and becomes impractical to drive a gas guzzler.
Just my 2 cents...
Jamie |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by EK9Hatch
Anyways, it comes down to sales. Auto manufacuers don't give a shit what would be "better" for the consumer, its about what sells.
Exactly. And that's the way it's supposed to work.
Should the automakers care what's better for the consumer? Honestly? That's like that fat chick who sued McDonalds for ruining her life. They merely give us choices. We chose what they make based on what we buy.
I agree with you completely. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
You honestly don't think gas mileage his improved over the years or that cars are lighter?
It has been well documented that, when averaged out, vehicles now get WORSE mileage than they did 30 years ago. Yes the cars make more power, but displacement has also been creeping back up over the past decade.
With all the extra safety equipment being added in cars also weigh quite a bit more as well. Back in the '80s the average compact car weighed around 2,200-2,500 lbs. "Small" cars now weigh hundreds of pounds more. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
It has been well documented that, when averaged out, vehicles now get WORSE mileage than they did 30 years ago. Yes the cars make more power, but displacement has also been creeping back up over the past decade.
With all the extra safety equipment being added in cars also weigh quite a bit more as well. Back in the '80s the average compact car weighed around 2,200-2,500 lbs. "Small" cars now weigh hundreds of pounds more.
I don't believe for 1 second that the average car from 1977 got better gas mileage than today. Well documented? I haven't found any documents on it. I'm not going to be a douche like most people on here and ask you to do my research for me and provide me with documents, but I've spent time looking, and I've found nothing.
However, having said that, I imagine most statistics might be a little skewed from the 70's, considering the massive oil shortage that hit the US.
We have very few "small cars" that rival the "small cars" of the 70's and 80's. I agree. But the once we do are lighter. Again, check out a Yaris. As for safety equipment........in the 70's a lot of cars were still all-metal. What kind of safety equipment do you have? Do you weld armour-plating onto your car or something? Because you'd need A TON of ABS's, DRL's and whatnot to equal the weight of a solid metal car.
I remain unconvinced that vehicles of today get "worse mileage" and "weigh more" than they have in the past. |
|
|
| ehos |
Cars now a days get worse gas mileage than the small cars of yesteryear. For example, Honda Civic. It used to be a miser, little, cheap. CVCC baby! Now look at this fat, huge bloated carcass that we get. No one in their right mind could call the new Civic an economy car. (Maybe that's the whole point?)
There's no profit in economy I guess.
All personal opinions below!
The Yaris is a wretch. It's expensive, fat, slow, and it gets horrible gas economy. My almost 20 year old Sprint kicks the shit out of it in every category except 'age'. It's lighter, faster, cheaper to repair, gets WAY better fuel economy. Looks just as ugly. And it cost a whopping $500. (About the cost of the Yaris's high speed rated tires, good thing I'm going to be going 60KM 99% of the time).
For the record, I have fast cars, slow cars, old cars. But never new cars for long. We lost something along the way...
My point about the 50-60K cars was that they did an amazing job convincing people that these hunks of metal are worth as much as houses. Or the million dollar McLaren, that does, well, nothing. The speed limit is still 60 for that sucker. A $5K crotch rocket will smoke it 99% of the time. |
|
|
| rexxrally |
If I had a choice to be in a major collision in a car from the 70's or a car from today, I'd choose today's car.
If I could go on a long distance trip in a brand new 1975 280Z or a brand new 350Z, I'd choose the 350Z. My back and eardrums would thank me at the other end.
If I had to go out to my car in November, when it's -10 and drizzling out, start it and drive it in rush hour traffic across town without having it stall on me, I'd choose a modern car.
If I had to be in the unfortunate circumstance of having a child dart out between some parked cars, and I had to swerve to avoid hitting him, I'd pick a modern car, with modern suspension, with modern tires.
If I wanted to enjoy some music on my drive home, I'd pick a modern car over a tinny AM radio from the 70's.
If I went through Timmy's drive through, I'd want a modern car to put my cup in the cupholder, instead of the 70's mobile, where I'd be cradling the cup between my thighs as I drove
If I had to get the carburetor adjusted, points regapped, clutch adjusted and rear brake drums adjusted up every couple of months, I'd pick the modern car because they don't have any of those problems to worry about!
And a modern Cadillac V8 with 260hp gets better gas mileage than a 1973 Pinto with a 4 banger under the hood |
|
|
| ehos |
That's weird. Today, I chose the AM radio, the ancient brakes, the earsplitting interior, no cup holders. I had to pay attention to what I was doing instead of zoning out and letting the car do it all. (Ancient, non-ABS brakes, no seat belts, legs = crumple zone...)
And I was paying attention to all the other people on the road enjoying their AC, their music, their cell phones, not a care on their faces. Knowing they would be safe and sound if they smashed into their fellow human on the road.
Not a care in the world. What's that term, 'like blissful hindu cows....'
I guess they were more worried about their jobs, kids, business, what they're going to have for dinner.
Here I am, just worrying about... driving, getting to my destination safely before one of these blissful people mow me down with their safety machines.
Thank god we have choice now! How did those people in the past survive with their un-modern cars?? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
Cars now a days get worse gas mileage than the small cars of yesteryear. For example, Honda Civic. It used to be a miser, little, cheap. CVCC baby! Now look at this fat, huge bloated carcass that we get. No one in their right mind could call the new Civic an economy car. (Maybe that's the whole point?)
There's no profit in economy I guess.
All personal opinions below!
The Yaris is a wretch. It's expensive, fat, slow, and it gets horrible gas economy. My almost 20 year old Sprint kicks the shit out of it in every category except 'age'. It's lighter, faster, cheaper to repair, gets WAY better fuel economy. Looks just as ugly. And it cost a whopping $500. (About the cost of the Yaris's high speed rated tires, good thing I'm going to be going 60KM 99% of the time).
For the record, I have fast cars, slow cars, old cars. But never new cars for long. We lost something along the way...
My point about the 50-60K cars was that they did an amazing job convincing people that these hunks of metal are worth as much as houses. Or the million dollar McLaren, that does, well, nothing. The speed limit is still 60 for that sucker. A $5K crotch rocket will smoke it 99% of the time.
$14k for a new car isn't "expensive". Sure, in the 70's you could buy a car for $8k, but you could also buy a loaf of bread for what a stamp costs today.
I drove Iltis' in the Army around town from time to time. No ABS, no power anything (heck, the windows unzipped and folded down), no crumple zones, no seat belts (at least not one that'd do anything), and I didn't experience this fear that you had at all.
:S Perhaps you have some personal issues and you're just blaming cars.
PS. My car doesn't drive itself. If I zone out I can still zip across traffic and have a headon with a semi. I wasn't aware that Demolition Man style Autodrive had been released.
Actually, now that I think about.....I have to pay just as much attention with my modern "heavyweight gas guzzler" as did when I first started driving my dad's old 1986 Grand LeMan's around the farm.....By the way, I looked it up....my current car is way lighter, gets better mileage and has more power, and given the increase with cost of living and inflation, it was cheaper brand new.
Wild! |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
Well I'll find an article or two where the statistics were averaged out. You've got to keep in mind that people were buying small cars by the boatload back in the mid to late '70s. Now, not so much. Big SUVs, big trucks. Hell even big V8 sedans are making a comeback.
The numbers weren't too far off. But for all the vehicles offered in North America the statistics in 1977 came out to something like 21.08mpg average compared to 20.6. Those aren't exactly what I read, and the gap wasn't overly significant, but it was definitely surprising to see that overall the average fuel economy in the past 30 years hasn't improved. |
|
|
| Supra_devil |
my 83 honda accord got well over 30mpg while driving the piss out of it, i'd like to see a new one do that.
my buddies 84 civic got better mileage than new ones are rated at, he drove hard too.
they had small 1.5 and 1.6 L engines, were more than enough power to get around town quickly. pushing 200hp from 4 bangers isn't making them more 'efficient', its pushing them harder to make more power yes, but it would really be more efficient still having 90hp and get 45 mpg+ than 200hp and still get 30mpg.
My brothers 99 tercel gets 43mpg CITY, better than some hybrids actually do.
i'd say cars aren't any better today. |
|
|
| 2ndgenlude |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
And I don't mean, this year or last year. I mean since the 80's or even 70's. Cars technology has advanced soo much, but we're getting crap shit garbage. Why?
The speed limit hasn't changed (hell, it's gone down in some places). It's 50-60. And highway it's 70-110. And it will NEVER increase. It's not going to happen (not politically correct).
So, why is it that the only technological improvement we get is horsepower increases and creature comforts? I want to drive my car not live in it. Every year we get the same car, tweaked with a few more horsepower and a few styling changes. OOOH! (Sarcasm for those that missed the drive by...).
I don't want 300, then 305 HP, then the next year 310HP models. What's the point? I can only drive 60! That's it! I enjoy and love my FD, but I see the idiocy of it at the same time.
Why can't the technology give me something that could actually benefit me and the rest of mankind? I want a lighter and lighter car, that gets better and better fuel mileage with great 0-60 KM/hr driveability. How hard is that?
And it should be cheap. What a joke someone played inventing 50-60K cars. We're getting what we don't want or need, and we have to overpay for it too. Crazy! But it must not be that crazy, because the buying public is craving these huge behemoths that are impossible to recycle, horrible for the environment, bad for the roads etc etc.
I always hear that gas companies work with auto companies to bring in inefficient vehicles to the market. But that makes no sense to me (unless you like conspiracy theories). Auto makers should be building cars for their customers. These new hybrid cars are big joke. They're worse for fuel efficiency (factor in cost) than some cars of the 90's. Factor in their weight and all the mess they will leave behind and it's no contest.
The other thing is people's perceptions/wants. Everyone (me included) will choose the sexy/good looking car over the efficient one. Why? No one cares what you're driving, you won't impress anyone (bulletin: Everyone has a nice car now).
Let's not bring sexy back. Let's bring ugly back. No hate intended, just thinking out loud...
agreed |
|
|
| Insomniac |
This brings up a few beefs that I have. The average size of cars. Cars are definitely getting wider, and parking stalls aren't. Compound this with the rush that everyone seems to be in, and how nobody cares about their fellow man, and we get door dings.
Second, I am starting to hate driving through Kiosks. It doesn't matter where I go, whether it be a parking lot, car wash, drive-thru, or a bank, I swear they are making the attendant and equipment taller. I can barely reach the machine or employee, and I drive an E36, not exactly a tiny car.
If I have to complain about new cars, it's the paint. Every new car has horribly orange peeled paint. Looks like crap. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
If I have to complain about new cars, it's the paint. Every new car has horribly orange peeled paint. Looks like crap.
To get non-orange peeled paint is $20000 upgrade. You have to buy a Phaeton or something in the 80-100K range to avoid orange peel.
Which is odd, because I painted a car, outside, in my back yard, with a $40 HVLP gun. And, shockingly enough, no orange peel. Go figure. (Using Canadian tire, $80/gallon paint...).
(It's all in the wrist I tells ya.)
And these cars are factory primer dipped, zinc coated, robot painted, hermetically controlled enviroments, 'modern' paints/primers/sealers, yet they start to rust as soon as the non-corrosion warranty expires. Go figure. My 50 year old car has less rust than some 5 year old cars I see on the road. (Told ya, it's in the wrists... robots don't have wrists!) |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
Second, I am starting to hate driving through Kiosks. It doesn't matter where I go, whether it be a parking lot, car wash, drive-thru, or a bank, I swear they are making the attendant and equipment taller. I can barely reach the machine or employee, and I drive an E36, not exactly a tiny car.
Me too!! I don't even bother! I just get out, walk to the bank, to my shit, then go.
Fucking low-ass tiny car! |
|
|
| Krall |
(I dont' have to worry about that height thing anymore, it's all about width for me now)
New cars rock.
Old cars rock.
New cars suck.
Old cars suck.
People will always have a desired look and feel. Some like the Viper, some hate the Viper. One loves a real sports car, one hates a real sports car.
I can go on with useless crap like that, my point is "To each their own" as I've said recently in a similar thread about how SRT4s aren't ugly (bwahahaha)
A new car provides:
Nice smell, new paint, new rubber, new interior, new engine bay, new brakes, new lights, new toys, new experiences.
An old car provides:
Nice smell, shit paint, shit rubber, shit interior, nice engine bay, shit brakes, shit lights, shit toys, new experiences.
Engine, Experience, are the two common things there IMO.
If you want a learjet on wheels, you take a lexus. If you want a spitfire on wheels, you take a personalized car - beit tuner, or old.
One thing that caught me was, "You see people with Tattoos trying to be original, how original is that?" and "sheep."
If everyone had their tattoo in the same spot, the same colour, same size and picture, then yes it would be the same. No matter what you do you usually will always ahve two arms, two legs, two eyes, and all the same places to do all the same things. So how unique can you be without being inhuman? How unique can your car be without just changing the sound, speed, or colour? Do you see my point?
Whatever floats your boat, floats your boat. The biggest issue is when it doesnt' float someone elses, they feel they have to sink yours by putting you down. Back to the whole, "to each their own" comment.
There are a lot of ugly tattoos, ugly cars, ugly houses, ugly items... but to someone they are what they want, and that's great, because they have what they want!
BACK to the whole NEW cars suck thing though:
New cars are safer, faster, and more efficient. They still cost the same percentage of income that they did years ago, but now they are sleeker, and better padded inside.
There is no question about how far technology has brought engines, and how cheap some really phenominal technology is these days.
Nothing will beat getting in a '69 Vette 435HP and jus stomping the gas, going sideways, and tearing off. No 350Z, no NSX, no F430, nothing. Why? It's it's own car, own experience.
I love cars, new and old. They both have their pros and cons. I prefer my car, over any other right now, and that's why I drive it. It makes me happy, and for that, I am happy.
Chill out, and enjoy what you have.
I do however disagree with the whole, "Oil companies workin with car companies to lower costs" hahah maybe for each other, not the consumer. Which is their business, which is fine. The oil companies are in business to make money, as are the car manufacturers. I'm in business to make mony, to buy a car, to feel the oil companies. ... and there's nothing I can do for myself right now to change that, and so I live with it. I just hate that I just had to pay $1.20/ltr on whyte a few minutes ago, in order to be happy.
- Jamos |
|
|
| No-Pistons |
| no one that drives an fd can talk about fuel economy |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Krall
One thing that caught me was, "You see people with Tattoos trying to be original, how original is that?" and "sheep."
If everyone had their tattoo in the same spot, the same colour, same size and picture, then yes it would be the same. No matter what you do you usually will always ahve two arms, two legs, two eyes, and all the same places to do all the same things. So how unique can you be without being inhuman? How unique can your car be without just changing the sound, speed, or colour? Do you see my point?
That was my point exactly. He asked why people get cars for looks...because we're sheep. We want to be unique, and so we do the same things other people do and add our own personal touch. The fact that it might be a different colour and a different spot (which I won't agree with, you see the same sad tattoos on 70% of the late-teens/early-twenties folks out there in the exact same spot), but nonetheless, we try to be unique by doing the same things people around us do. Does the sound, speed, or colour really change your car? Does that make you more "unique" than the other 10,000 RHD peices of shit on the road?
It's a question of degrees. You feel minor changes of location and colour (in the case of tattoos) or sound and colour (in the case of cars) really does make you unique. All I'm saying is to me the fact that you bought the same sad shit someone else did, likely after you saw someone else do it, doesn't make you unique no matter how many minor changes you make. Those who truly are unique are outcasts. Look at EZ's civic. That's unique, everyone ridiculed it. Look at the punks and goths who are WAY out there, I mean WAAAYYYY out there, they're ridiculed. And yet in a lot of ways, they're still sheep too, they just have a smaller flock.
It's very hard to be truly unique in our society with these superficial changes. People will really only realize how unique you are when they get to know you.....unless you really are just a cookie cutter which would be sad. The point of all these superficial things are to draw people with similar tastes and styles to us, have them notice us, so that we aren't wasting our time getting to know people we can't stand and just want to kick in the teeth. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by No-Pistons
no one that drives an fd can talk about fuel economy
I must have the only in tune FD out there :)
Again, I wouldn't classify it as a 'new' car. I was trying to compare the technology back then, and how little we have actually advanced.
Perfect example. Compare a FD to a RX8. The 'new' car SUCKS balls. Well, maybe just one ball, the left one (it's a low hanger...).
It's slower, uglier, probably gets the same gas mileage. And, the put more 'technology' into it. Is it any safer? Does it brake better? More performance (that's the trend and I don't even get that?) Better gas mileage? (Maybe..) Oh yes, it does have some nice cup holders, and a NIFTY rear door. (Whoop dee doo..).
Almost 20 years later, and we get THIS? Please. But it sure looks shiny! |
|
|
| rexxrally |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
That's weird. Today, I chose the AM radio, the ancient brakes, the earsplitting interior, no cup holders. I had to pay attention to what I was doing instead of zoning out and letting the car do it all. (Ancient, non-ABS brakes, no seat belts, legs = crumple zone...)
And I was paying attention to all the other people on the road enjoying their AC, their music, their cell phones, not a care on their faces. Knowing they would be safe and sound if they smashed into their fellow human on the road.
Not a care in the world. What's that term, 'like blissful hindu cows....'
I guess they were more worried about their jobs, kids, business, what they're going to have for dinner.
Here I am, just worrying about... driving, getting to my destination safely before one of these blissful people mow me down with their safety machines.
Thank god we have choice now! How did those people in the past survive with their un-modern cars??
ROFL :D
Any time you want to trade your horrible modern FD for my ultra-reliable Mercury Bobcat straight up, you just let me know |
|
|
| chris f |
since 1973 the avrage weight of a car has gone up, look at my charger, 1967 weights the same as a new eclipse,
Why? the cares are made out of lighter things, but they cram more and more steel to reiforce the body for safty.
To this day i will swear a well tuned carborated car will run just as good as a MPFI. But people are too lazy to keep them maintained, so the builders have to come up with better running engines in the long turm because they know people dont look after there cars and trucks,
Dont beleave me? ask your self when you had your timing belt changed? brake fulid flushed? tranny fulid flushed? coolant changed? had a gas analasis done? a/c system charged, checked? fuel filter changed. The way us as a soceity maintain our cars is crap. look at the crap on the road today, blowing smoke, bald tires and squiky brakes.
I agree cars have gotten worse over time and is due to oue lazy nature |
|
|
| Krall |
| ... learn somethin new every day! |
|
|
| Supra_devil |
| wow, you consider 1995 to be old? man, when i think old, i think older than 1985. |
|
|
| Krall |
... read it again
quote:
...1985
- Jamos |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Krall
... read it again
- Jamos
I think he was talking about E9kHatches link, which was for a 95 civic. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by chris f
since 1973 the avrage weight of a car has gone up, look at my charger, 1967 weights the same as a new eclipse,
Why? the cares are made out of lighter things, but they cram more and more steel to reiforce the body for safty.
To this day i will swear a well tuned carborated car will run just as good as a MPFI. But people are too lazy to keep them maintained, so the builders have to come up with better running engines in the long turm because they know people dont look after there cars and trucks,
Dont beleave me? ask your self when you had your timing belt changed? brake fulid flushed? tranny fulid flushed? coolant changed? had a gas analasis done? a/c system charged, checked? fuel filter changed. The way us as a soceity maintain our cars is crap. look at the crap on the road today, blowing smoke, bald tires and squiky brakes.
I agree cars have gotten worse over time and is due to oue lazy nature
Here here. My car is 3800lbs, fluffy carpent, well insulated, leather wrapped door panels, etc, etc Made of a heavier gauge steel than my wife's car, and mine has a v8, and my car is only 900lbs heavier
timing belt - it's roller chain and my car only has 133,000km
tranny fluid - 18mo ago and about 30,000km
brake fluid - not yet, just bought the one man bleeder kit, and just need to make some time.
gas analisis? I never knew they did that.. oil yeah, never done it, I just change it quite often I use amsoil 5w30 and changeit every 5000-6000km
fuel filter.. so far.. once a year.
The no maintenance part.. my dad is a poster child for that.. me moving away from home was the worst thing to happen to my dad's truck.
My dad went 45,000km without an oil change, and he only had one done cause then engine start to make noise and the oil pressure gauge kept dropping to 0. Ended up having to get a new short block dropped in and now he needs a new tranny (I did an ATF and filter last summer, didn't help any probs he has) |
|
|
| EK9Hatch |
quote:
Originally posted by Supra_devil
wow, you consider 1995 to be old? man, when i think old, i think older than 1985.
Yes, I do consider a 95 to be old. We are in the year 2007, and 2008 models are out...so yea, a 95 is 13 years old. To me thats old.
Jamie |
|
|
| Krall |
Take your own advice
quote:
... read it again
:rolleyes:
- Jamos |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
| More HP = Better Fuel Economy |
|
|
| Krall |
Isn't it usually
"More fuel efficiency = less HP"
?
- Jamos |
|
|
| SRO_firefly1_0 |
i think that the simplest way to look at it is that most people still don't know how to drive, i am scared to think what most people would do with an extra 20-30 Km added to a speed limit!
the safety factors in a modern car mean nothing with an 1D10T behind the wheel.
how does that help you if that person is about to hit you? |
|
|
| Krall |
The thing that would help, is a whole new traffic system, a smart system like the one in iROBOT. Where all the cars are in communication with each other, where the system knows when pedestrians/objects are potential hazards.
Until then, no speedo changes.
HWY driving, it's fine, you're supposd to keep your space and it's why most HWY's are 100km/hr+
- Jamos |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
quote:
Originally posted by Krall
Isn't it usually
"More fuel efficiency = less HP"
Not at all. There is no universal correlation between horsepower and fuel economy. A low horsepower car can have horrible fuel economy, and a high horsepower car can have great fuel ecomony. The reverse is of course also true. By the point is that more maximum available HP does not as a rule also mean less economy. |
|
|
| JustinL |
| Agreed. Horsepower only needs to take away from economy when you put the loud pedal down. |
|
|
| -Coke- |
| :drama: you guys a arguing about the gas milage and weight of new and older cars. The fact is the old cars are way heavier but the new ones get better milage... let me refraise that *most* of the new cars get better mialage but beefed up motors dont automaticaly make it less efficent .... its how you drive it .... if you slam ur breaks instead of coasting when you get close to ***HIGH REVS BURN GAS FASTER*** Harder on the engine and hard on ur clutch..... dont race ur motor and try to learn Clutchless shifting and ease on the accelerator |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
quote:
Originally posted by -Coke-
:drama: you guys a arguing about the gas milage and weight of new and older cars. The fact is the old cars are way heavier but the new ones get better milage... let me refraise that *most* of the new cars get better mialage but beefed up motors dont automaticaly make it less efficent .... its how you drive it .... if you slam ur breaks instead of coasting when you get close to ***HIGH REVS BURN GAS FASTER*** Harder on the engine and hard on ur clutch..... dont race ur motor and try to learn Clutchless shifting and ease on the accelerator
Your "facts" need checking. And why would you recommend clutchless shifting to anyone? Sure you might save a bit of wear on your clutch, but at the expense of your synchros in your tranny.
Now what do you think is cheaper, replacing a clutch, or rebuilding a transmission?:read: |
|
|
| Fazda |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
To get non-orange peeled paint is $20000 upgrade. You have to buy a Phaeton or something in the 80-100K range to avoid orange peel.
Which is odd, because I painted a car, outside, in my back yard, with a $40 HVLP gun. And, shockingly enough, no orange peel. Go figure. (Using Canadian tire, $80/gallon paint...).
(It's all in the wrist I tells ya.)
And these cars are factory primer dipped, zinc coated, robot painted, hermetically controlled enviroments, 'modern' paints/primers/sealers, yet they start to rust as soon as the non-corrosion warranty expires. Go figure. My 50 year old car has less rust than some 5 year old cars I see on the road. (Told ya, it's in the wrists... robots don't have wrists!)
from what i know about orange peel. im pretty sure its just from improper painting conditions. to much mositure in the air. u could be the best painter in the world but if u dont have the proper conditions your paint job is gonna royally suck |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
| Well you'd think that massive corporations could set up a painting building with properly controlled conditions to avoid the situation. |
|
|
| Fazda |
| ya, definetly alot of the newer chevy trucks like 04 have shitty paint on them. our work trucks are peeling big time! |
|
|
| EK9Hatch |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Now what do you think is cheaper, replacing a clutch, or rebuilding a transmission?:read:
Matt, transmissions are actually quite cheap, I just had the 6 speed replaced in my Benz...only cost $7,000.00 :p (Thank GOD for warranty!)
:lol:
Jamie |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
quote:
Originally posted by EK9Hatch
Matt, transmissions are actually quite cheap, I just had the 6 speed replaced in my Benz...only cost $7,000.00 :p (Thank GOD for warranty!)
:lol:
Jamie
Man, that is quite reasonable.:blink: |
|
|
| Supra_devil |
quote:
Originally posted by EK9Hatch
Yes, I do consider a 95 to be old. We are in the year 2007, and 2008 models are out...so yea, a 95 is 13 years old. To me thats old.
Jamie
thats not old, thats not even legal to fuck :lol:
i know what you mean, i just don't think the same way. newer isn't always better IMO. my 06 has me more worried than my 82 Toyota used to... |
|
|
| rexxrally |
quote:
Originally posted by Supra_devil
thats not old, thats not even legal to fuck :lol:
I didn't even know it was illegal to fuck a car....... :blink: |
|
|
| EK9Hatch |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
I didn't even know it was illegal to fuck a car....... :blink:
Its not! lol :lol:
Jamie |
|
|
| bryce.f |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
If I went through Timmy's drive through, I'd want a modern car to put my cup in the cupholder, instead of the 70's mobile, where I'd be cradling the cup between my thighs as I drove
A
bahhhhh, ef's seem to have missed this feature. |
|
|
|
|
