Cars are a ripoff(here's proof)

[patriot 7,197]

Honestly I'm surprised we don't have more small displacement turbo diesels... those things can get some bad-ass mileage. I know some friends with Jetta TDIs that get 43MPG when they drive relatively conservative

They're probably in Europe. Europe has serious standards for their diesel fuel, specifying minimum 'cetane' (think octane) for it to be sold. European diesel is 50+ cetane. American shit, excuse me, diesel is 14-24 cetane. So the Eurodiesels that get 60+ mpg over there can't even get 40mpg here in the US.

 

Let's not even get started on how much weight in safety crap you have to add to a car. Hey, you guys with those new Camaros! How heavy are they?

 

~3600lbs or so, IIRC. A '67 Camaro? 2600lbs.

 

I'll admit it, if I could afford the payments for one, I would buy a BMW i8. Yes, it is a hybrid. It gets 80mpg, and can go ~20 miles on the batteries alone, too. It will out-accelerate that Camaro with a 0-60 time under 5 seconds, and has an autobahn top speed. It has 350hp (like I said, it is a BMW). Only problem is the pricetag... last I heard it was $200k. Replacing the battery pack in 5 years is going to blow, but I'd do it.

 

...and mine's still a high 12 second car.... STOCK. Not bad for a car I paid $32K for. You can't name ONE CAR at or below that price with that performance STOCK.

[MT Predator 2,294]

Honestly I'm surprised we don't have more small displacement turbo diesels... those things can get some bad-ass mileage. I know some friends with Jetta TDIs that get 43MPG when they drive relatively conservative

They're probably in Europe. Europe has serious standards for their diesel fuel, specifying minimum 'cetane' (think octane) for it to be sold. European diesel is 50+ cetane. American shit, excuse me, diesel is 14-24 cetane. So the Eurodiesels that get 60+ mpg over there can't even get 40mpg here in the US.

 

Let's not even get started on how much weight in safety crap you have to add to a car. Hey, you guys with those new Camaros! How heavy are they?

 

~3600lbs or so, IIRC. A '67 Camaro? 2600lbs.

 

I'll admit it, if I could afford the payments for one, I would buy a BMW i8. Yes, it is a hybrid. It gets 80mpg, and can go ~20 miles on the batteries alone, too. It will out-accelerate that Camaro with a 0-60 time under 5 seconds, and has an autobahn top speed. It has 350hp (like I said, it is a BMW). Only problem is the pricetag... last I heard it was $200k. Replacing the battery pack in 5 years is going to blow, but I'd do it.

 

...and mine's still a high 12 second car.... STOCK. Not bad for a car I paid $32K for. You can't name ONE CAR at or below that price with that performance STOCK.

 

No shit Patriot! We can compare weight between a Gen 5 Camaro and a Gen 1 but can't find the numbers on the performance to compare which is quicker and faster top end? How about handling? Even a 67 Vette handles like shit compared to a new Camaro.

If I am going to spend $200K on a car quicker than my SS, it isn't going to be a BMW i8. Ever have to have a BMW serviced here in the states? You'd think they changed the engine out for what they charge. FWIW, I was stationed in Germany for six years and drove the Autobahn everyday in a modified WS6 Trans Am that held out fine against the dreaded Mercs and Beemers. What is exactly "Autobahn Top Speed"? Just wondering if I achieved that.

Edited January 20, 2012 by MT Predator

[saiga 12 power 31]

Well in manufacturing there is:

what you can make

what you wish you could make

and what your customers can afford.

 

Generally speaking its the money factor that controls what gets made.

 

One other factor is that car designers generally are people who love cars, generally they like fast cars.

 

...hence my car!

 

 

Having owned 4 new GM products I can say I am truly sorry for you and the lesson you are about to learn being a GM owner. Other than a Corvette meant to take up space in your garage there is no reason to buy a new GM car other than to throw bales of money into a drainage culvert and watch it float away.

 

Amen I own a gm and its the biggest piece of shit I have ever owned. NEVER AGAIN¡¡¡¡

[Scott Kenny 144]

i8 is governed to 160mph, it could go faster, but it's not like I'd ever have one over 85.

 

Back to your Camaros (the styling is growing on me): You have 300+ net horsepower in a car a thousand pounds heavier, of course it's going to be faster than a car with 200+gross horsepower. I'm not trying to say the old Camaros are better (frankly, I'd love to take a modern Camaro's undercarriage and park an old Camaro body on it), I'm saying that the old cars are a lot lighter.

[Nailbomb 10,221]

2010 Chevrolet Camaro (V8) 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.1

2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter Mile 13.0

2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 0-60 mph 4.2 Quarter Mile 12.6

 

Scource: http://www.zeroto60times.com/

 

So your telling me we only now got past a vehicle made over 20 years ago?

1987 Buick Regal GNX 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter mile 13.3

 

Might be a reason for that.

 

hell...

2004 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.2

you could have bought one of those years ago for way under your price point.

[Scott Kenny 144]

But it doesn't have a V8 in it, Nailbomb. Some people gotta have a V8.

[Nailbomb 10,221]

I believe both of those mustangs apply.

[Arik 565]

I used to own a 94 Camaro 3.4ltr v6. Wasn't a bad car, got it 167k miles when I sold it in 2003. Right after that I had a 2000 Camaro Virginia state police interceptor. corvette engine! Spent about $40 every other day on gas and that was back in 2003. That car went bye bye pretty fast

[Scott Kenny 144]

I was referring to the GNX and the Lancer. (Note that I'd just about kill for a GNX)

[patriot 7,197]

Haters gonna hate.

 

Carry on

 

Did you know that everyone who drinks water dies?????

 

Or that All Saiga 12 shotguns will eventually fail to fire?

Edited January 21, 2012 by patriot

[thebuns1 4,323]

well if the car makers would make them like they did in the 60's and 70's, i think they would go out of business cuz no one would have a need for a new one. they make these new vehicles to fail. so we will have to buy another a few years from now.

[patriot 7,197]

I've had my truck for a decade, w/240K on it. Works fine and no rust,

 

Here's a crash test then vs now.

 

I rest my case.

 

Edited January 21, 2012 by patriot

[thebuns1 4,323]

well maybe its me, but im not a huge fan of most modern vehicles. i dig the muscle cars except for the charger. while i like fuel economy, ill take my '78 bronco over any of these newer ones. i can actually work on it if i have to and dont need some fancy ass machine to plug into it and tell me what sensor is bad. the problem with newer cars and trucks is that they make damn near impossible for most people to fix it themselves and charge a small fortune to fix it at a shop.

 

 

I've had my truck for a decade, w/240K on it. Works fine and no rust,

 

Here's a crash test then vs now.

 

I rest my case.

 

http://youtu.be/joMK1WZjP7g

 

i can see your point, and the modern vehicles are much safer than their older counterparts, i just like simplicity. but thats me. and both have their pros and cons. to me, its just preference.

[RobRez 1,895]

I try to stick with a rig I can fix. One that does not require a computer to diagnose, or has a stupid "Check Engine" light that goes on when any of a hundred sensors acts up, costing a hundred bucks just to have a Tech plug it in to find why the stupid light is on!!

You should see under the hood of my '54 chevy truck!! Thing of beauty!! Big Wheel, check, Squirrel in wheel, check, acorn in front of wheel, check! It;'s a go!

[MT Predator 2,294]

But it doesn't have a V8 in it, Nailbomb. Some people gotta have a V8.

My other ride gets around just fine with a V6.

 

So your telling me we only now got past a vehicle made over 20 years ago?

1987 Buick Regal GNX 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter mile 13.3

Yeah and it was a purpose built drag car complete with a factory ladder bar. Only 547 were made at $29,900 each in 1987. A new Vette from the same year fetched $27,999.

Edited January 21, 2012 by MT Predator

[RobRez 1,895]

It may have cost a little more, but I had a 1990 Infiniti Q45 which had a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds!! 278hp and 292 ft lb of torque. Weighs about 2x a corvette and holds 2x the people, and rode like a dream, handled well, and was quiet as a library inside! It cruised Very nicely at 130mph. Not that any law was broken, here in Montana at the time.

Sold it because of the whole computerized thing. I tried, but I just can't do it.

Just goes to show the differences in what you get depending where you look.

Even With a speeed limit I would drive at 110 on the interstate all day and not get pulled over.....THAT will never happen in a Red Corvette!!!

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Yeah and it was a purpose built drag car complete with a factory ladder bar. Only 547 were made at $29,900 each in 1987. A new Vette from the same year fetched $27,999.

And the same year Buick regal turbo was way less and had the same engine. it only lacked the ability to get it to stick with factory rubber.

 

we are comparing vehicles as they were off the showroom floor, so any older vehicle is inherintly at a disadvantage as the rubber compounds at the time were far worse for grip.

[WhiskeyMinion 300]

A coworker of mine drives a 90' Geo Metro that gets low 50s. Ugly as hell but he commutes a ways so it pays off for him.

 

I rocked a 94 1.0L metro for 5 years. Averaged 50-52mpg combined and got 2nd gear scratch

 

It was a p00n magnet

[WhiskeyMinion 300]

I've had my truck for a decade, w/240K on it. Works fine and no rust,

 

Here's a crash test then vs now.

 

I rest my case.

 

http://youtu.be/joMK1WZjP7g

 

That was done with an old X frame car. If they had used a standard frame vehicle instead of a flawed setup like that it would've been much worse for the newer Chevy.

[MT Predator 2,294]

Yeah and it was a purpose built drag car complete with a factory ladder bar. Only 547 were made at $29,900 each in 1987. A new Vette from the same year fetched $27,999.

And the same year Buick regal turbo was way less and had the same engine. it only lacked the ability to get it to stick with factory rubber.

 

we are comparing vehicles as they were off the showroom floor, so any older vehicle is inherintly at a disadvantage as the rubber compounds at the time were far worse for grip.

Same engine, way different turbo and intercooler and computer programing.

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Yeah and it was a purpose built drag car complete with a factory ladder bar. Only 547 were made at $29,900 each in 1987. A new Vette from the same year fetched $27,999.

And the same year Buick regal turbo was way less and had the same engine. it only lacked the ability to get it to stick with factory rubber.

 

we are comparing vehicles as they were off the showroom floor, so any older vehicle is inherintly at a disadvantage as the rubber compounds at the time were far worse for grip.

Same engine, way different turbo and intercooler and computer programing.

 

For the final year, 1987, Buick introduced the GNX at $29,900. Produced by McLaren Performance Technologies/ASC, Buick underrated the GNX at 276 hp (206 kW) and a very substantial 360 lb·ft (488 N·m) of torque.^[5] This was created to be the "Grand National to end all Grand Nationals." Changes made included a special Garrett T-3 turbocharger with a ceramic-impeller blowing through a more efficient and significantly larger capacity intercooler with a "CERMATEL (Ceramic/Aluminum) coated" pipe connecting the intercooler to the engine

 

1987 it reached 245 hp (183 kW) and 355 lb·ft (481 N·m) of torque.

 

you want to stand on a point of 30 horse and 5 ft lb of torque?

[Scott Kenny 144]

My other ride gets around just fine with a V6.

 

 

Must be one of the newer ones (call me a dinosaur, I like the 4.0L straight six), but nice to see a Wrangler in it's natural environment and plumage (ie, in the mud and covered in it!).

 

I feel sorry for those poor caged Wranglers that never feel the dirt beneath their wheels, makes me want to rescue one from such an abusive owner!

[kodaline 178]

Yeah, not only was the 59 an X Frame, but it was a....wait for it....Forty Year Old Car.

 

Let's see how many of that year and model of the car that they ran into it survive 40 years.

 

When you pick an absolute worst possible scenario in an attempt to push an agenda,

don't be surprised when those that know the subject see your bullshit and call you on it.

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Those crush and crumple zones are a cause for concern when wanting to put a plow on the front up here in the great white north.

 

bad idea i have a 97 tacoma with a push plate from fisher plows mounted on the front frame stubs and i was driving without the plow in a parking lot at a max of 8 mph and the bottom of the push plate hit a curb and bent the whole frame down about an inch and it crushed up like cardboard. now ive spent money on a torch set up to try and fix it and it still won't go back no matter how hot it is with a jack under it... your better off shoveling

 

On the flip side I had a friend in the service who backed into and destroyed a brick wall with a 87 F150. Dented his bumper.

[DogMan 2,343]

If this all comes to an impasse, please feel free to refer to the accompanying literature.

[MT Predator 2,294]

you want to stand on a point of 30 horse and 5 ft lb of torque?

Nope, 276 hp still isn't shit. The new V-6 Mustangs and Camaros surpass that and have the suspension to make it hook up.

 

If this all comes to an impasse, please feel free to refer to the accompanying literature.

 

Let me guess, you started this by tracing yourself and then drawing larger ones to the right of it?

[Nailbomb 10,221]

you want to stand on a point of 30 horse and 5 ft lb of torque?

Nope, 276 hp still isn't shit. The new V-6 Mustangs and Camaros surpass that and have the suspension to make it hook up.

Your right, but fast is fast, and without as much bullshit heaped onto the car its funny how much faster they can go huh?

 

Your "hooking up" is just as much, if not more about the rubber than anything and as stated modern rubber sure beats the old bias plys for stick, or even old red line radials. that being said thats one concession that modern has... but then if you have the old one, you probably changed the tires by now, so I don't see where thats much of a argument.

[DogMan 2,343]

you want to stand on a point of 30 horse and 5 ft lb of torque?

Nope, 276 hp still isn't shit. The new V-6 Mustangs and Camaros surpass that and have the suspension to make it hook up.

 

If this all comes to an impasse, please feel free to refer to the accompanying literature.

 

 

Let me guess, you started this by tracing yourself and then drawing larger ones to the right of it?

Oh, no no no. Mine is much larger. Just a little bit larger than yours, in fact. And it's turbocharged! Carry on though, gentlemen. Take me serious if you feel the need, but I'm just having fun with you.

Edited January 22, 2012 by DogMan

[MT Predator 2,294]

you want to stand on a point of 30 horse and 5 ft lb of torque?

Nope, 276 hp still isn't shit. The new V-6 Mustangs and Camaros surpass that and have the suspension to make it hook up.

Your right, but fast is fast, and without as much bullshit heaped onto the car its funny how much faster they can go huh?

 

Your "hooking up" is just as much, if not more about the rubber than anything and as stated modern rubber sure beats the old bias plys for stick, or even old red line radials. that being said thats one concession that modern has... but then if you have the old one, you probably changed the tires by now, so I don't see where thats much of a argument.

 

No doubt modern rubber helps older cars but the suspension on older stuff sucks as well for hooking them up. I used to run against those GN guys with an 89 5.0 Stang. We all had to address the rear end to get the power to the pavement. Most guys running old iron are running modern tires anyway so that is a moot point. Technology adds weight but they sure do handle a hell of a lot better now than back then. Thing is, with all the bullshit stuffed into my Chevy, I'll keep the safety features thank you very much. I've seen plenty of wrecks with popped airbags where you were positive someone died but not the case. My Camaro isn't a race car. It's just a fast daily driver. I'll keep all the other options as well. How many of you can check your tire pressures, fuel level, oil life, etc. and start your car with your smart phone? Kind of cool. I don't have a need to build another drag car. My local track closed up this year and I only did it for a hobby. Oh, and those V6 American Pony cars built now are netting more HP normally aspirated than those turbo Buicks, V8 IROCs, and 5.0s of that era. Take the new Chevy 6.2 or Ford 5.0 and transplant that into an older vintage (and lighter) car and you would definitely have a fast fucking ride!

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Yeah, but really that era was well past the golden age itself. As soon as the smog pumps started hitting big horsepower took a dive.

 

Its taken us this long to figure it all out to get where we are with it.

 

And yeah adding the new power plant into the older lighter vehicle is what hot rodding was founded on.

 

I've played with tuning, and EFI. Its a very complicated system, and its too easy to have one sensor go, wind up with a engine code that tells you whats going wrong, but whats wrong might be the farthest thing from the symptom. Multiple random misfire!? why? because of a faulty throttle position sensor. After 5 trips to the dealer, and 3 other garages, it was the guy reading my runtime logs of the engine that told me "hey I'm getting a really weird reading from this sensor".

 

I bought a old truck, and found out... I never drove the new vehicle anymore. So i sold it.

 

I'm glad you guys like your vehicles, but I don't think I'll ever buy a new vehicle again. I would rather buy a solid body from the midwest, and do the work to it myself.