CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Cincydawg on July 29, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
-
(https://i.imgur.com/d35yvrF.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ajtxR3g.png)
Even in Purdue colors :)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/1vNdgFC.png)
-
LoL, when I first saw @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's thread I thought it said "You are the sports car". Me, I'd be a 1967 Corvette Stingray ZL1 convertible with side-pipes.
The ZL1 option was (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgmauthority.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2F1967-Chevrolet-Corvette-L88-608x340.jpg&hash=a5965f1c23941dd7b045dc6719ac711a)a 427 cid with aluminum heads and I think it was 560 hp stock.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ymeDDnA.png)
-
what would i be? probably this
(https://img.letgo.com/images/f2/9e/4b/51/f29e4b518ca0d2867de738083843c212.jpeg?impolicy=img_600)
is it really nice? no. but is it fast? also no.
-
1939
-
Duesenberg?
-
It is normal to see people driving around pace cars from the Indy 500 here in Indy w the decals. I have never seen that Fiero. How the? What the? Did They?
I've seen some awesome ones from 60s, 70s ,etc. People love pulling them out in May.
-
Mercedes. There are a lot of the Dusenbergs around these parts. Great museum north of here near Fort Wayne. Love seeing those too.
-
[img width=273.429 height=281]https://i.imgur.com/d35yvrF.png[/img]
I'm with you here.
-
(https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_1280w/public/news-listicle/image/2016/01/le-mans-icon-ford-gt40.jpg?itok=NUgMO0RZ)
-
It will be a long-time until solar cars are commercialized, but it's a pretty intriguing concept, and Michigan happens to dominate the US competition and is competitive with professional teams in the international one: https://www.solarcar.engin.umich.edu/ (https://www.solarcar.engin.umich.edu/)
That said, you all know I'm a fan of electric and autonomous vehicles, which Michigan is also testing:
(https://i.imgur.com/Uue9vrg.png)
-
Neat - until the snow starts piling up
-
I could go a few ways here. If I am a supercar/sportscar, this right here:
(https://assets.hemmings.com/blog/wp-content/uploads//2012/06/1982LamborghiniCountach_01_700.jpg)
If I am a ponycar/sportscar, I'm this:
(https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/planet/1/37/3152/790x1024/1965-ford-mustang)
If I'm a current/modern sportscar then I am this:
(https://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net/imagegen/max/ccr/1023/-/s3/digital-cougar-assets/whichcar/2018/07/26/-1/mercedes-amg-c63-cabriolet-lead-wide.jpg)
-
For modern, I'd be inclined towards one of these...
(https://i.imgur.com/tX1XqMv.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/2d/ce/992dce26c4389bd2e71a44ed6a756f96.jpg)
-
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/8bV62/s1/1956-porsche-356-speedster-for-sale.jpg)
-
(https://assets.hemmings.com/uimage/65999609-770-0@2X.jpg?rev=1)
The Unlikely Story of the Ferrari-Beating Shelby Daytona Coupe (https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a26376/coupe-de-grace-shelby-daytona-coupe-story/)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/d35yvrF.png)
husker RED coupe
perfect
-
husker RED coupe
perfect
Looks like Cowpoke ORANGE to me.
Hideous.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/z3vO1L9LIcw/maxresdefault.jpg)
I'm looking for one of these
C6 coupe 6.2 liter Grand Sport chrome wheels
-
Looks like Cowpoke ORANGE to me.
Hideous.
don't worry, won't look orange to anyone
-
don't worry, won't look orange to anyone
Your C6 6.2 liter coupe is RED. No mistaking it for something else.
-
ok. try this C8
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/eXLKW/s1/2020-chevrolet-corvette-stingray.jpg)
-
I also like this..........
(https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/volo/1/17718/437578/1920x1440/1968-chevrolet-camaro-rs-ss)
-
I also have a nostalgic affinity for those 70s and early 80s muscles w those super heavy doors, the fold down bench seats, pile in the back and head out cruising. Am I old? I'm guessing w so many youngins waiting on getting a DL, nobody's cruising anymore.
-
[img width=273.429 height=333]https://assets.hemmings.com/uimage/65999609-770-0@2X.jpg?rev=1[/img]
The Unlikely Story of the Ferrari-Beating Shelby Daytona Coupe (https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a26376/coupe-de-grace-shelby-daytona-coupe-story/)
You know, I know it's technically superior to the Cobra 427. Aerodynamics and speed are improved with the hardtop. But it'll never be as sexy.
-
This would be fun.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fst.motortrend.com%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F10%2F2017%2F02%2F2016-mercedes-benz-amg-gt-s-coupe-angular-front.png&hash=7d58d6f6838f54a208d1ae6120330027)
-
Arguably the most characteristic sports car ever, 2 seater, convertible, wire spoke wheels, good performance, sleek looks, this is a 1969 model, still looks good. I have driven the V-12 version and it drives pretty much like a tank.
(https://i.imgur.com/De4I3rA.png)
-
Some would say a sports car can only have two seats, an independent rear suspension, and a few other tidbits. Here is a photo of classic Brit sports cars.
(https://i.imgur.com/xMx64LA.png)
-
Some would say a sports car can only have two seats, an independent rear suspension, and a few other tidbits. Here is a photo of classic Brit sports cars.
(https://i.imgur.com/xMx64LA.png)
Some club in nearby Zionsville has a car show of classic British cars. Yeah, some show up w a RR, but it is mostly those beauties above. I love seeing those older jags. There are some odd ball Triumphs.
-
Anyone ever been to the museum in Volo, IL? It's pretty cool if you ever get a chance. Not too easy to get to though.
-
There were fairly frequent car shows in Sharonville, OH at the park back in the day, I would stumble across them. They didn't have any criteria for entry, so you'd see some oddballs in there and a few modern cars. I recall seeing an old Lincoln 4 door convertible with the suicide doors once.
(https://i.imgur.com/BCa4baV.png)
-
I also like this..........
[img width=770.451 height=600.99 alt=Image result for 1968 rs/ss camaro]https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/volo/1/17718/437578/1920x1440/1968-chevrolet-camaro-rs-ss[/img]
'67 or '69?My brother had a Blue '67 just like that,been awhile
-
For modern, I'd be inclined towards one of these...
[img width=500 height=311.997]https://i.imgur.com/tX1XqMv.jpg[/img]
Looks like an outboard on the back can that take to the waves?
-
Anyone ever been to the museum in Volo, IL? It's pretty cool if you ever get a chance. Not too easy to get to though.
I remember passing through town once, think its on U.S. 12. I've seen their stickers, hats and logos many times.(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcsmk8.com%2F88-MONTE-SS%2FHR%2FCARS-01.JPG&hash=8e7a895d39443047c396d837350aac32)
I remember this style and era Monte Carlo fondly.
-
Kinda like this
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speednik.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2F2015-12-03_22-17-04.jpg&hash=cbdd0aac36d06b936c192da67567a7a3)
And this.
(https://ccpublic.blob.core.windows.net/cc-temp/listing/100/5161/8961009-1987-buick-grand-national-std-c.jpg)
-
Speaking of cars, I'm interested in this movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYgDtY2AMY&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxZHV-Nnc4wIVjICfCh3flgTCEAAYASAAEgIz2_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYgDtY2AMY&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxZHV-Nnc4wIVjICfCh3flgTCEAAYASAAEgIz2_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)
-
I drove this on a track in Vegas (I didn't think it was worth the money, but it was a gift):
(https://i.imgur.com/R12DRqm.png)
I drove this on a track in Austin, TX and thought it WAS worth the money because it was an all day event:
(https://i.imgur.com/1E0egng.png)
It's also faster than the Ferrari on a track, but not with me driving it. These cars are really not suited for driving on public roads.
-
Looks like an outboard on the back can that take to the waves?
The hull doesn't look watertight to me :57:
-
For modern, I'd be inclined towards one of these...
(https://i.imgur.com/tX1XqMv.jpg)
better take that "stay back 300 feet" warning seriously with thing one. looks like you'll be eating bugs and rocks.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/j35Zwef.png)
These are renowned for great handling.
-
'67 or '69?My brother had a Blue '67 just like that,been awhile
that one was the 68.
67 body is the same
69 are just a bit different on the back quarters
-
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/v2ZGR/s1/2018-porsche-911-gt3.jpg)
-
You know, I know it's technically superior to the Cobra 427. Aerodynamics and speed are improved with the hardtop. But it'll never be as sexy.
You know it's not really related to the 427 Cobra, right? That Cobra was a whole different animal--different frame, different body, different suspension--from the original 289 version, which is what the Daytona was under the skin.
Convertibles are generally sexier than coupes--but I think the Daytona is very sexy, sexier than a 289 Cobra.
Did you read the whole article?
Only six of them were made, and they were just an afterthought once Shelby got into developing the Ford GT40. So a handful of guys, operating on a shoestring budget, go and beat the mighty Ferrari GTO and win the World Championship of Makes for America. For the first time ever. It's an incredible story.
Too bad it's been overshadowed by the success that the GT40 eventually had.
Ferrari hasn't won Le Mans since the four-straight wins by the GT40.
I love the conclusion to the Road & Track story:
We can be brilliant, the human race. But also very stupid. I wouldn't trade the safety advancements of a modern competition car for all the Nomex in Europe, but there is something here that we've lost. Undeniably walked away from. Something sublime and raw that we're never getting back.
And I'd be lying if I didn't say that there is a tiny, embarrassingly Luddite part of me that wishes everything since had never happened. That this had been the final stroke of an art form, race cars never evolving further. And that they still ran Le Mans and old Spa and old Reims with loud things that were graceful and brutal and risky and thin. That it was possible for a handful of clever guys in a garage in Southern California to throw caution aside, take on that world, and win.
We got a moment, though. An instant of that light, from a bunch of hometown upstarts. Ours.
-
Arguably the most characteristic sports car ever, 2 seater, convertible, wire spoke wheels, good performance, sleek looks, this is a 1969 model, still looks good. I have driven the V-12 version and it drives pretty much like a tank.
(https://i.imgur.com/De4I3rA.png)
I like the earlier ones even better, before the Feds messed up the headlights.
This is a '63, 3.8 liter.
(https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/595fef799ece2_Exterior-1-940x517.jpg)
The whitewall tires (tyres) seem odd, but I've found other pics of early '60s E-types that have them too.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NflgBDM.png)
I know someone already posted the same model, but this is my all time favorite sports car. If I ever hit a big lottery, I will have at least one of these in my garage.
Sexiest Car EVER!
-
(https://i.imgur.com/xl08cVC.png)
If I can't get the 65 AC Cobra, then the 1967 GT 500 would do.
-
never been a fan of British sports cars
I have driven a Jag a few times - big heavy and slow
-
The V-12 isn't "slow" except by modern standards. They do feel heavy and lack power steering (the one I sampled).
-
Some would say a sports car can only have two seats, an independent rear suspension, and a few other tidbits. Here is a photo of classic Brit sports cars.
(https://i.imgur.com/xMx64LA.png)
If you really want to get technical, per racing definition from 50 years ago, a sports car has no top. An enclosed car is, at most, a GT. An enclosed car with a back seat is a sedan.
I once had a TR3A like this one.
(https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/59dc2bc4ef380_3-7-e1507846375657-940x540.jpg)
This is a '60; mine was a '59. I can't tell the difference between the two years--there may not have been any. About 1/3 of mine was painted primer rather than black, and I had bolt-on stamped steel wheels rather than wires w/knock-off hubs. It was freezing cold in the winter and overheated in the summer, and I never got it straightened out. The overdrive didn't work.
I drove it from Fort Hood, TX, to Fort Rucker, AL, for the Apache course. It overheated several times, so I made terrible time. It started running on two cylinders at night in Mississippi. I stopped at a truck stop and used some sort of wire to repair the carburetor linkage, and got back on the road. I arrived at Rucker at about 8:00 a.m., and class had started at 7:30. I checked in at the BOQ, changed into uniform, drove it to the right building, and started class.
Driving back to Fort Hood, I got into a cold, driving rain in Louisiana. First time I had driven it in a serious rainstorm. Water was coming in everywhere, including up through the floor. And, of course, the heater didn't work. I wrapped a blanket around my legs and kept driving. I stopped at my sister's place in Dallas about 2 a.m. starting to suffer from hypothermia.
Oh, but it was great for short trips on pleasant spring or fall days!
Oh, I forgot about George Lucas, the Prince of Darkness. British cars back then all had Lucas electrical systems.
When I got that car, a T-shirt came with it. It had a cartoon of a leaking refrigerator and asked: "Why do British drink warm beer?"
The answer: "Lucas refrigerators."
-
That's an awesome Triumph, C-Dubb! Gorgeous.
And yeah, the definition of a "sportscar" is kind of squirrely, and has certainly become widened over the decades. These days people seem to define it loosely as "a car capable of sportscar style driving." Or something. :)
-
My working definition was:
two seats only
convertible as an option
independent rear suspension
manual transmission option at least, this one has disappeared of late of course
The Brit versions like the MG were under powered with poor brakes and mediocre handling even for the time aside from the Jag and perhaps the TR6.
-
My working definition was:
two seats only
convertible as an option
independent rear suspension
manual transmission option at least, this one has disappeared of late of course
The Brit versions like the MG were under powered with poor brakes and mediocre handling even for the time aside from the Jag and perhaps the TR6.
Yeah, I get it. And I get what CWS is mentioning from decades-old racing regs.
I don't think the average man on the street views the term "sportscar" under those definitions, though. Not anymore. Perhaps if you specified "traditional British sportscars" or something like that, it would invoke the proper classification from average joes.
But these days, people take the term "sportscar" to be almost synonymous with "high performance car" which, as you've noted, a lot of the classic British sportscars absolutely were NOT.
-
That's an awesome Triumph, C-Dubb! Gorgeous.
And yeah, the definition of a "sportscar" is kind of squirrely, and has certainly become widened over the decades. These days people seem to define it loosely as "a car capable of sportscar style driving." Or something. :)
Utee:
In my mind, mine was going to be awesome. I was going to clean 30 years of nicks and dings on the body and paint it British Racing Green. The interior and top were going to be tan, of course. In fact, I had had already replaced the original (leaky) top with a tan one.
Just like I want baseball britches to stop about mid-calf (because that's the way The Mick wore his) and I expect college football unis to look the way they did ca. 1970, I'm stuck in my head with the definitions I learned when I got my first sports car, a Datsun 2000. Sports cars are roadsters, coupes can just be GT cars. If I had an original Datsun 240Z, I might love it, I would know that it was a better-performing car than my 2000, but I woudn't think of it as a sports car. It would be a GT.
And my Boss 302 Mustang is certainly not a sports car.
Here's a very nice Datsun 2000. Mine had standard steel wheels, not the aftermarket alloys that this one has. Other than that, this is about what mine looked like. As this owner has done, I removed the bumper guards. This is a '69, as mine was. It has a taller windscreen and a better-done interior than the '68s.
I drove mine to my first OU-Texas game in 1972.
(https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5b1ec085211bd_datsun_2000_roadster_1528232994dff9f98764daIMG_3282-940x605.jpg)
-
better take that "stay back 300 feet" warning seriously with thing one. looks like you'll be eating bugs and rocks.
Much like a motorcycle, I think it's prudent to wear a helmet when driving one of those.
You know it's not really related to the 427 Cobra, right? That Cobra was a whole different animal--different frame, different body, different suspension--from the original 289 version, which is what the Daytona was under the skin.
Convertibles are generally sexier than coupes--but I think the Daytona is very sexy, sexier than a 289 Cobra.
Did you read the whole article?
I'll admit I didn't read the article.
My point was more that the Daytona Coupe is a legit racecar. It was designed for racing.
The Cobra was a race car, of course, but it started as a little British roadster. Then Americans said "let's put a big honkin' engine in it and see what we come up with". And they raced it, because it's Carroll Shelby. He'd race a soapbox derby car if he could fit a V8 in it.
But now we're 50 years on from then, and the Daytona Coupe is still only a racecar. 50 year old race cars don't age well, they're more museum pieces rather than driveable. Whereas the Cobra is still a roadster, something to look good in and burn some tire smoke.
Which is why I started by admitting that for what it is, the Daytona Coupe is superior. It was the racecar that the Cobra couldn't quite be. It's sexy in its own way; because it's incredibly rare, has a racing pedigree that the Cobra can't match, and is more capable as a racecar.
But I know which one I'd rather have in my garage [and out on the road, not just rubbed with a diaper].
-
Much like a motorcycle, I think it's prudent to wear a helmet when driving one of those.
my brother used to have a dune buggy made from an old vw beetle. we didn't wear helmets, just eyewear (mostly for the sun, though). that's probably much worse than in that car. we were idiots.
edit: something along the lines of this, though i don't remember his having a windshield.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcarphotos.cardomain.com%2Fride_images%2F1%2F1056%2F3021%2F2639010001_large.jpg&hash=524293c064b8e6c7ba0c135f7da2b152)
-
(https://www.imsa.com/sites/default/files/styles/photo_gallery_image_on_article_page_car_corral/public/news/2019/01/consistency_key_in_corvette_racing_2019_driver_lineup/corvettes.jpg?itok=05PjcMZG)
I could be either of these.
-
I'm still kind of amazed at how the manual transmission is disappearing. I would have expected the internal combustion reciprocating piston in cylinder to disappear long before that happened.
I don't think any of the "supercars" offer a manual any more. One of the Porches added it back as an extra cost option.
-
My working definition was:
two seats only
convertible as an option
independent rear suspension
manual transmission option at least, this one has disappeared of late of course
The Brit versions like the MG were under powered with poor brakes and mediocre handling even for the time aside from the Jag and perhaps the TR6.
Your IRS requirement would disqualify a bunch of traditional sports cars, CD.
All the classic MGs, Austin-Healys, and Triumphs (until the TR4A, which had IRS).
-
my brother used to have a dune buggy made from an old vw beetle. we didn't wear helmets, just eyewear (mostly for the sun, though). that's probably much worse than in that car. we were idiots.
edit: something along the lines of this, though i don't remember his having a windshield.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcarphotos.cardomain.com%2Fride_images%2F1%2F1056%2F3021%2F2639010001_large.jpg&hash=524293c064b8e6c7ba0c135f7da2b152)
My cousin used to buy up and convert VW bugs and convert them into Baja bugs, like this one. He was 19/20 and I was 10. I thought it was the coolest thing and I absolutely wanted one. Several were a lot like this:
(https://www.onallcylinders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/15/VW-Baja-Bug-Rear-Driver-Side-1024x768.jpg)
-
Your IRS requirement would disqualify a bunch of traditional sports cars, CD.
All the classic MGs, Austin-Healys, and Triumphs (until the TR4A, which had IRS).
Yeah, I know. That's why I added it in as my criterion. It also eliminates the pony cars until a few years ago.
-
Much like a motorcycle, I think it's prudent to wear a helmet when driving one of those.
I'll admit I didn't read the article.
My point was more that the Daytona Coupe is a legit racecar. It was designed for racing.
The Cobra was a race car, of course, but it started as a little British roadster. Then Americans said "let's put a big honkin' engine in it and see what we come up with". And they raced it, because it's Carroll Shelby. He'd race a soapbox derby car if he could fit a V8 in it.
But now we're 50 years on from then, and the Daytona Coupe is still only a racecar. 50 year old race cars don't age well, they're more museum pieces rather than driveable. Whereas the Cobra is still a roadster, something to look good in and burn some tire smoke.
Which is why I started by admitting that for what it is, the Daytona Coupe is superior. It was the racecar that the Cobra couldn't quite be. It's sexy in its own way; because it's incredibly rare, has a racing pedigree that the Cobra can't match, and is more capable as a racecar.
But I know which one I'd rather have in my garage [and out on the road, not just rubbed with a diaper].
Perhaps surprisingly, there's a thriving business in manufacturing licensed, authentic reproduction Daytona Coupes. As there were only six originals made, anyone you see would be one of those reproductions. I saw one at a Shelby show in Tulsa a few years ago.
Most any Cobra you see will be a reproduction as well, and probably not a very authentic one. What you mostly see are reproduction/replica 427 Cobras with small-block engines in them, often Ford 351s. And if it's got a big block in it, it's probably a 428 rather than a 427. There were about 600 289 Cobras and only 56 427 Cobras originally built. (Some small number of that 56 had 428s in them.)
You make a good point about race car vs. sports car. Shelby sold Cobras to people who had no intention of racing them (the 428 Cobras, for example), whereas the Daytona was designed and the original six were built only for racing. An authentic reproduction of one would not be a satisfactory car to drive on the street.
-
I'm still kind of amazed at how the manual transmission is disappearing. I would have expected the internal combustion reciprocating piston in cylinder to disappear long before that happened.
I don't think any of the "supercars" offer a manual any more. One of the Porches added it back as an extra cost option.
obviously it's a matter of performance
A human can't shift as well as a machine/computer
the other matter is cost of manufacturing and installing a manual option - production costs
I'd let the aftermarket shops install manuals
-
Going from automatic tranny to manual is a much bigger deal mechanically than going from manual to automatic.
-
Perhaps surprisingly, there's a thriving business in manufacturing licensed, authentic reproduction Daytona Coupes. As there were only six originals made, anyone you see would be one of those reproductions. I saw one at a Shelby show in Tulsa a few years ago.
Most any Cobra you see will be a reproduction as well, and probably not a very authentic one. What you mostly see are reproduction/replica 427 Cobras with small-block engines in them, often Ford 351s. And if it's got a big block in it, it's probably a 428 rather than a 427. There were about 600 289 Cobras and only 56 427 Cobras originally built. (Some small number of that 56 had 428s in them.)
You make a good point about race car vs. sports car. Shelby sold Cobras to people who had no intention of racing them (the 428 Cobras, for example), whereas the Daytona was designed and the original six were built only for racing. An authentic reproduction of one would not be a satisfactory car to drive on the street.
Agreed. And frankly if I get a Cobra without hitting a major lottery, it will be a replica. Which quite frankly is fine, as a good replica will probably be a much better vehicle in most ways than the original. And a lot less stressful to drive.
Plus, since I probably won't physically fit into an original Cobra OR Daytona anyway, a replica built for my stature is probably the only thing I could even drive.
If I hit the big-time lottery, I'd get an amazing replica AND an original though. :)
-
I know an automatic is better, but there's something I miss every time I drive a vehicle with an automatic.
My Jeep Wrangler with 6-spd manual is slow, and it would be equally slow but probably more efficient with the automatic, but it would be nowhere near as FUN.
-
My cousin used to buy up and convert VW bugs and convert them into Baja bugs, like this one. He was 19/20 and I was 10. I thought it was the coolest thing and I absolutely wanted one. Several were a lot like this:
(https://www.onallcylinders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/15/VW-Baja-Bug-Rear-Driver-Side-1024x768.jpg)
it was amazingly fun. we lived on lake tuscaloosa and during a particularly bad drought we took it out on the mud banks. was about 2-3" of slick mud and then hard foundation, so you just slide around all over the place slinging mud everywhere. so much fun.
riding on the road was... less fun. but we had to get there somehow.
-
Yeah, I know. That's why I added it in as my criterion. It also eliminates the pony cars until a few years ago.
Yeah.
Or it would if pony cars were sports cars. ;)
I guess the general consensus has arrived at a definition that has nothing to do with the original one. Sports cars were 2-seat open cars that were fun to drive, and were faster and handled better than the sedans from which they took a lot of their parts, like engines, transmissions, suspensions, steering gear, etc.
By that definition, a sports car is compared to its contemporaries, not to supercars of today.
I stick to that definition, so, for me, an 80-mph MG-TC of 1947, the car that caused the "sports car craze" in America, is a sports car, while the 301-mph Hennesy Venom F5 is not.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/MG_TC_%281947%29_-_19816029560.jpg/1280px-MG_TC_%281947%29_-_19816029560.jpg)
(https://themysteriousworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Hennessey-Venom-F5.webp)
-
Yeah.
Or it would if pony cars were sports cars. ;)
I guess the general consensus has arrived at a definition that has nothing to do with the original one. Sports cars were 2-seat open cars that were fun to drive, and were faster and handled better than the sedans from which they took a lot of their parts, like engines, transmissions, suspensions, steering gear, etc.
By that definition, a sports car is compared to its contemporaries, not to supercars of today.
I stick to that definition, so, for me, an 80-mph MG-TC of 1947, the car that caused the "sports car craze" in America, is a sports car, while the 301-mph Hennesy Venom F5 is not.
[img width=273.429 height=333]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/MG_TC_%281947%29_-_19816029560.jpg/1280px-MG_TC_%281947%29_-_19816029560.jpg[/img]
[img width=273.429 height=221]https://themysteriousworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Hennessey-Venom-F5.webp[/img]
By the same criteria, my Cobra qualified while your Daytona Coupe does not ;)
-
Absolutely!
-
I also like this..........
(https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/volo/1/17718/437578/1920x1440/1968-chevrolet-camaro-rs-ss)
One of my favorites, but in blue.
My very favorite, but not "who I am":
(https://i.imgur.com/JrMDlIp.png)
A lot about this car is closer to who I am:
(https://i.imgur.com/IvzLBLV.png)
Current "super car?"
(https://i.imgur.com/nQtCJrC.png)
Like the idea:
(https://i.imgur.com/c2Cu6fE.png)
-
Don't know how anyone could say an automatic is better.
I drive a manual, and in the snow, it's much better to have a manual, instead of an automatic, because pulling power away from the engine is better than braking.
No automatic I've driven can shift at the appropriate time either. My truck takes forever to shift with the slightest slope, which surely wastes gas, and if I need power, I can control that.
Perhaps things have changed but it used to be cheaper to have a manual, plus it saved gas better.
-
You don't desire to drive a stick because it's more efficient than the automatic, you want it so YOU decide WHEN it shifts. Catching it jut right just FEELS right.
-
My very favorite, but not "who I am":
(https://i.imgur.com/JrMDlIp.png)
A lot about this car is closer to who I am:
(https://i.imgur.com/IvzLBLV.png)
Current "super car?"
(https://i.imgur.com/nQtCJrC.png)
Like the idea:
(https://i.imgur.com/c2Cu6fE.png)
Gotta love the original 300SL! Were they all silver with a red interior? That's all I've ever seen.
What is the 2nd one? Looks sort of like a Mazda Miata, but I don't think it is one.
I love the new Ford GT. ANd I love that it won Le Mans in the 50th-anniversary year of the last of the four-straight GT40 wins.
Not familiar with the last one.
-
Don't know how anyone could say an automatic is better.
I drive a manual, and in the snow, it's much better to have a manual, instead of an automatic, because pulling power away from the engine is better than braking.
No automatic I've driven can shift at the appropriate time either. My truck takes forever to shift with the slightest slope, which surely wastes gas, and if I need power, I can control that.
Perhaps things have changed but it used to be cheaper to have a manual, plus it saved gas better.
These things have changed majorly. Nearly all autos get better fuel economy than manuals in the cycle and they have better acceleration as well, with a few exceptions.
You obviously can use engine braking with an automatic, many cars today have shift paddles to make it very easy to do. I thought they were gimmicky until I drove in the mountains with them. You also can upshift most current automatics when you want.
The dual clutch types also shift faster than any human by quite a bit of time and keep torque applied to the drive wheels the entire time. The CVTs which I hate also have no "shift points" obviously and are efficient in smaller cars and some bigger cars.
And of course in the snow, braking challenges traction whether done with brakes or the engine, and brakes have the antilock feature, the engine does not.
-
Gotta love the original 300SL! Were they all silver with a red interior? That's all I've ever seen.
What is the 2nd one? Looks sort of like a Mazda Miata, but I don't think it is one.
I love the new Ford GT. ANd I love that it won Le Mans in the 50th-anniversary year of the last of the four-straight GT40 wins.
Not familiar with the last one.
To your questions: Honda S2000 and the Tesla Roadster (in production allegedly for 2020). When Honda first released the S2000 (1999) with a 4 cylinder engine that produced in excess of 240 hp, that caught my attention.
The Gullwing had color options as an upgrade from the metallic silver, and the upholstery could be upgraded to leather and also had different colors. But I think the metallic silver with red is the classic combination.
-
My i s c & a aggie wife and I almost bought her an S2000 in 2004, after I'd finished graduate school and we both had good jobs, but before kids. But it drove like a... sportscar... and she didn't like it.
We ended up getting her a Toyota Solara convertible, it had 4 seats and drove more like a sports sedan. It's a really nice looking car but has ended up being one of the biggest POS cars I've ever owned, way worse than the 80s Chrysler products I had and that's saying something.
-
To your questions: Honda S2000 and the Tesla Roadster (in production allegedly for 2020). When Honda first released the S2000 (1999) with a 4 cylinder engine that produced in excess of 240 hp, that caught my attention.
My i s c & a aggie wife and I almost bought her an S2000 in 2004, after I'd finished graduate school and we both had good jobs, but before kids. But it drove like a... sportscar... and she didn't like it.
I've never driven an S2000. However the knock on it at the time was that yes, it made 240HP, but the motor had no low-end torque. It revved to 9000 RPM, and it made it's power up there too.
Which is fine if you want to take it to a racetrack. Not so fine around town.
For example, this review (https://revsgarage.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/average-joe-car-review-honda-s2000-opportunity-screams/) says it's basically a Civic under 6200 RPM. Gutless. Above that, it screams. But below that, it's boring. That's much like my first ride on an a Honda CBR600F4i (15K redline). At the time, I rode a Suzuki SV650 (torquey V-twin, ~9K redline). The Honda made over 90 hp to my Suzuki's 65. But the Suzuki was fun from 3000 RPM on, whereas the Honda didn't get remotely interesting until up around 8-9K.
The old knock on the S2000 was that it was only fun if you "drive it like you stole it". I'd highly consider one as primarily a track car, but for the road I'd need something with more low-end torque.
-
I've never driven an S2000. However the knock on it at the time was that yes, it made 240HP, but the motor had no low-end torque. It revved to 9000 RPM, and it made it's power up there too.
Which is fine if you want to take it to a racetrack. Not so fine around town.
For example, this review (https://revsgarage.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/average-joe-car-review-honda-s2000-opportunity-screams/) says it's basically a Civic under 6200 RPM. Gutless. Above that, it screams. But below that, it's boring. That's much like my first ride on an a Honda CBR600F4i (15K redline). At the time, I rode a Suzuki SV650 (torquey V-twin, ~9K redline). The Honda made over 90 hp to my Suzuki's 65. But the Suzuki was fun from 3000 RPM on, whereas the Honda didn't get remotely interesting until up around 8-9K.
The old knock on the S2000 was that it was only fun if you "drive it like you stole it". I'd highly consider one as primarily a track car, but for the road I'd need something with more low-end torque.
I think she was satisfied with the power, she loves to drive fast but isn't particularly interested in quickness. We were moving on from her 92 Accord (which is the best car I've ever owned and I'm sorry we sold it), so the low-end lack of quicks didn't bother her and she liked the high end. The real problem was that the ride was just way more stiff than she liked, and it was also fairly bare-bones compared to the amenities she wanted. As you say-- a good track car, but not a great city daily driver.
Nowadays she thinks she wants a BMW M3, and I keep telling her she's not going to like the way it rides. But she's going to have to test drive one to determine that for herself, she'll never listen to me.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/OrvgVEw.png)
1969 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II Boss 429 NASCAR.
Cale Yarborough 13 career wins, A J Foyt 4 career wins and David Pearson 43 career wins driving old number 21 for the Wood Brothers.
-
The M3 is more car than is prudent on public roads IMHO. You can get a decked out 340i with a great engine that would be more than ample.
If she wants something a bit sportier, look at a 240i, they come as a convertible also if desired.
I had a buddy with a Toyota Solara. He would have me drive it so he could take in the sights, and it drove like a minivan more than a car, really bad body integrity.
Torque is more important than horsepower for most of us.
-
So more electrics!
-
I'm sure we'll see more electrics obviously. I see Teslas here every day, apparently this place is one of the leading cities for EVs.
I get annoyed when I come to a cloverleaf and figure on pushing the car a bit and up in front of me is someone in a BMW poking along as if the curve is too sharp.
If you pay extra for a driver's car, then drive the sumbitch. Otherwise, get a Honda, they are fine cars also.
I used to do this in grad school with bicycles, I'd pass someone on a hill obviously laboring in the wrong gear with some fancy 18 speed. I would yell "DOWNSHIFT!!!" as I flew by. If you have something, learn to use it. Put your camera on M for a while.
-
Similarly, I get annoyed when I see a Porsche SUV. Come on, now, Porsches are sports cars, not family trucksters. At least they are supposed to be.
-
The M3 is more car than is prudent on public roads IMHO. You can get a decked out 340i with a great engine that would be more than ample.
If she wants something a bit sportier, look at a 240i, they come as a convertible also if desired.
I had a buddy with a Toyota Solara. He would have me drive it so he could take in the sights, and it drove like a minivan more than a car, really bad body integrity.
Torque is more important than horsepower for most of us.
The Solara drove just fine-- sporty even. It's just a poorly built piece of shit that broke down all the time and left her/us stranded multiple times. Really, REALLY awful electrical problems. Failing alternators leading to failing batteries leading to failing alternators leading to failing batteries. I'd guess it was a fundamental grounding issue, which is exactly what I told the dealer's mechanics, as well as all of the mechanics that specialized in "Japanese imports" and every other mechanic that saw that car over a ten year period. Nobody ever pinpointed the problem though. That wasn't the only issue, also plenty of other premature failures. I'd swear the car was Italian if I didn't know any better.
People assured me that Toyotas were as good as Hondas. No, no they are not.
Anyway, she loves a convertible but doesn't like the noise of a ragtop, so I'm pointing her toward the 4-series retractable hardtops. They look sporty enough, and drive pretty well, especially if you get the upgraded engine options.
-
Similarly, I get annoyed when I see a Porsche SUV. Come on, now, Porsches are sports cars, not family trucksters. At least they are supposed to be.
Normally I'd agree, but I drove a friend's Cayenne whilst towing his boat and I have to say, it's a pretty sweet towing rig. Same towing capacity (~7700 lbs) as my Z71 Tahoe had.
-
To your questions: Honda S2000 and the Tesla Roadster (in production allegedly for 2020). When Honda first released the S2000 (1999) with a 4 cylinder engine that produced in excess of 240 hp, that caught my attention.
The Gullwing had color options as an upgrade from the metallic silver, and the upholstery could be upgraded to leather and also had different colors. But I think the metallic silver with red is the classic combination.
I thought briefly that it looked S2000-ish, and then moved on to other possibilities.
I've never seen (or noticed, perhaps) but a handful of them on the road. Was the production very low, or did they mostly just end up on the West Coast?
-
My recollection is that production was pretty low for the S2000. I remember going to try to test drive one in Clarksville, and the dealer's only one was already sold (but on the floor still), and they weren't going to get another one for a while...so I never drove one.
But I haven't looked it up, and others may know more (or learn more from the Google).
I'm sure the Cayenne is an impressive drive. That's beside the point. ;)
-
Similarly, I get annoyed when I see a Porsche SUV. Come on, now, Porsches are sports cars, not family trucksters. At least they are supposed to be.
Ever drive one, or been in one for a ride? It's no family truckster. I would like to have one more Porsche in my lifetime, and the Cayenne would be my choice.
-
I test drove a macan and then realized I should be slugged in nuts of I ever bought one of those. The cayenne is too big I'm not towing anything. I stick w sedans.
It was fun to drive I will admit.
-
The Macan is too small. It's kinda like a station wagon, almost.
-
It felt like a small Outback, and I do miss my Outback. Just doesn't have the torque I have in my A6.
-
My recollection is that production was pretty low for the S2000. I remember going to try to test drive one in Clarksville, and the dealer's only one was already sold (but on the floor still), and they weren't going to get another one for a while...so I never drove one.
My recollection is hazy on actual production numbers, but I do remember them being HOT commodities when first introduced. I.e. Reports of dealers selling for $10-15K over MSRP because of the hype.
Whether that was an issue in later model years I don't know.
-
I think some people want a Porsche because it's an iconic sports car. Other people want a Porsche because it's an iconic brand.
The latter are the Cayenne buyers.
-
I was thinking, what am I doing in this thing, this isn't a Porsche.
-
If I were to buy a Porsche, I think it would be a Cayman. I like the Boxter, and the Cayman is essentially a Boxter coupe. Convertibles are nice to have at the right time and place. But that's not most times and most places. Coupes are more practical, comfortable, quiet, safe, and theft-resistant. They are also lighter for a given degree of structural stiffness, so they can have a better combo of ride and handling.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/MOg47Ua.png)
My dream car when I was 10, and still is - the F40. The prices of these things are up around $3 million nowadays.
But my lottery car, despite taking a lot of pride for not being "southern" culturally, is the General Lee:
(https://i.imgur.com/PHrV6UW.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/v0G4G4j.png)
This is what I'd actually probably do - take a current Dodge Challenger and do it up. I know the General Lee was a Charger, but the newer versions are so boring. I would drive this every day and love it more than I should.
-
If I were to buy a Porsche, I think it would be a Cayman. I like the Boxter, and the Cayman is essentially a Boxter coupe. Convertibles are nice to have at the right time and place. But that's not most times and most places. Coupes are more practical, comfortable, quiet, safe, and theft-resistant. They are also lighter for a given degree of structural stiffness, so they can have a better combo of ride and handling.
I like them as well. The wife told me "911 or nothing". OK then.
At one time she wanted a convertible, she then said she was fine with a sunroof (which we rarely use, almost never if I'm driving). That put me on to the BMW 240i convertible, which soon runs up to $60K. The GTI is a lot more practical but doesn't make the same nice noises.
I like the old Pontiac Soltice.
-
I think some people want a Porsche because it's an iconic sports car. Other people want a Porsche because it's an iconic brand.
The latter are the Cayenne buyers.
I would not fall into your bucket. I'd love to get a 911, but it's just not possible.
-
I'm sure the engineers at Porsche build an excellent SUV. I just don't like the overall concept, even if it is the best out there for the money.
I'd bet it's profitable for them because a lot of folks DO want a Porsche and can't manage the 911 type, or even a Panamera.
One rarely sees SUVs in France, and if you do it's a Range Rover 90% of the time. We had a rental mini-ute last time though. A friend asked me if it was an SUV and I responded "Nope". If you have to ask .... it was a kind of raised sedan. It really was the older Chevy Equinox with a Diesel and manual transmission.
The new revised Equinox is not half bad, but this one was mediocre. At best.
I dislike the high CoG.
I guess that's another feature of a sports car, low CoG and difficult entry. At my age, that is beginning to be a factor.
I saw somewhere the 2020 run of Corvettes is almost sold out.
-
It's sort of interesting that the current "British sports car" is Japanese (the "Miata", which is an MX-5 or somesuch name now).
Everything else is moderately sized to rather big.
You basically emphasize "fun to drive" and give up "comfort and room".
I don't fit into a Miata at all.
-
Macan is definitely too small. Cayenne is a great tow vehicle by European standards and a decent one by American standards, but at only 7700 lbs rating it's still not really built for towing.
I prefer SUVs over pickups for towing for a variety of reasons, but when I got my new travel trailer, it's just a little too heavy for the 1/2 ton options out there. The problem is, the car manufacturers stopped making 3/4 ton SUVs. So now the Ford Expedition gets to the highest tow rating you can get on a modern SUV, at around 9200 lbs, which still isn't enough for my purposes, plus the Expedition is kind of ugly.
So that's how I ended up with the F150 supercrew with max towing, it'll do 11,500 lbs. It's not truly a 3/4 ton but it's also more than a 1/2 ton, I guess it's a 2/3 ton or something. Anyway, with its twin turbo V6 gas engine it's a great daily driver, but also has incredible torque throughout the power band which makes towing even very heavy trailers, a real pleasure.
-
The most I would ever tow would be something like a Grady-White 23' fishing boat. And it wouldn't be for long tows - if at all.
https://www.motorwerks.com/used-Barrington-2015-Porsche-Cayenne-Turbo-WP1AC2A2XFLA80503
Something like this would be good.
-
If I towed often, I'd think about a Diesel something something.
-
Yeah, they are available with Diesel too.
-
If I towed often, I'd think about a Diesel something something.
Diesel trucks in the 3/4 ton and up range, are pretty brutal daily drivers. I test drove them all-- including towing my vehicles-- before choosing. You could say I "tow a lot" by non-commercial/private/consumer standards, but even so I'm only towing maybe 10% of my total driving time. So the daily driving aspect is extremely important to me.
My friend Bald Greg has a 3/4 ton turbo-diesel GMC 2500 and tows both a boat, and a travel trailer, of similar weights to mine. It's heavy and sluggish on city streets. It's great for long-haul towing and gets WAY better mileage than my V6 gasser does when pulling a trailer, but it's still a bit of a dog on the streets alone. As was every other Ford/GM/Dodge diesel that I drove.
And when NOT towing, the 3.5L V6 twin turbo Ford Ecoboost is a real screamer. It's the most fun driving vehicle I've ever owned.
-
I dislike the high CoG.
I guess that's another feature of a sports car, low CoG and difficult entry. At my age, that is beginning to be a factor.
I saw somewhere the 2020 run of Corvettes is almost sold out.
heard GM added another shift to produce more C8s, going like hot cakes
great news for me
-
There are several thousand C7s on lots unsold, brand new, going to be some serious incentives to move them along.
When the C7 came out, the same happened with the C6s.
-
if they get the current C7's down to $35,000 I'll have one of those instead of the C6 GS or Z06
don't think that will happen
-
I looked at a C7 2 years back that was pretty nicely equipped, new car, they said it would be around $52 K. I'd guess you could get one under $50 now with a decent level of gear. Not $35 K.
-
with C8 deliveries starting before the end of the year - December
I'll have to wait until spring to get a good deal, but I'm a patient man.
only problem is I'm not getting any younger and getting in and out of that roller skate will be more painful as time goes by
-
I think a C6 would be the "sweet spot" valuewise.
-
it is currently
I assume it will be a year from now as well
I just can't bring myself to spend more than $30,000 on a used car
-
https://www.truecar.com/used-cars-for-sale/listing/1G1YY32G115129594/2001-chevrolet-corvette/ (https://www.truecar.com/used-cars-for-sale/listing/1G1YY32G115129594/2001-chevrolet-corvette/)
-
The most I would ever tow would be something like a Grady-White 23' fishing boat. And it wouldn't be for long tows - if at all.
https://www.motorwerks.com/used-Barrington-2015-Porsche-Cayenne-Turbo-WP1AC2A2XFLA80503
Something like this would be good.
Buddy has a 24 fter - great fishing boat
-
The most I would ever tow would be something like a Grady-White 23' fishing boat. And it wouldn't be for long tows - if at all.
https://www.motorwerks.com/used-Barrington-2015-Porsche-Cayenne-Turbo-WP1AC2A2XFLA80503
Something like this would be good.
I was seriously thinking about something like this, until I decided to upgrade the RV.
-
I don't know what happened to the C8 Corvette thread, so I'll put this here.
5 Mid-Engine Corvettes That Weren't (https://www.kbb.com/car-news/mid-engine-corvettes-that-were-not/2100007621/?category=all-the-latest?psid=99979&siomid=2100007621)
-
Yeah, this has been "rumored" as the next thing for decades. It's here now obviously. I'm pretty sure it's going to handle and accelerate really well even in base form. A question is about the interior quality and build.
-
I imagine it will match or surpass the C7, which was nice. not awesome
-
Yeah, this has been "rumored" as the next thing for decades. It's here now obviously. I'm pretty sure it's going to handle and accelerate really well even in base form. A question is about the interior quality and build.
Back in the day, Chevy was known for letting its customers do a lot of the development work on its cars. In other words, the cars of the first year of a new body style would have a lot of glitches, quality-control problems, etc. Customer complaints and warranty claims would help them find and eliminate the bugs, so by the last year of a model style, the cars were pretty well built.
The C2 Corvette was a great example. The famous split-window '63s were buggy. The best year of that generation was the last one--'67. '67s were pretty solid.
I have no idea whether that is true today or not.
-
Back in the day, Chevy was known for letting its customers do a lot of the development work on its cars. In other words, the cars of the first year of a new body style would have a lot of glitches, quality-control problems, etc. Customer complaints and warranty claims would help them find and eliminate the bugs, so by the last year of a model style, the cars were pretty well built.
The C2 Corvette was a great example. The famous split-window '63s were buggy. The best year of that generation was the last one--'67. '67s were pretty solid.
I have no idea whether that is true today or not.
In the computer world we call this "Beta testing on the Market."
Microsoft is notorious for it, basically because they're a near-monopoly and they can get away with it.
-
I imagine it will match or surpass the C7, which was nice. not awesome
The C8? It will surpass the C7 in just about any performance category we could name. The main issue with the C7 is that the ZR1 was no faster than the Z06 despite having a good bit more horsepower. RWD had passed its limits of power. I imagine the C8 ZR1 will be a track monster.
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-zr1
T (https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-zr1)he ZR1 with 755 hp is slower 0-60 than the C8 regular car with 495 hp, by a tick.
The center of mass in the C8 should make for quicker turn in on the track, lower polar moment of inertia. But these high hp versions are really track cars, they won't yield much on the street.
-
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/cars-zero-60-mph-3-sec-under-70000/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d43a75c3ba24600019752ad&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2A_7cRUIwome0tETUS2UCWJO098_sJXb3xYJ_B09eGX7kfw4P62pYNhR4 (https://www.automobilemag.com/news/cars-zero-60-mph-3-sec-under-70000/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d43a75c3ba24600019752ad&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2A_7cRUIwome0tETUS2UCWJO098_sJXb3xYJ_B09eGX7kfw4P62pYNhR4)
-
The Vette is probably the best value supercar, in terms of price/performance, right? It can do the things the $300,000+ cars can do at 1/4 the price.
-
Yes, if you are talking track performance. Of course, a less capable car might be more rewarding to drive on regular roads, like a 911, if you value quality and some aspects of comfort and resale value.
I think "gearheads" - and I'm one of them - often value "numbers" over intangibles, we want to have something with high skidpad figures and low quarter mile times when that vehicle otherwise might not be that "fun to drive" 99% of the time. You can't explore the limits of these cars safely on regular roads. What's the point of have a car able to hit 60 in 3 seconds and pull 1.10 gs if you drive it like a Honda Accord and occasionally zoom off from a light?
-
the point is that you're a car guy, you know the numbers and other car guys also know the numbers and will be impressed
same with any "sports" or "performance" car. No one really needs that type of performance for daily driving.
similar to many options on a Honda Accord. leather seats, high quality audio system, paint upgrades, fancy wheels, back up cameras, automatic parallel parking.
Just bells and whistles. But folks like them.
-
The C8? It will surpass the C7 in just about any performance category we could name. The main issue with the C7 is that the ZR1 was no faster than the Z06 despite having a good bit more horsepower. RWD had passed its limits of power. I imagine the C8 ZR1 will be a track monster.
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-zr1
T (https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-zr1)he ZR1 with 755 hp is slower 0-60 than the C8 regular car with 495 hp, by a tick.
The center of mass in the C8 should make for quicker turn in on the track, lower polar moment of inertia. But these high hp versions are really track cars, they won't yield much on the street.
I was speaking to your comment about interior quality and build.
-
The C8? It will surpass the C7 in just about any performance category we could name. The main issue with the C7 is that the ZR1 was no faster than the Z06 despite having a good bit more horsepower. RWD had passed its limits of power. I imagine the C8 ZR1 will be a track monster.
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-zr1
T (https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-zr1)he ZR1 with 755 hp is slower 0-60 than the C8 regular car with 495 hp, by a tick.
The center of mass in the C8 should make for quicker turn in on the track, lower polar moment of inertia. But these high hp versions are really track cars, they won't yield much on the street.
I opened the link, but didn't see anything about the ZR1 being no faster than the Z06, nor that it is slower than the new C8. Is this information that you know independently of the article?
I think some of the hood and grille treatment of the C7 ZR1 shows up in the C8. Unfortunately.
-
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/cars-zero-60-mph-3-sec-under-70000/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d43a75c3ba24600019752ad&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2A_7cRUIwome0tETUS2UCWJO098_sJXb3xYJ_B09eGX7kfw4P62pYNhR4 (https://www.automobilemag.com/news/cars-zero-60-mph-3-sec-under-70000/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d43a75c3ba24600019752ad&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2A_7cRUIwome0tETUS2UCWJO098_sJXb3xYJ_B09eGX7kfw4P62pYNhR4)
Linked in the Automobile magazine story: 2020 Chevrolet Corvette C8 Design Analysis: “I’m Sorry, but I’m Disappointed” (https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-chevrolet-corvette-c8-mid-engine-design-analysis/)
-
I should have said the ZR1 is only slightly faster.
-
the point is that you're a car guy, you know the numbers and other car guys also know the numbers and will be impressed
same with any "sports" or "performance" car. No one really needs that type of performance for daily driving.
similar to many options on a Honda Accord. leather seats, high quality audio system, paint upgrades, fancy wheels, back up cameras, automatic parallel parking.
Just bells and whistles. But folks like them.
My new truck has cooled seats. Down here in Texico, that's a game changer.
-
my truck has heated seats for winter driving. I rarely remember to turn them on.
As I told the salesman, I wear my long britches in the winter.
-
Linked in the Automobile magazine story: 2020 Chevrolet Corvette C8 Design Analysis: “I’m Sorry, but I’m Disappointed” (https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-chevrolet-corvette-c8-mid-engine-design-analysis/)
Here's a representative quote: "I am deeply sorry to be severely disappointed by the styling of the C8. I hoped for something really new and exciting, not a boringly generic supercar, mostly indistinguishable from the many and varied unimaginative devices that show up regularly at the Geneva auto show. Its styling is confused—and downright messy in fact. I count a dozen horizontal lines, not to mention four convoluted taillights; four nice rectangular exhaust tips; plus varied slots, vents, grilles, indented surfaces, and wing elements . . . just across the rear fascia. The front is no better, and the profile with its short, stumpy nose is equally surprising. Maybe it’s all meant to look purposeful, but to me it seems just a careless, cluttered graphic composition, not worthy of Corvette history and what we expect of this technically brilliant descendant of the Jaguar-inspired elegant original C1 from 1953."
I think that we've seen so much "careless, cluttered graphic composition" in car design that we now just take it for granted. We don't expect, or even look for, elegant design. 30 years ago, this C8 Corvette would have evoked cries of "UGG-LEE!" But now it fits in with all the other careless, cluttered designs on the road--and I include my Boss 302 Mustang in this description--so we just shrug and move on.
It looks like a cartoon of a car. A caricature.
-
My new truck has cooled seats. Down here in Texico, that's a game changer.
I've got those too. Comes in handy with a black/black car in the summer.
-
Yes, if you are talking track performance. Of course, a less capable car might be more rewarding to drive on regular roads, like a 911, if you value quality and some aspects of comfort and resale value.
I think "gearheads" - and I'm one of them - often value "numbers" over intangibles, we want to have something with high skidpad figures and low quarter mile times when that vehicle otherwise might not be that "fun to drive" 99% of the time. You can't explore the limits of these cars safely on regular roads. What's the point of have a car able to hit 60 in 3 seconds and pull 1.10 gs if you drive it like a Honda Accord and occasionally zoom off from a light?
Agreed. Old quote that I first heard in relation to motorcycles but applies equally to cars: "It's a lot more fun to ride a slow bike fast than it is to ride a fast bike slow."
Again, I go back to the Ariel Atom. It's nothing in comparison to a modern supercar. It doesn't have launch control. It doesn't have a flappy paddle dual clutch gearbox (in fact, I think it ONLY comes in 6spd manual). It doesn't have ABS. I think they tried to give it downforce, but with a tubular steel half-open frame and exposed front wheels, I'll bet the coefficient of drag is dreadful, so top speed is probably not very high. I'm sure the "numbers" are probably far worse than even the base model C8 Vette.
And I'll bet it's impossible to drive without a smile...
...not that you can see it behind the full-face helmet you probably should wear while driving it since there's no windscreen.
-
My new truck has cooled seats. Down here in Texico, that's a game changer.
I've got those too. Comes in handy with a black/black car in the summer.
Absolutely. Heated seats are a lot easier and a lot cheaper (hence why cars have them), but I don't even use them when I'm on business travel to cold places. I generate enough heat.
Cooled seats are amazing.
-
Yeah my last several cars have had heated seats. I don't ever use them, just not much need down here.
But the cooled seats are bomb.
-
The Caddy had "ventilated seats" (they technically aren't cooled). The wife liked them a lot, I probably covered too many of the holes. The GTI doesn't. The main thing I miss is memory seats in the GTI, it doesn't have them. The GPS has a good bit resolution as does the backup camera.
Nearly every car out there able to do 0-60 in 3 seconds or less has AWD, or is midengine. You reach a horsepower limit where more doesn't help, a la my ZR1 to Z06 comment, even with broad Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires.
Incidentally, fun fact, all things being equal, tires have the same contact AREA no matter how wide they are. A narrower tire will have a longer contact patch and be better for rain'snow, a fatter tire has the same contact area but it is wider and thus can resist cornering forces better. One of the car mags did a test using a BMW with different wheels ranging from 16" to 20". The 17" was best overall. They weight less and the advantage of the lower profile tires on a 20" wheel is negligible.
-
Here's a representative quote: "I am deeply sorry to be severely disappointed by the styling of the C8. I hoped for something really new and exciting, not a boringly generic supercar, mostly indistinguishable from the many and varied unimaginative devices that show up regularly at the Geneva auto show."
The stuff beyond this, I somewhat agree. I like some of the lines on the C8, but some of the stuff on both the front grille surfaces and the rear end seem busier than they need to be.
However, I would never expect a mid-engine Vette to look anything other than like a "boringly generic" mid-engine supercar. All the lines of a "generic boring" mid-engine supercar are driven by the human form, geometry, physics, and aerodynamics.
We're a long way beyond car designers being able to design nearly anything about a car beyond trim work. Back in the 1960's, you could make a car look unique. We had wind tunnels but we didn't have advanced computer design methods. We didn't even really understand downforce much--there are reports of some sports cars having tendency to "lift" at high speed instead.
Now, cars are designed in computers and wind tunnels to achieve drag numbers [and for sports cars, downforce numbers], and basic geometry and aerodynamics give you very little wiggle room. So cars all look identical except for the trim.
So some cars try to stand out with angular lines [Corvette, recent Acura designs]. Some are more clean, flowing designs [Ferrari, MacLaren]. Others try to stand out with distinctive styling cues [the gaping maw of a front grill that you guys all hate on the Lexus, but oddly I really like].
But all sedans look basically the same. Same shape. All crossovers look basically the same. Same shape. And all mid-engine supercars look basically the same. Same shape. Because they're all being designed based on the same constraints of the human form, geometry, physics, and aerodynamics.
-
Any new car design of this ilk will have critics. It's easier, and more fun, to criticize than just "lamely say I like it".
I like the styling of the new Jag sedans a lot. I wouldn't necessarily buy one. My GTI of course looks entirely like a Golf, which is a boring hatchback, might save me a speeding ticket sometime.
I totally agree that a "slow" car can be very rewarding to drive. A superfast car can be, well, not fun much of the time. My own "sweetspot" was the BMW 240i, plenty fast and responsive, still with BMW cred the 3 series had lost, and fun to drive and made nice noises too.
Of course I spent 18 years with a minivan.
-
Agreed. Old quote that I first heard in relation to motorcycles but applies equally to cars: "It's a lot more fun to ride a slow bike fast than it is to ride a fast bike slow."
Again, I go back to the Ariel Atom. It's nothing in comparison to a modern supercar. It doesn't have launch control. It doesn't have a flappy paddle dual clutch gearbox (in fact, I think it ONLY comes in 6spd manual). It doesn't have ABS. I think they tried to give it downforce, but with a tubular steel half-open frame and exposed front wheels, I'll bet the coefficient of drag is dreadful, so top speed is probably not very high. I'm sure the "numbers" are probably far worse than even the base model C8 Vette.
And I'll bet it's impossible to drive without a smile...
...not that you can see it behind the full-face helmet you probably should wear while driving it since there's no windscreen.
That's why the original Mazda Miata was such a hit. It was everything you ever wanted in an affordable British sports car, plus it had reliability, an electrical system that worked, outstanding quality control, and a great nationwide service network. You could push it to near its limits on a twisty country road, and it was just a blast to drive.
-
I went to a Mazda dealer to test drive a Miata, the sales guy laughed at me.
My sight line was right where the top of the windshield is. No way could I fit with the top up. I normally can recline the seat to get more headroom, but not in a Miata.
I don't even have the seat in the GTI all the way back.
-
Any new car design of this ilk will have critics. It's easier, and more fun, to criticize than just "lamely say I like it".
I don't know if you read the linked article or not, but the author, Robert Cumberford, is a long-time car stylist--he worked on the Corvette in the 1950s--who has been analyzing car styling for one magazine or another for decades.
He won't just lamely say, "I like it" if he doesn't like it.
-
I didn't read it, don't really care who says the design is good or bad. It's personal opinion, like liking a painting, or not.
I have yet to see one "live" so I have no opinion.
-
I went to a Mazda dealer to test drive a Miata, the sales guy laughed at me.
My sight line was right where the top of the windshield is. No way could I fit with the top up. I normally can recline the seat to get more headroom, but not in a Miata.
I don't even have the seat in the GTI all the way back.
Yep. The Miata was not designed for the 95-percentile American male.
You probably wouldn't have fit well in an MGB either, I'll bet. And the MGB had more room than the Miata.
-
I had a GF in grad school whose Dad was rebuilding an Austin Healey Sprite. One rainy evening he INSISTED I take it for a drive, INSISTED. It was pouring down, and of course his car was leaky like crazy, but I did manager to drive it a half mile and come back. I was obviously bent over trying to get in it. Fortunately they lived out in the country and no one else was out on a night like that. I don't think I got out of second gear. I of course told him the car was fantastic. He said next time I came over I should drive it a lot further when it was sunny.
We broke up a little after that.
-
seats go back further than in the past. Every car/pickup I've owned I've always adjusted the seat as far back as it would go.
the 2015 Silverado double cab will go back a bit too far for me
I've also noticed this in a couple newer cars I've driven
-
I had the Caddy as far back as the seat would go, it was a bit short of rear seat room for a car that size, and I think they limited front seat travel for this reason. My Chevy Sonic (which the daughter has now) I had one notch up from all the way back, and it's a very small car.
Now I want a sports car. I'll get over it. I'd probably go with a Cayman if I really bought one.
-
I went to a Mazda dealer to test drive a Miata, the sales guy laughed at me.
My sight line was right where the top of the windshield is. No way could I fit with the top up. I normally can recline the seat to get more headroom, but not in a Miata.
I don't even have the seat in the GTI all the way back.
I sat in a Corvette convertible at the Chicago auto show back in about 1997 or so. I had the same experience with the Corvette. My eyes were right at the top of the windshield level.
A few years later, I test drove a Miata for my buddy. Illinois at the time [and perhaps still] would force you to surrender your physical license when you had a ticket for a written temporary, and Carmax wouldn't let him test drive. My left knee (had to use that leg as it was a 5spd) was pinned between the steering wheel and the door. That was a short test drive.
-
I fit in a Corvette reasonably well. The seat reclines a lot and I use that. I've test driven the C6 and the C7. I have an issue with getting in the thing because it's so low, but that's on me.
Test driving these cars is ridiculous, where can you take them? You start at a dealership in suburbia 10 miles from the countryside. You can punch it a bit but you already know it can go. Maybe you find a cloverleaf and don't get behind some dawdler in a 328i going 10 mph. Maybe.
I had bought a couple cars at a Chevy dealer near me. He had another customer who bought a new Vette every year like clockwork. He said the guy never asked for a lower price, he came in and dropped of his old one year Vette and drove out with a new one. The salesman would call me and ask if I wanted to drive the one year old car a bit. This guy had a gorgeous 1963 Corvette that he actually drove some, I was never there when he had it at work.
I prefer a shorter car overall which conflicts of course with my need for leg room.
-
Now I want a sports car. I'll get over it. I'd probably go with a Cayman if I really bought one.
I assume you'd go with the Fourth generation : 718?
GTS???
-
I found a 2007 with 30,000 miles for less than $30,000
If I could get 2 set of golf clubs in it I might be interested. Could always trade for a Vette in a couple years
(https://content.homenetiol.com/744/31503/640x480/de2bd3ac9bc54fadb22348abf200556a.jpg)
-
I found a 2007 with 30,000 miles for less than $30,000
If I could get 2 set of golf clubs in it I might be interested. Could always trade for a Vette in a couple years
(https://content.homenetiol.com/744/31503/640x480/de2bd3ac9bc54fadb22348abf200556a.jpg)
How's yer back?
-
back is always a concern, can act up at any moment, but it's been good for about 8 months
-
The stuff beyond this, I somewhat agree. I like some of the lines on the C8, but some of the stuff on both the front grille surfaces and the rear end seem busier than they need to be.
However, I would never expect a mid-engine Vette to look anything other than like a "boringly generic" mid-engine supercar. All the lines of a "generic boring" mid-engine supercar are driven by the human form, geometry, physics, and aerodynamics.
We're a long way beyond car designers being able to design nearly anything about a car beyond trim work. Back in the 1960's, you could make a car look unique. We had wind tunnels but we didn't have advanced computer design methods. We didn't even really understand downforce much--there are reports of some sports cars having tendency to "lift" at high speed instead.
Now, cars are designed in computers and wind tunnels to achieve drag numbers [and for sports cars, downforce numbers], and basic geometry and aerodynamics give you very little wiggle room. So cars all look identical except for the trim.
So some cars try to stand out with angular lines [Corvette, recent Acura designs]. Some are more clean, flowing designs [Ferrari, MacLaren]. Others try to stand out with distinctive styling cues [the gaping maw of a front grill that you guys all hate on the Lexus, but oddly I really like].
But all sedans look basically the same. Same shape. All crossovers look basically the same. Same shape. And all mid-engine supercars look basically the same. Same shape. Because they're all being designed based on the same constraints of the human form, geometry, physics, and aerodynamics.
Actually, I don't agree with the "boringly generic" part of Cumberford's criticism. To me, it's not boring, it's just a bit ugly. And it may be generic, in the sense that it doesn't particularly say "Corvette!" when you see it.
Yes, the mission of the car, and safety requirements, and aerodynamics drive the general proportions. But it's not the proportions of the C8 that are objectionable to Cumberford (or me). It's the blizzard of unharmonious lines and edges within those general proportions.
I'm not convinced that those creases, wedges, and blocked-off panels are there for aerodynamic efficiency. The designers are making a statement with all of that.
Compare the C8 to a genuine race car, where aerodynamics are even more important than they are for a high-performance road car.
(https://assets.hemmings.com/uimage/63824187-770-0@2X.jpg?rev=1)
The Ford GT40 had to go 200 mph, so aerodynamics were not unimportant. Panel lines are functional, and there aren't very many of them.
Or to a high-performance road car of 20+ years ago.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Salon_Priv%C3%A9_London_2012_%287956725492%29.jpg/1280px-Salon_Priv%C3%A9_London_2012_%287956725492%29.jpg)
McLaren F1. Cleaner, smoother, better-looking. As is the other McLaren (model unknown) in the background.
As I said upthread, by contrast to these, the C8 Corvette looks garish and cartoonish. To me, anyway.
-
The Caddy had "ventilated seats" (they technically aren't cooled). The wife liked them a lot, I probably covered too many of the holes. The GTI doesn't. The main thing I miss is memory seats in the GTI, it doesn't have them. The GPS has a good bit resolution as does the backup camera.
Nearly every car out there able to do 0-60 in 3 seconds or less has AWD, or is midengine. You reach a horsepower limit where more doesn't help, a la my ZR1 to Z06 comment, even with broad Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires.
Incidentally, fun fact, all things being equal, tires have the same contact AREA no matter how wide they are. A narrower tire will have a longer contact patch and be better for rain'snow, a fatter tire has the same contact area but it is wider and thus can resist cornering forces better. One of the car mags did a test using a BMW with different wheels ranging from 16" to 20". The 17" was best overall. They weight less and the advantage of the lower profile tires on a 20" wheel is negligible.
"All things being equal" is a key point. Drag racers use fat slicks on the back wheels, inflated at very low pressures so that they get the biggest contact patch possible.
-
Yeah, low inflation increases contact patch, What those dragsters do to tires is amazing.
I'd go for a standard Cayman really, probably one 4-5 years old.
-
Yes, the mission of the car, and safety requirements, and aerodynamics drive the general proportions. But it's not the proportions of the C8 that are objectionable to Cumberford (or me). It's the blizzard of unharmonious lines and edges within those general proportions.
I'm not convinced that those creases, wedges, and blocked-off panels are there for aerodynamic efficiency. The designers are making a statement with all of that.
<snip>
As I said upthread, by contrast to these, the C8 Corvette looks garish and cartoonish. To me, anyway.
Agreed, in that I was only really picking at his "generic boring" supercar statement. I was trying to make that clear, and then to expound upon a wider point that people who lament that all cars basically are the same shape are not realizing that they're the same shape because every one of them is solving the same design constraints within a certain vehicle class, whether that class is supercar, sedan, pickup truck or crossover. All that designers have to play around with is trim.
I agree with you that all the creases, wedges, etc are making a statement. That's true whether you like it or not.
Somewhat like the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. The basic proportion and shape of the two have to be the same, but the Ferrari tries to smooth the lines and curves, while the Lamborghini looks like a scalpel.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Salon_Priv%C3%A9_London_2012_%287956725492%29.jpg/1280px-Salon_Priv%C3%A9_London_2012_%287956725492%29.jpg)
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/eXLKW/s1/2020-chevrolet-corvette-stingray.jpg)
I think the Red one is better looking than the silver one
-
I'll stop beating this dead horse . . . after I beat it one last time.
(https://di-uploads-pod12.dealerinspire.com/stingraychevy/uploads/2019/07/2020-corvette-reveal-gal-ext-12.jpg)
There's a lot here that I don't like. The creases in the hood look random, like two different guys working independently came up with two different ideas, and somebody combined them without even really thinking about it.
The black "grille-ettes" below the headlights look nonfunctional. (My Mustang has very similar, slightly smaller panels that look like they do something but don't.) If so, they just add drag. And, IMO, they don't look particularly good. I mean, what are they supposed to appear to be? Cooling vents for the front brakes, maybe?
What are the horizontal bars near the tops of those grille-ettes doing? Adding drag and weight? Colin Chapman, the genius behind Lotus Cars, had a saying: "Add simplicity and lightness." Chevy seems to be doing the opposite here.
Half of the "mouth" is blocked off with what appears to be black plastic. That looks tacky and cheap. If they don't need airflow, just make the grille opening smaller and have what's not the grille in body color.
This is all a matter of taste, but I don't like it that every line--from hood creases to headlights to the front edge of the hood (is that the right term when there's no engine in there?) points inward and down. Except for the two lines that don't--the body-color panels separating the nonfunctional grille-ettes from the half-blocked-off grille. It looks like what an art student would produce if told to draw a cartoon of a car that looks mean and fast.
As Cumberford said in his review, it will likely be a supremely competent car. And I'm sure Chevy will sell every one of them at a handsome profit.
For awhile during the recession, the only car that Chevy was selling at a profit was the Corvette. Corvette and Chevy Trucks were keeping the division going.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Salon_Priv%C3%A9_London_2012_%287956725492%29.jpg/1280px-Salon_Priv%C3%A9_London_2012_%287956725492%29.jpg)
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/eXLKW/s1/2020-chevrolet-corvette-stingray.jpg)
I think the Red one is better looking than the silver one
Heh!
I don't see a Red one. I see a silver one and an orange one. Reddish-orange, to be sure.
-
maybe you're color blind like me?
-
I'll stop beating this dead horse . . . after I beat it one last time.
(https://di-uploads-pod12.dealerinspire.com/stingraychevy/uploads/2019/07/2020-corvette-reveal-gal-ext-12.jpg)
There's a lot here that I don't like. The creases in the hood look random, like two different guys working independently came up with two different ideas, and somebody combined them without even really thinking about it.
The black "grille-ettes" below the headlights look nonfunctional. (My Mustang has very similar, slightly smaller panels that look like they do something but don't.) If so, they just add drag. And, IMO, they don't look particularly good. I mean, what are they supposed to appear to be? Cooling vents for the front brakes, maybe?
What are the horizontal bars near the tops of those grille-ettes doing? Adding drag and weight? Colin Chapman, the genius behind Lotus Cars, had a saying: "Add simplicity and lightness." Chevy seems to be doing the opposite here.
Half of the "mouth" is blocked off with what appears to be black plastic. That looks tacky and cheap. If they don't need airflow, just make the grille opening smaller and have what's not the grille in body color.
This is all a matter of taste, but I don't like it that every line--from hood creases to headlights to the front edge of the hood (is that the right term when there's no engine in there?) points inward and down. Except for the two lines that don't--the body-color panels separating the nonfunctional grille-ettes from the half-blocked-off grille. It looks like what an art student would produce if told to draw a cartoon of a car that looks mean and fast.
As Cumberford said in his review, it will likely be a supremely competent car. And I'm sure Chevy will sell every one of them at a handsome profit.
For awhile during the recession, the only car that Chevy was selling at a profit was the Corvette. Corvette and Chevy Trucks were keeping the division going.
About a decade ago, I recall your criticism of the new Camaro being along these lines. You said something like, "It looks like a Hot Wheels version of a redesigned classic Camaro."
I get where you're coming from, and I don't disagree with your assessment of the Camaro, or the Corvette.
Still, though, I don't dislike them as you do. I guess I'm OK with these American cars looking a little cartoonish, and I'm most certainly OK with them not looking like European cars. The Euros have no monopoly on good design, their infatuation with the "hot hatchback" is baffling and horrifying, as is their design of pretty much ALL midlevel cars. Your standard base-level Fiat, Peugeot, Citroen, Cooper-- these are all pitiful and odious looking vehicles. In general the German cars look better, although I have no love for Volkswagen vehicles that don't look any different than the Hondas they're competing against.
-
Heh!
I don't see a Red one. I see a silver one and an orange one. Reddish-orange, to be sure.
Well, I do trust a Sooner (or a Longhorn) to know the difference between red and orange ;-)
-
sooners think Crimson is RED, which it is technically
Crimson is a strong, red color, inclining to purple. It originally meant the color of the kermes dye produced from a scale insect, Kermes vermilio, but the name is now sometimes also used as a generic term for slightly bluish-red colors that are between red and rose.
The Long Beach Red Metallic is more of a Sooner Red
The Torch Red is more like Husker Red
the Sebring Orange is more Longhorn Burnt Orange
So, I understand the Sooner's thinking that Torch/Husker RED is close to Orange
-
maybe you're color blind like me?
So you couldn't tell if your wife was red with rage when you decided to hit the Greens?
-
I never had an eye for all these color variants. I would get told "That isn't green, it's chartreuse." Baloney, it's green, I can't even spell that other color.
I have red and blue and yellow and some in between colors and that's it, maybe dark and lighter.
My team's colors are Red, and Black. The Red is just plain red, and the black is the absence of color. Simple yet effective. I don't deal well with "gold" and "amber" and "crimson" and "chartreuse" and whatever else. Michigan State is Green, got that, and White, works for me. Michigan is yellow and blue. Ohio State is red and whatever. Gray or something, which is light black.
Real men don't sit around arguing about whether some color is orange or light red or rudimentary red or brick red or burnt orange. Mulberries.
Real men argue about how to prepare real BBQ and know that grilling is not BBQing. KISS.
-
About a decade ago, I recall your criticism of the new Camaro being along these lines. You said something like, "It looks like a Hot Wheels version of a redesigned classic Camaro."
I get where you're coming from, and I don't disagree with your assessment of the Camaro, or the Corvette.
Still, though, I don't dislike them as you do. I guess I'm OK with these American cars looking a little cartoonish, and I'm most certainly OK with them not looking like European cars. The Euros have no monopoly on good design, their infatuation with the "hot hatchback" is baffling and horrifying, as is their design of pretty much ALL midlevel cars. Your standard base-level Fiat, Peugeot, Citroen, Cooper-- these are all pitiful and odious looking vehicles. In general the German cars look better, although I have no love for Volkswagen vehicles that don't look any different than the Hondas they're competing against.
I remember our conversation on that.
I don't particularly dislike American styling. I thought that the Chrysler 300C (C300?) of 10-12 years ago was a very handsome, very masculine, very American-looking car. I think that the Ford Fusion (now canceled, as Ford is not selling pure automobiles not named Mustang anymore) is a very good-looking car. I dislike GM styling, though. Which means I've changed my mind on something, because when I was growing up through my 20s, GM cars were generally the best-looking, I thought.
Right now, I think that the Japanese cars are the worst. Their styling is just too busy and discordant. I read an explanation about Japanese styling many years ago that explained why their cars looked like this ugly, clunky, misbegotten '77 Datsun (Nissan) 200SX.
(https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/1977_datsun_200sx_15525010501e9d363e2fe1977_datsun_200sx_1552501036a67856724221e9dDSC0410-1-940x537.jpg)
The explanation was that Japanese cities are so crowded that people mostly view cars from very close up. So it was the details rather than the overall proportions and symmetry that attracting public attention. Notice the fussy grill, the ugly bumper, the panel crease that runs below the anti-rub strip for the whole length of the car, and the little doo-dad along the fastback line. These would catch the eyes of people who were only 18 inches or so from the car.
(My first wife had one of these, and not only was it ugly, it was a piece of crap.)
Whether that explanation was right or not, I do not know. I know that there was some really good Japanese styling in the 1980s. Mazdas were particularly good, with the RX-7 and the sedans. And then the original Miata in the '90s.
But now it seems like the Japanese have gotten back to their busy-ness of the 1960s and '70s.
And carmakers in other countries, including ours, have followed suit.
Check out the 2012 Boss 302 Mustang. This isn't mine, but it looks just like mine. The overall proportions and lines of the car are fine, I think. It looks more like a Mustang than most of the Mustangs between 1971 and 2009, IMO. It's a brawny, American-looking car.
(https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/Zm6jXq2WgPHtL3PGBpaeHI6bGy4=/868x488/2011/10/19/7a7ed043-67c3-11e3-a665-14feb5ca9861/35041993_OVR_1.JPG)
But the front end is busy, and a lot of the busy-ness has no function. Those two round things in the grill actually trap and block the air. They are only there because they are reminiscent of the 1969 and '70 Mustangs that Parnelli Jones raced in the old Trans-Am series (see below). The center area below the "bumper" is functional. The lower part of the radiator breathes down there. But the "inlets" on either side of it are totally fake. Each one has three different textures--one with horizontal fins, one with an array of indentations about the size of pinheads, and in-between a circular section. But air does not get through. It's all for looks, and to me it doesn't even look good. And it's counter-functional, in that it's an air trap. Why, Team Mustang? What's it for? To impress Japanese urbanites who are lying on the ground? To add weight, complexity, and drag? And the back end is a mess too. (Newer Mustangs are even worse on the front end, IMO, but much better in the back.)
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F21%2F2013%2F11%2F1969-ford-mustang-boss-302-front-three-quarter.jpg&hash=d75fc86047dfd85a53f49055508f52e7)
-
maybe you're color blind like me?
I managed to pass the color-vision test for my flight physical every year.
-
Real men don't sit around arguing about whether some color is orange or light red or rudimentary red or brick red or burnt orange. Mulberries.
Real men argue about how to prepare real BBQ and know that grilling is not BBQing. KISS.
Well do you like the Magenta,Coral,Mauve,Fuchsia or Indigo style sauces?
-
well, you really should see much more of this............
(https://the-drive-3.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2F2020-Chevrolet-Corvette-Stingray-035.jpg%3Fquality%3D85?w=1440&auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.2.1&s=1ebf58a0d9c50e0bbfba62782f16f042)
and much less of this.......
(https://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/full/public/2019/07/19/c8-corvette.jpg)
-
and I will agree that both the front and back views are far too busy
I think the side and top views are good
-
I never had an eye for all these color variants. I would get told "That isn't green, it's chartreuse." Baloney, it's green, I can't even spell that other color.
I have red and blue and yellow and some in between colors and that's it, maybe dark and lighter.
My team's colors are Red, and Black. The Red is just plain red, and the black is the absence of color. Simple yet effective. I don't deal well with "gold" and "amber" and "crimson" and "chartreuse" and whatever else. Michigan State is Green, got that, and White, works for me. Michigan is yellow and blue. Ohio State is red and whatever. Gray or something, which is light black.
Real men don't sit around arguing about whether some color is orange or light red or rudimentary red or brick red or burnt orange. Mulberries.
Real men argue about how to prepare real BBQ and know that grilling is not BBQing. KISS.
Hah! From a man who who adds beans to chili.
-
well, you really should see much more of this............
(https://the-drive-3.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2F2020-Chevrolet-Corvette-Stingray-035.jpg%3Fquality%3D85?w=1440&auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.2.1&s=1ebf58a0d9c50e0bbfba62782f16f042)
and much less of this.......
(https://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/full/public/2019/07/19/c8-corvette.jpg)
One of those is the view you see in your rear-view mirror.
Chevy hopes it's the bottom one.
-
Ford hopes it's not the top one
-
I made chili for dinner. No beans, ever. Beans are boring.
-
Ford hopes it's not the top one
This Ford's not worried.
(https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_1280w/public/cars-car/image/2017/05/row_0410_copy.jpg?itok=Ex4H8G5E)
Unfortunately, it costs about five times as much as a Corvette.
-
I made chili for dinner. No beans, ever. Beans are boring.
What color was the chili?
-
and the upcoming ZR1 for 1/3rd the price might cause cornsiderable worry
-
Back when I'd peruse the Craigslist autos section (when my Jeep could and would break down on me at any moment), I'd find these, and really like them.
(https://i.imgur.com/iuLKjWi.jpg)
late 70s Datsun (Nissan) 280Z.
RWD, could peel out like a MFer. They're especially beautiful without the bumpers - they ruin the whole thing.
-
See?
(https://i.imgur.com/okWuMqA.jpg)
-
I love the Z-car. IMO, the first ones--the 240Zs--were the best. No big, heavy bumpers, the engine displacement was just what it should be for the size of the block, the lightest. But even the 280Z was much better than the 280ZX.
-
The relationship between Bose and the Chevrolet Corvette dates back to the C4-generation of the sports car. For the eighth-generation 2020 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, Bose raised the bar to provide drivers with its most-powerful audio system yet.
The audio company said in a release last Thursday that the mid-engine Corvette not only features its most-powerful system ever but it houses the most speakers Bose has ever placed in a two-seat vehicle. It's the 14-speaker Bose Performance Series system, and it's the more premium of the car's two Bose system. Base cars (the 1LT trim) will get a 10-speaker Bose system. Stepping up to the 2LT trim will net the 14-speaker system.
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1124345_2020-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-features-most-speakers-bose-has-ever-packed-into-2-seat-sports-car (https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1124345_2020-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-features-most-speakers-bose-has-ever-packed-into-2-seat-sports-car)
2020 Corvette C8 Stingray Infotainment Walkthrough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXNxNtjXnCM#action=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXNxNtjXnCM#action=share)
-
What color was the chili?
Red. It was good.
I added chopped onions and cheddar cheese on top. The wife said it was borderline too spicy.
-
I agree on the 240Z.
I recall test driving a Porsche 944 and thinking it wasn't very fast. It really wasn't. Nor was the early 240 Z, except for the day they were "quick". They would of course handle better than a contemporary muscle car etc. Still good value for the time. I'm still amazed how fast ordinary cars are today.
https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/datsun-0-60-mph-times/ (https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/datsun-0-60-mph-times/)
DATSUN 240Z 0 TO 60 MPH AND QUARTER MILE TIMES
1970 Datsun 240Z 0-60 mph 8.6 | Quarter mile 16.9
1971 Datsun 240Z (Auto) 0-60 mph 10.2 | Quarter mile 17.3
1971 Datsun 240Z 0-60 mph 9.7 | Quarter mile 17.1
1972 Datsun 240Z 0-60 mph 8.9 | Quarter mile 16.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/1990-1996-nissan-300zx-buyers-guide/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d451502ffeb9a00013b5594&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2k8C0ljuxjcvUQ_bYtl-EUltmdL9qXXaiCkcCLtTDgxufHwqMhnFmGkyo (https://www.motortrend.com/news/1990-1996-nissan-300zx-buyers-guide/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d451502ffeb9a00013b5594&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2k8C0ljuxjcvUQ_bYtl-EUltmdL9qXXaiCkcCLtTDgxufHwqMhnFmGkyo)
This just showed on my FB feed, oddly enough.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/refreshing-revolting-2020-chevrolet-corvette-vs-porsche-911/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d44967c08fd96000181d72d&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2BOIWZ4CYR3HORCKiCz_r0LdAHp9F4YDeYHEv3lZK4-3cuJtdiJyjXuwI (https://www.motortrend.com/news/refreshing-revolting-2020-chevrolet-corvette-vs-porsche-911/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d44967c08fd96000181d72d&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2BOIWZ4CYR3HORCKiCz_r0LdAHp9F4YDeYHEv3lZK4-3cuJtdiJyjXuwI)
To me, a weird stylistic comparison, but I suspect writers are struggling for new "themes" to generate copy about a car they can't drive.
To me, the 911 looks like a 911 of old, even the air cooled versions. The Vette doesn't retain any heritage from say 1963 except it's big and brash.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/1990-1996-nissan-300zx-buyers-guide/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d451502ffeb9a00013b5594&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2k8C0ljuxjcvUQ_bYtl-EUltmdL9qXXaiCkcCLtTDgxufHwqMhnFmGkyo (https://www.motortrend.com/news/1990-1996-nissan-300zx-buyers-guide/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d451502ffeb9a00013b5594&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2k8C0ljuxjcvUQ_bYtl-EUltmdL9qXXaiCkcCLtTDgxufHwqMhnFmGkyo)
This just showed on my FB feed, oddly enough.
When I was in the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering, USMA, in the mid-'90s, the Deputy Head had a 300ZX It was a very nice car.
-
GF in high school had the 240Z. As you say it was quick and fun to drive. I had the 70 Nova SS, big and brash
Japanese cars were mostly frowned upon here in Iowa back in 1980, but the gas crisis was in full effect. gasoline had just topped $1.00/gallon, so the Japanese cars were coming
-
This Ford's not worried.
[img width=500 height=280.99]https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_1280w/public/cars-car/image/2017/05/row_0410_copy.jpg?itok=Ex4H8G5E[/img]
Unfortunately, it costs about five times as much as a Corvette.
So does this - HorsePower Baby
(https://i.imgur.com/jkoMMuS.png)
-
I had a '73 Nova with the F41 and 350. I think it was 8.5 seconds 0-60, slower than my Chevy Sonic. The smog thing was biting, it had an AIR pump that pulled out 10 hp, which is a lot to drive a pump. I wanted to cut the belt off but was never sure what bad thing might happen. I should have just loosened and removed the belt and tried it out with no AIR pump.
That car would get 18 mpg on the highway at "55" mph. Or so. Three speed turbohydramatic.
It was a Camaro with a more functional less stylish body on it.
The late 70's were really a nadir for horsepower in cars.
-
For a point of reference, here is the Nissan 300ZX of 1990-96. It looked even better in person, I thought. Futuristic, sleek, and functional.
(https://enthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/5/2015/04/1990-1996-Nissan-300ZX-front-three-quarter.jpg?impolicy=entryimage)
Anything like this coming out of Japan these days?
KIA (which is Korean) has some nice looking cars on the road.
-
I had a '73 Nova with the F41 and 350. I think it was 8.5 seconds 0-60, slower than my Chevy Sonic. The smog thing was biting, it had an AIR pump that pulled out 10 hp, which is a lot to drive a pump. I wanted to cut the belt off but was never sure what bad thing might happen. I should have just loosened and removed the belt and tried it out with no AIR pump.
That car would get 18 mpg on the highway at "55" mph. Or so. Three speed turbohydramatic.
It was a Camaro with a more functional less stylish body on it.
The late 70's were really a nadir for horsepower in cars.
When Ford re-introduced the 302 V8 to the Mustang II in 1975, it put out a mighty 140 net hp.
-
I think the fastest car produced by the Big 3 in 1975 was a Chevy Suburban, because the trucks didn't have as much pollution stuff on them. I recall that from somewhere, it was faster than a 'Vette.
A 1977 Corvette had a 0-60 time of 8.7 seconds, the 1982 was 9.1 seconds.
-
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25426109/how-to-corner-on-racetrack/?src=socialflowFBRAT&fbclid=IwAR1vrk2ucGtoG7oAxSwLgCJkQ_YYUExkLeuIyIkR9_ZjIPZ9l2Qc6q8JRRU (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25426109/how-to-corner-on-racetrack/?src=socialflowFBRAT&fbclid=IwAR1vrk2ucGtoG7oAxSwLgCJkQ_YYUExkLeuIyIkR9_ZjIPZ9l2Qc6q8JRRU)
Nice video about cornering by race car drivers.
"The corner starts as soon as you brake."
Neat quote.
-
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25426109/how-to-corner-on-racetrack/?src=socialflowFBRAT&fbclid=IwAR1vrk2ucGtoG7oAxSwLgCJkQ_YYUExkLeuIyIkR9_ZjIPZ9l2Qc6q8JRRU (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25426109/how-to-corner-on-racetrack/?src=socialflowFBRAT&fbclid=IwAR1vrk2ucGtoG7oAxSwLgCJkQ_YYUExkLeuIyIkR9_ZjIPZ9l2Qc6q8JRRU)
Nice video about cornering by race car drivers.
"The corner starts as soon as you brake."
Neat quote.
Cool video.
The quote reminds me of another one, by the late, great Mark Donohue:
If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough horsepower.
-
(https://cdn.blessthisstuff.com/imagens/stuff/img_1949_delahaye_roadster.jpg)
1949 Delahaye Type S Roadster.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Ferrari-250-GT-Berlinetta-1.jpg)
Ferrari 250 GT Berlinetta SWB, 1961. Form follows function perfectly here.
Ferraris should be RED.
-
How about a sports boat?
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/fa/be/a1/fabea1624135f277d3f556736ede27d4.jpg)
-
Or this fabulous Bug-Atti?
(https://carsandmotor.carsgui.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bug-atti-volkswagonclassiccars.jpg)
-
not as busy as the 2020 C8 but not sleek and simple
the 2020 BMW M4
(https://da4dkroembtou.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BMW-M4-CS-01-San-Marino-Blue-metallic-1024x683.jpg)
-
No, not as busy as the new Corvette.
But busy, especially with the grilles and headlights. Not as bad as some BMWs I've seen lately, though.
I think BMW is going the wrong direction. Maybe it's one of the Euro cars to which Utee was referring back upthread a ways. I think Mercedes-Benz has somewhat the better of BMW in their current styling trends. I don't like the blacked-out-window treatment aft of the doors, though, while BMW does a good job there.
(https://assets.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/FutureModels/Responsive/2019-AMG-E53-Coupe/2019-E53-AMG-COUPE-FUTURE-HIGHLIGHTS_01-D.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bqw0zpN.png)
I like the shape of these, considering you could get one brand new with the V6 engine for $30 K decked out. Not a sports car and FWD but nice looking.
I don't think they make them now and they dropped the V6.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/mstUEhJ.png)
Apparently sold for $700,000, as is.
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/1961-maserati-5000-gt-barn-find-restoration-project-auction/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d479bcbffeb9a00013b7d26&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2dQ4wEBLFfZzClVg7q8ZjXsB6_PT70hZ7urAdUE3ULbT8htZ8p1yccMqc (https://www.automobilemag.com/news/1961-maserati-5000-gt-barn-find-restoration-project-auction/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d479bcbffeb9a00013b7d26&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2dQ4wEBLFfZzClVg7q8ZjXsB6_PT70hZ7urAdUE3ULbT8htZ8p1yccMqc)
-
Coming soon, a hybrid Ferrari to boot (ha, boot):
(https://i.imgur.com/XSJpMhm.png)
This is called a "shooting brake" by some in terms of design. I like the blue color.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a23300134/ferrari-hybrid-crossover-confirmed/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_medium=social-media&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&fbclid=IwAR1GaJlvBNcmim4vG9fjCVn2bM6Crok5LR01NiNadYw4W9QZx3Mmc6IZYO8 (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a23300134/ferrari-hybrid-crossover-confirmed/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_medium=social-media&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&fbclid=IwAR1GaJlvBNcmim4vG9fjCVn2bM6Crok5LR01NiNadYw4W9QZx3Mmc6IZYO8)
-
The hybrid portion of this Ferrari isn't all that surprising, they've invested hundreds of millions of dollars into hybrid R&D over the past decade due to the current Formula 1 engine design formula and specs.
What's surprising is that they made a crossover. I really dislike the looks of the crossover vehicles in general, this Ferrari included. It's really, REALLY ugly.
-
What's surprising is that they made a hybrid. I really dislike the looks of the crossover vehicles in general, this Ferrari included. It's really, REALLY ugly.
How does this even classify as a crossover?
- A crossover is basically car chassis with SUV-styled body. Typically that retains higher ground clearance and a higher seating position.
- A hatchback is a car body with a big trunk and a "5th door" that opens to a larger cargo area. It retains sedan or coupe ground clearance / seating position.
This ain't a damn crossover. It's a hatchback.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting-brake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting-brake)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting-brake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting-brake)
After reading that, I'm perfectly fine with calling it a "shooting brake". That seems to fit perfectly based on some of the other examples in the Wiki article.
But it's not a crossover.
-
The hybrid portion of this Ferrari isn't all that surprising, they've invested hundreds of millions of dollars into hybrid R&D over the past decade due to the current Formula 1 engine design formula and specs.
What's surprising is that they made a hybrid. I really dislike the looks of the crossover vehicles in general, this Ferrari included. It's really, REALLY ugly.
Well, we've settled that it's a shooting brake rather than a crossover.
But I'm curious about what you think is ugly about it, Utee.
I don't like the bulged and flared rear fenders, which are much wilder than the front fenders, nor do I like the extreme "coke-bottle" treatment of the lower mid-section.
But I think that is fine forward of the firewall. t would look pretty good if Ferrari had treated everything aft of the A-pillar more or less like Vovo did on the C30 below, except stretched out as a 4-door and given just a hint (about 10% of what it actually has) of the "coke-bottle" rocker panels and the bulked-up rear-fender treatment.
(https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/xl/usc10voc201b021001.png)
Not many car stylists go for understatement. This is pretty wild if you think of Volvo up to ca. 2010.
BTW, my esposita drives a C30. It's a pretty sporty little car to drive, and the forward view is very expansive, especially when compared to my Mustang. It reminds me a little of the view from a TH-55.
(https://www.struck.us/HelosFlown/TH-55v2.jpg)
-
I have always thought that the 2nd-generation GM F-bodies were very good-looking cars. These are both 1970 models. At the time, they were considered to look a little Ferrari-esque.
I particularly like the Camaro with the split-bumper (was that the "RS" option?) front end treatment.
(https://www.speednik.com/files/2015/10/2015-10-19_03-15-27.jpg)
The Firebird in its Trans Am version was just a tad over the top, IMO. It would get much more so in coming years with the "screaming chicken" decal that covered the hood.
(https://ccmarketplace.azureedge.net/cc-temp/listing/118/4908/15216730-1970-pontiac-firebird-trans-am-std.jpg)
Incidentally, Ford originally was going to name the Boss 302 the Trans Am, but Pontiac beat them to it. Interestingly, while Mustang won two Trans Am championships, the latter one with Parnelli Jones in the 1970 Boss 302, the Firebird was never a serious competitor in the series. Because Pontiac didn't have a small-block V8 suitable for racing, the Firebird was stuck with the big-block cast-iron Pontiac motor de-stroked to 303 c.i.d. to meet the 5-liter engine-size limit. That big iron block up front didn't go anything good for the Firebird's handling.
I think these two cars represent the pinnacle of GM pony car styling.
-
CWS-- I really intensely dislike the flared rear fenders you pointed out. I also dislike the low station-wagon-like look of the long rear. I don't mind that longer enclosed rear on a true SUV, because the higher ride in general, plus the taller windows, look more natural to me. I don't like the Volvo you posted, either.
It's nothing particular to crossovers, I've never liked station wagons or the longer hatchbacks, either. They all appear quite ugly to me.
Now, I do quite like the Camaro and Pontiac you posted. And I also like the "screaming chicken" Trans Am of the late 70s.
-
I have always thought that the 2nd-generation GM F-bodies were very good-looking cars. These are both 1970 models. At the time, they were considered to look a little Ferrari-esque.
I particularly like the Camaro with the split-bumper (was that the "RS" option?) front end treatment.
I don't see anything that would be functional as a bumper on either car
-
Pontiacs of that era had a body-color bumper made of a composite called "Endura." That area around the split grille was what functioned as a bumper. Normal Camaros had a chromed steel bumper all across the front, but the RS (?) version had an Endura bumper wrapping around the grill and the two chrome-steel bumper-ettes.
-
CWS-- I really intensely dislike the flared rear fenders you pointed out. I also dislike the low station-wagon-like look of the long rear. I don't mind that longer enclosed rear on a true SUV, because the higher ride in general, plus the taller windows, look more natural to me. I don't like the Volvo you posted, either.
It's nothing particular to crossovers, I've never liked station wagons or the longer hatchbacks, either. They all appear quite ugly to me.
Now, I do quite like the Camaro and Pontiac you posted. And I also like the "screaming chicken" Trans Am of the late 70s.
OK.
What about fastbacks?
Which old Mustang strikes your fancy more (or less)?
Coupe?
(https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/1P0A6217-940x627.jpg)
Or fastback?
(https://revologycars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/revology-mustanggt-fastback-66-13.jpg)
On the subject of Mustang styling, I think this first generation of the car had the best styling. I had a '67 in the '70s, and thought at the time that it was an improvement over the first ones, but I have changed my mind since then. These were the best-ever, I think.
-
It's nothing particular to crossovers, I've never liked station wagons or the longer hatchbacks, either. They all appear quite ugly to me.
Oh, are you trying to claim that this isn't just one dead sexy vehicle?
(https://i.imgur.com/BubyHAd.png)
-
OK.
What about fastbacks?
Which old Mustang strikes your fancy more (or less)?
Coupe?
(https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/1P0A6217-940x627.jpg)
Or fastback?
(https://revologycars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/revology-mustanggt-fastback-66-13.jpg)
On the subject of Mustang styling, I think this first generation of the car had the best styling. I had a '67 in the '70s, and thought at the time that it was an improvement over the first ones, but I have changed my mind since then. These were the best-ever, I think.
Convertibles are my favorite, then the coupe. I like the fastbacks alright, but they're definitely #3 on the list.
We've had several discussions on Mustangs over the year but you might not recall, my dream car is a 1965 Mustang convertible 289. 66 would do, as well. As you mention, 67 on up had differences in styling that are less appealing IMO-- particularly, the bodies got a little bigger and wider and just clunkier looking and although I still like them and would happily drive one, it's not my dream car.
-
Oh, are you trying to claim that this isn't just one dead sexy vehicle?
(https://i.imgur.com/BubyHAd.png)
Are you tooling me here? :) Looks like a small Euro version of a box van. So no, it does not particularly appeal to me. What is it, anyway?
-
Always liked the fastbacks--probably consistent with my preference for the first generation Camaro over the Mustang of the same era. I'm also a sucker for '67-'68 Barracudas (I know '69 is supposedly the same style, but it doesn't look the same to me), but particularly the notchbacks. It and the Camaro are a bit of a hybrid between the coupe and the fastback.
(https://i.imgur.com/Qew8LFM.png)
-
Mustangs are my favorite of the era, but I also really like the Camaros. Specifically the 1968 Camaro SS. In high school in the late 80s, a friend of mine had one very similar to the below. For some reason, he was very popular with the ladies...
(https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/streetside/3/13534/275951/1920x1440/1968-chevrolet-camaro-ss-396)
-
WHooo-wah,nice
-
Convertibles are my favorite, then the coupe. I like the fastbacks alright, but they're definitely #3 on the list.
We've had several discussions on Mustangs over the year but you might not recall, my dream car is a 1965 Mustang convertible 289. 66 would do, as well. As you mention, 67 on up had differences in styling that are less appealing IMO-- particularly, the bodies got a little bigger and wider and just clunkier looking and although I still like them and would happily drive one, it's not my dream car.
Yes, I remember your dream car being a '65 Mustang convertible. Did you have a favorite color?
The fact that you like the coupe better than the fastback ("2+2") seems consistent with your dislike of the styling of Volvo C30 and, by extension, station wagons in general.
Remember the 1st-generation Ford Taurus? It was a big breakthrough for Ford in the way that the K-Cars were for Chrysler a decade or so earlier. The hot version was the SHO.
There was a sort of cottage industry of converting 1st-gen Taurus wagons and/or SHO sedans into "SHO Wagons."
Like this. Which you would not like.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--GeiEOSTf--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_1600/18nd4ahp3u55ljpg.jpg)
Car and Driver tested a conversion and gave it rave reviews.
I guess you would not be a fan of this sporty Volvo 1800E.
(https://d32c3oe4bky4k6.cloudfront.net/articles-videos/-/media/uscamediasite/images/story-images/2018/02/volvo-wagon(8).ashx?modified=20180213181359&mw=1440&hash=483C111283743168CCE8977CDB710DB90271562B)
I had a fraternity brother who had a similar car. I thought it was pretty cool. OTOH, I thought that the similarly proprtioned (albeit smaller) MGB-GT was ugly. Sometimes, there's just no accounting for taste.
-
MY desired color.... uhhh, you'll get a kick out of this-- red. But not Sooner red goldernit! :) Something like this would do nicely:
(https://cdn3.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dftwh/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1965-Mustang1-520x390.jpg)
As for the Volvo wagon, it's got vintage charm that's for sure. I suppose if someone forced me to drive a wagon, that would be a tolerable choice.
A friend in college had one of those early Taurus SHOs and although it was just a plain looking sedan, it was definitely a surprisingly good performer. I had no idea folks were making SHO wagons but I can see it.
-
Station wagons are quite practical IMHO. Americans don't like them of course.
-
Heh!
That looks like a Husker RED Mustang. Fearless would probably like it.
Really, one can seldom go wrong with red when sports/sporty cars are concerned, from Bugeye Sprite to Ferrari Testarossa.
-
Station wagons are quite practical IMHO. Americans don't like them of course.
Between my 2nd-gen Taurus SHO and my 2012 Mustang, I had a Volvo V40 wagon. It ran surprisingly well, and it was extremely practical. I have nothing negative to say about it.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.skandix.de%2Feimg%2F2000218.jpg&hash=0d2a08807498af0d5349abbe044d53a0)
It was red, like Utee's dream '65 Mustang.
-
Station wagons are quite practical IMHO. Americans don't like them of course.
There are lots of practical things that I don't like. "Fun" and "practical" often don't intersect 'tall.
I don't like minivans either. I think they look dumpy. A large portion of my friends that had kids before me insisted I'd someday break down and get one because they're so practical with respect to hauling kids around. They were wrong, I've never broken down and gotten one, and I never will. For me, SUVs are almost as practical on the day to day stuff, plus minivans aren't capable of towing the items I wish to tow, so they're not really a very practical choice for me, after all.
-
Are you tooling me here? :) Looks like a small Euro version of a box van. So no, it does not particularly appeal to me. What is it, anyway?
It's a Ford Flex. (What I drive, actually).
You said you don't like station wagons, and that's kinda what this classifies as to me.
It somewhat defies categorization, though. I don't consider it a crossover, because while it's somewhat boxy it doesn't have the lifted SUV look. I consider it a station wagon, but the only common station wagons you see any more are Euro, and this doesn't look anything like that. It's massive.
Oddly, they tend to be most popular here in California, because to a lot of people they harken back to the design cues of the old Woody:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q5Cc96p.jpg)
-
It's a Ford Flex. (What I drive, actually).
You said you don't like station wagons, and that's kinda what this classifies as to me.
It somewhat defies categorization, though. I don't consider it a crossover, because while it's somewhat boxy it doesn't have the lifted SUV look. I consider it a station wagon, but the only common station wagons you see any more are Euro, and this doesn't look anything like that. It's massive.
Oddly, they tend to be most popular here in California, because to a lot of people they harken back to the design cues of the old Woody:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q5Cc96p.jpg)
Ah, well then hopefully I wasn't too insulting about it! :)
Yeah, definitely more of a small SUV/station wagon look, than a crossover.
-
For nostalgia, few things beat an old Woodie.
But in retrospect, it's hard to see why they continued to be made long after the days when automobile "coachwork" was made of wood, and even well into the 1960s, with the wood replaced by plastic, or even by wood-grained vinyl sheeting outlined in chrome.
And they weren't all station wagons. Here's a 1940s Nash Suburban sedan that looks very nice.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Nash_Suburban_4-door_sedan_woodie_at_AACA_show_left_side.jpg)
And there's this, from the Font of All Wisdom and Knowledge: "In 2008, wood construction was evoked abstractly on the Ford Flex with a series of side and rear horizontal grooves."
-
that is a Husker Red Mustang
very nice
-
Yes. It just needed a big "N" on the hood.
-
Ewwww
-
Toyota Supra is a next-generation testament to classic sports car design
https://www.wallpaper.com/lifestyle/toyota-supra-design-review (https://www.wallpaper.com/lifestyle/toyota-supra-design-review)
(https://cdn.wallpaper.com/main/styles/responsive_1680w_scale/s3/g_supra-2019-yellow_7.jpg)
-
Toyota Supra is a next-generation testament to classic sports car design
https://www.wallpaper.com/lifestyle/toyota-supra-design-review (https://www.wallpaper.com/lifestyle/toyota-supra-design-review)
But will it come with a manual?
-
https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/supra (https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/supra)
No manual available. One might come later, perhaps with a lower performance version having a 4 cyl.
-
the automobile and especially the sports car has evolved past manual trannies
-
Yes, manuals are disappearing rapidly. I figure my car has a great antitheft device. We go to a nearby French restaurant a couple time a month and the Indian dude they have parking cars can't drive a manual. He just waves me in when I show up in our GTI and grins. He keeps saying he's going to learn. Not on my car.
I suspect the torque converter will also disappear in 10 years or so.
-
Yes, manuals are disappearing rapidly. I figure my car has a great antitheft device. We go to a nearby French restaurant a couple time a month and the Indian dude they have parking cars can't drive a manual. He just waves me in when I show up in our GTI and grins. He keeps saying he's going to learn. Not on my car.
I suspect the torque converter will also disappear in 10 years or so.
Are there auto trannies without torque converters?
-
the automobile and especially the sports car has evolved past manual trannies
I want the car in the gear I select, not the gear it selects.
-
Are there auto trannies without torque converters?
Yes, both dual clutch and CVTs.
https://www.autonews.com/article/20151207/OEM06/312079988/once-promising-dual-clutch-transmissions-lose-favor-in-u-s
(https://www.autonews.com/article/20151207/OEM06/312079988/once-promising-dual-clutch-transmissions-lose-favor-in-u-s)Some DCTs do have them to smooth transitions though.
https://www.nap.edu/read/21744/chapter/7#175
(https://www.nap.edu/read/21744/chapter/7#175)
-
I want the car in the gear I select, not the gear it selects.
Automatics with flappy paddles approximate this if you want to shift manually. And today this is faster and more fuel efficient usually.
-
Automatics with flappy paddles approximate this if you want to shift manually. And today this is faster and more fuel efficient usually.
I think that might be acceptable on a sports car, of course. Especially a "high-end" sports car measured more by lap times than smiles. I still like a clutch, but I realize it's not the optimal solution on a performance car which is designed to be optimal.
For non-performance cars, none yet have paddle shift that is any good, as far as I'm aware.
-
Automatics with flappy paddles approximate this if you want to shift manually. And today this is faster and more fuel efficient usually.
My wife's Volvo C30 has an automatic with a "manual" mode. From "D," you push the stick into a detent on the right, then it's push forward to shift up and pull back to shift down. Or vice-versa--I forget.
I've tried it in manual mode several times, but my muscles want to treat it like a manual transmission. My left foot goes for the nonexistent clutch pedal, and my right hand wants to stir the shifter like it's a 6-speed. Because I have to actually think of what I need to do, it's not much fun.
I suppose that if I drove it all the time, I might get used to it. But, as I said, it's my wife's car.
If I hadn't gotten my Mustang, I might have gotten a C30 "R-Design," which had a 5-speed manual.
-
I've tried it in manual mode several times, but my muscles want to treat it like a manual transmission. My left foot goes for the nonexistent clutch pedal, and my right hand wants to stir the shifter like it's a 6-speed. Because I have to actually think of what I need to do, it's not much fun.
I suppose that if I drove it all the time, I might get used to it.
I do foresee this with the quasi-manual shifting. Unless I'm going to use it constantly, it's not much use at all.
My ex had this in her Volkswagen Passat years ago. The only time I ever used it was on a twisty mountain road, because it's one of those things that sometimes when you're in the middle of a corner you want to hold a gear even after coming off the throttle rather than the automatic up-shifting and then needing to down-shift once you get back on it. But it didn't feel "natural" to use it, because I didn't use it any other time.
That's obviously not the case if you use these systems constantly. And it's obviously not the case when you have a clutch and a gear lever, because you're forced to use it all the time.
But I think it would be hard to get used to, because I'd get lazy with it in daily-driving tasks and just drive in auto mode, and thus then wouldn't be prepared to use it when I was in "fun mode".
-
The Wife's CTS had flappy paddles. I viewed them as a gimmick until I started using them. Granted, I usually drove it in D, but it was kind of fun to drive in M from time to time. In the mountains it was very convenient, and I'd down shift at other times one notch or two to engine brake a bit. That wasn't really a performance car, it weight nearly 4,000 pounds and had a 4 cylinder engine. It would hit 60 mph in the low 6 second range. The transmission had a torque converter, GM has until recently shied away from the DCTs.
One nice thing when you switched to M the dashboard would change and give you the gear you were in in the HUD and between the speedo and tach.
I doubt many people pay any attention to the tach these days.
-
I doubt many people pay any attention to the tach these days.
Another "fun" story about my ex... I had just returned from a business trip, and was going to a homebrew club meeting that night, and I get a frantic call from her that her car is overheating. Every time she got on the throttle, it would start to overheat, and then when she got off, it would stop...
...because she was looking at the tach.
Life would have been a lot simpler if I'd just divorced her then...
-
hindsight
-
A real woodie.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e0/25/5c/e0255ce11260c0bb90ebff035e7da027.jpg)
-
looks like a boat
I imagine it will float
-
Evolution of the Porsche 911.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e7/d1/85/e7d185086bc694fd99d6cfa73a10a9d3.jpg)
-
Evolution of the Porsche 911.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e7/d1/85/e7d185086bc694fd99d6cfa73a10a9d3.jpg)
We're a much fatter populace now.
-
big and brash
-
Yeah, it's amazing how models have fattened up over the year, like the Accord and Civic.
I was perusing the groceries at Kroger the other day and musing about how much stuff is processed instead of just food. I'm not against processed food overall, but it tends to contain a lot of salt, sugar, and fat. We just don't buy regular good much any more and then PREPARE it, and I don't mean microwaving it.
And the aisles for candy and chips and snacks take up half the store, not to mention desserts. I need to sit a while and think about it.
-
I like both the old, and new, 911.
-
I'd take one of both if offered
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/07/fc/3307fc7491e3638230a7ad9081f3b8b1.jpg)
This is a ca. 2014 Mercedes-based concept car, the Gullwing America GWA 300 SLC, harkening back to the 1955 Mercedes-Benz 300 SC (W198). I like all of it except the headlight treatment.
I don't know if any of these were built. None of the images I've seen have a human being in the frame, so it could all be GCI.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/07/fc/3307fc7491e3638230a7ad9081f3b8b1.jpg)
so it could all be GCI.
We all have to actually be wary of this now, of pictures of anything and anyone, including videos. Sigh.
-
(https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1935_Duesenberg_ModelSJMormonMeteorSpeedster1.jpg)
1935 Duesenberg Model SJ Mormon Meteor Speedster. It was a doozie!
-
Had one traded it for a '87 Yugo
-
Had one traded it for a '87 Yugo
Hey, the Yugo was 52 years newer, so you got a real steal.
Didn't you feel bad after palming off the Duesenberg on the poor sap who didn't know any better?
-
I was sitting outside a store (ladies were shopping) in a rocking chair during my HH trip this past week. This 60s something gent, probably mildly overweight, labored getting out of his 911 Carrera S (convertible). I only said to him, do you enjoy the car? He said (almost verbatim) "I should just live in the ###### thing, did you see how long it takes me to get out of it".
I did notice it is indeed a fairly wide car. So that guy dropped $125k whatever just to get stuck in his seat. Now that guy should be going with the Cayenne.
-
The "point" of a sports car I think is to put a smile on your face when you drive it. Open air, noisy, manual transmission, maybe not incredibly fast, able to corner well, "fun to drive", perhaps cool looking. Folks by what in effect are "super cars" which they can't tap in their capabilities outside a track, which they never do often as not.
So, your Carrera 4 is a nice status symbol, but you're driving it at 4/10ths of its capabilities, if that. The most many do with such a car is hammer it away from a stop sign or perhaps push it a bit in a cloverleaf. The GTI has a g-meter in it and it's surprising what 0.5 gs feels like in a corner. Imagine reaching 1 g, on any regular street. (The GTI won't hold 1 g on a skid pad, 0.89 on all season tires.)
The C8 Vette is the same, where are you going to drive it "hard"? And we don't even have the Z06 yet.
If you can fit in a Miata, I bet it's more fun to drive than a Ferrari 458 for most of us, certainly for me.
-
hah, I don't drive my 2015 Silverado pickup to 9/10ths of it's capability 99% of the time.
but, it's not that fun to drive
-
1) Honest question: why hasn't the Dodge Viper received more love?
2) And while speaking of Dodge, what about the Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000. I remember when that thing was first released, it seemed like it offered an awful lot at a reasonable price point--and for the time, it was pretty cool looking.
3) Re that Mercedes 300 concept car, it kind of reminds me of the Plymouth Prowler, Chevy SSR, and the Ford Thunderbird of the early aughts, in the sense of trying to evoke a particular throwback that could find enough people who like the idea in the design room to get it to production, only to find out that the market for it is pretty limited. (Also, I love the 1955 version, but this one doesn't do much for me.)
Having said that, the throwback styling of the Mustang, Camaro, and the Challenger have done very well (and deservedly so). Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Germans would be a little offended to have anything of theirs compared to Plymouth, Chevy, and Ford.
-
The Viper was a bit "crude". Some versions had a huge amount of heat coming into the passenger foot wells.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1b/7c/8d/1b7c8db89ea3b3a5dd274a03b7650eed.jpg)
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1b/7c/8d/1b7c8db89ea3b3a5dd274a03b7650eed.jpg)
Beautiful car. Also perhaps my favorite Rush song of all time.
-
Badger RED
-
Yeah I looked but "burnt orange barchetta" doesn't seem to be a very common thing...
-
1) Honest question: why hasn't the Dodge Viper received more love?
2) And while speaking of Dodge, what about the Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000. I remember when that thing was first released, it seemed like it offered an awful lot at a reasonable price point--and for the time, it was pretty cool looking.
3) Re that Mercedes 300 concept car, it kind of reminds me of the Plymouth Prowler, Chevy SSR, and the Ford Thunderbird of the early aughts, in the sense of trying to evoke a particular throwback that could find enough people who like the idea in the design room to get it to production, only to find out that the market for it is pretty limited. (Also, I love the 1955 version, but this one doesn't do much for me.)
Having said that, the throwback styling of the Mustang, Camaro, and the Challenger have done very well (and deservedly so). Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Germans would be a little offended to have anything of theirs compared to Plymouth, Chevy, and Ford.
1) I think the Viper was unrefined. Without history, it never really captured a niche. People in the same price point bought Corvettes because of their history, people in higher price points bought Ferraris. I think the Viper basically captured the "Jersey shore" type of buyer, and then because of that, it ended up working against them.
2) I don't know why they didn't do better. I think they sported some amazing technology for the price. One downside is that the lesser trims were FWD, and slow. So I don't know if maybe the low-end trims damaged the "brand" of the car? But I thought they were really cool at the time.
Re: the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger, I like the first two. The Challenger just seems big and bulky for no apparent reason. I suppose I just was always more into the "pony car" era than the "muscle car" era, but the Challenger is just too big.
-
burnt orange doesn't seem to be a very common thing...
lucky for the Sooners and Huskers among us
-
1) I think the Viper was unrefined. Without history, it never really captured a niche. People in the same price point bought Corvettes because of their history, people in higher price points bought Ferraris. I think the Viper basically captured the "Jersey shore" type of buyer, and then because of that, it ended up working against them.
2) I don't know why they didn't do better. I think they sported some amazing technology for the price. One downside is that the lesser trims were FWD, and slow. So I don't know if maybe the low-end trims damaged the "brand" of the car? But I thought they were really cool at the time.
Re: the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger, I like the first two. The Challenger just seems big and bulky for no apparent reason. I suppose I just was always more into the "pony car" era than the "muscle car" era, but the Challenger is just too big.
Re #1, I wonder how much the Viper had competition from manufactured Cobra replicas.
On the Challenger, yes, it is bigger, bulkier, and heavier than you would think it ought to be.
It has always been a larger car than the Mustang and Camaro. It came out in 1970 with a 110" wheelbase, compared to the 108" wheelbases of the Mustang and Camaro. Mustang went to a 109" wheelbase for 1971-73, and that car looks much larger than previous versions.
The current Challenger has an incredibly long 116" wheelbase (same as a 1977 4-door Chevy Caprice), while the current Mustang is at 107.1 inches and the current Camaro is at 110.7 inches.
Why this is I do not know. But it is worth noting that the old Trans-Am racing series was dominated by Mustangs and Camaros. Neither the Challenger nor its Plymouth-equivalent Barracuda ever did much, despite Dan Gurney campaigning Barracudas as part of his All American Racing (AAR) team.
-
A friend of mine bought a Mitsubishi 3000GT for himself after finishing college (and after landing a good-paying job of course). I always thought it was fun to drive, but it definitely didn't ever seem to really catch on in the market. Like many other things, there seems to be a small but devoted internet following, dedicated to restoring and modifying them.
His was just like this one, a red 1995 3000GT VR4 with the "aero package" and twin turbos.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fastcoolcars.com%2Fimages%2F95-3000gtvr4%2F95-vr4-tt-02.jpg&hash=bec51bb5bbf2cfae74b6ebe1e989a7f1)
-
Husker RED
-
I wonder if the Stealth/3000GT runs into the problem of sports cars being in some senses a Veblen Good (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/veblen-good.asp).
Veblen Goods are goods that become MORE desirable the more expensive they are, because the ability to afford one is a status symbol. I.e. a Cartier bracelet, a Rolex watch, etc.
"Ooh, an affordable, high performance, sports car?"
Why would I want one of those? Just about anyone can buy one!
-
The brand may have hurt the image as well. Mitsu just doesn't do much for the hormones.
-
been working for the Mustang and the Vette for decades
-
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--HuxGCH6i--/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/drrxg89uercu0ndhw4vr.jpg)
1935 Auburn Boat-Tail Speedster
-
War Eagle!!!
-
been working for the Mustang and the Vette for decades
History. You can't just fake it. The Mustang and the Vette weren't purchased for their technology, they were purchased because they were Mustangs and Corvettes.
The Stealth/3000GT had no history. So it had to succeed or fail on its own merits.
After we started this discussion, I started doing some reading, and one of the article was a comparison between a Nissan 300ZX and the Stealth Twin Turbo. Nissan has history. The 300ZX was the latest iteration of a platform that had been around since the Datsun days. The Stealth/3000GT was not.
Nostalgia is a powerful thing.
-
What are you talking about? The Chrsyler Laser/Dodge Daytona had TONS of history...
Just kidding. But I did like my 86 Laser XT Turbo. Chicks dug it, too.
-
Sure, but in 1964 there was no nostalgia for the Mustang, but it sold.
In 1954 there was no nostalgia for the Corvette--and the car went through a dramatic change in the 1960s, but remains the thing of dreams. Same for the Thunderbird, except that Ford's direction ended up killing that car.
It's curious what makes these things catch on.
The Jeep Cherokee caught on in a big way and changed the auto industry. The Prius, too.
Other cars of the late 80s/early 90s that were fun: the Pontiac Fiero died a quick death, despite out-selling the Toyota MR2, which lingered past its wearout date, but the Mazda Miata keeps going...
-
Sure, but in 1964 there was no nostalgia for the Mustang, but it sold.
In 1954 there was no nostalgia for the Corvette--and the car went through a dramatic change in the 1960s, but remains the thing of dreams. Same for the Thunderbird, except that Ford's direction ended up killing that car.
It's curious what makes these things catch on.
The Jeep Cherokee caught on in a big way and changed the auto industry. The Prius, too.
Other cars of the late 80s/early 90s that were fun: the Pontiac Fiero died a quick death, despite out-selling the Toyota MR2, which lingered past its wearout date, but the Mazda Miata keeps going...
I think there are "golden eras" to certain things. The conditions are just right, inertia builds to a head, and a product or idea-- or sport-- captures the public's attention in a way that it didn't before, and that it might not ever again.
I think the "golden era" for cars is past. That's not to say that great cars aren't being made or can't be made, it's just that the general public's ability to fall in love with a car, is more limited now, than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. There are a lot of reasons for that. There's more diversity in the marketplace now than ever before, more niche products that satisfy niche consumers. But that diversity also means there are fewer people available to fall in love with just ONE car, or just ONE classification of cars.
I also think that the love people feel for cars in general, has waned. They were once a symbol of freedom and hope for a better life. Especially sports cars and pony cars-- these played directly into the idea of the "open range." But people have a more cynical and jaded view of cars now. Many curse them for using precious resources frivolously. Many believe they should not be fun, but take a more utilitarian view. Gas isn't cheap anymore, oil is a finite resource, space is becoming more limited, and the idea of the single-driver car is being attacked from multiple sides now.
All of that to say, I think the "golden era" of the auto is past. We're not going to see automobiles capture a wide portion of the public's opinion in such an optimistic and breathtaking way. You bring up the Cherokee and the Prius, which are both disruptive to be certain, but they did so based on their function, their utility-- not because they captured the imagination of drivers across the globe.
Just my $0.02 anyway. I have similar views (but for different reasons of course) on the golden era of college football, and why the teams that rose to prominence in that era are still the helmets of today-- even if they struggle for decades-- and breaking into the helmets is extremely difficult and rare.
-
gas is cheap
$2.26 per gallon at my pump
I'm guessing that even in the 70s when it was $0.49 it was relatively more expensive
-
2.38 in N.E.Ohio
-
What are you talking about? The Chrsyler Laser/Dodge Daytona had TONS of history...
Just kidding. But I did like my 86 Laser XT Turbo. Chicks dug it, too.
Maybe I am misperceiving what you're saying, but, in case I'm not, the Chrysler Laser/Dodge Daytona were not the same thing as the Mitsubishi 3000GT.
-
remember the 28 cents state of Ohio tax and the Fed of $0.184
30.5 cents state tax in Iowa
taxes certainly were not as high in 1975
-
Maybe I am misperceiving what you're saying, but, in case I'm not, the Chrysler Laser/Dodge Daytona were not the same thing as the Mitsubishi 3000GT.
Just bringing up other cars from the same parent companies with no history, C-Dubb. I can see how it appears non-sequitur. It was also meant to be a frivolous remark, but now that we're deep-diving it, any potential humor at all has been completely sucked out of it.... ;)
-
Anyway, this is the Laser I had. Black 1986 Chrysler Laser XT Turbo. Mine had a black leather interior, not tan. And it did not have rear louvers but had complete black-out window tint everywhere except the windshield. It was fairly quick by mid 80s American standards, but would be a complete dog these days:
(https://barnfinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/00I0I_bWzesDbwwJ8_1200x900-e1532493711143.jpg)
(https://barnfinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/00H0H_ecyvqedemJx_1200x900-e1532493739386-630x390.jpg)
-
Sure, but in 1964 there was no nostalgia for the Mustang, but it sold.
In 1954 there was no nostalgia for the Corvette--and the car went through a dramatic change in the 1960s, but remains the thing of dreams. Same for the Thunderbird, except that Ford's direction ended up killing that car.
It's curious what makes these things catch on.
The Jeep Cherokee caught on in a big way and changed the auto industry. The Prius, too.
Other cars of the late 80s/early 90s that were fun: the Pontiac Fiero died a quick death, despite out-selling the Toyota MR2, which lingered past its wearout date, but the Mazda Miata keeps going...
The Thunderbird--which was to some extent a response to the very unimpressive (6-cylinder, 2-speed automatic) '53-55 iteration of the Corvette--way outsold it. In '57, the Thunderbird had a more powerful V8 engine, was faster, and outsold the Corvette 3-to-1. But Robert McNamara--president of Ford Motor Division--decided to make it a 4-seater because that would expand the number of potential buyers. And it did. The '58-60 Thunderbird racked up four times the sales of the '55-57 edition.
McNamara was a bean-counter, and he couldn't see that Ford lost something that you just can't quantify when it lost the 2-seater Thunderbird. His approach worked the same when as Secretary of Defense he tried to statistically manage the Vietnam War.
I think that GM has often not known (and sometimes not even cared about) what to do with the Corvette. On one hand, it has dragged out making improvements for years, sometimes even decades, as we discussed earlier in the context of the 2020 mid-engined model. On the other hand, it has let promising cars that might compete with the Corvette, die on the vine. The Fiero is an example of that. It had a 4-cylinder engine to keep its performance potential at a significantly lower level than that of the Vette, and little to no money went into developing it further once it hit production status.
Neither the Fiero nor the "Mister Two" had the FTD quotient that the Miata has always had.
-
Just bringing up other cars from the same parent companies with no history, C-Dubb. I can see how it appears non-sequitur. It was also meant to be a frivolous remark, but now that we're deep-diving it, any potential humor at all has been completely sucked out of it.... ;)
Yeah, I was afraid of that. Mea culpa.
-
I recall those Chryslers and Dodge sports cars started using a very obnoxiously designed steering wheel a bit later than that Laser. It was almost like a hollow deep punch bowl. Very annoying and not pretty. Clunky looking. Maybe I should look around for it.
-
I don't need to see that pic
-
The Fiero GT had a 6 cylinder engine and was pretty "perky". They didn't put a lot of effort into the model though, but I doubt it could compete with the Corvette even with more power, its bones were limiting. It would have needed a full overhaul.
The Camaro has edged into Corvette territory performancewise lately. And it is currently slated for another death as well.
-
The Fiero GT had a 6 cylinder engine and was pretty "perky". They didn't put a lot of effort into the model though, but I doubt it could compete with the Corvette even with more power, its bones were limiting. It would have needed a full overhaul.
The Camaro has edged into Corvette territory performancewise lately. And it is currently slated for another death as well.
The guy in charge of moving the Fiero from concept to production wanted to put an aluminum V6 with overhead cams into it. Instead, he had to use the "Iron Duke" 4-OHV cylinder. Eventually, the GT model got a V-6, but it had an iron block and no overhead cams. He was operating on a shoestring budget compared to what other project managers were receiving.
-
A ha! Look at this sucker. Those horn bars are slanted inward at a steep angle. The Tourismo/Charger had this sucker. I remember doing donuts and rockfords in a field driving one of these which a friend had. Horrible car.
(https://i.imgur.com/JlvESpq.png)
-
"Turismo"--heh!
The first time I was in Panama, as a lieutenant in the Army, another LT and I--on the 2 or 3 hours we had to go into town--strolled around looking for something to buy calling each other "El Turismo," thinking that was the word for "tourist."
Youth is wasted on the young.
-
The brand may have hurt the image as well. Mitsu just doesn't do much for the hormones.
Yeah, I always thought this about those auto companies tacked on at the end of those dealerships....like Southland Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep-Eagle......who the hell drove an Eagle car? I don't think I've ever seen one. What else seemed generic.....Mercury!?! Never knew anyone who drove a Mercury anything, and it was the subject of a country song, I believe.
Definitely those 2 - Eagle and Mercury, to me, seemed like a WTF thing that I couldn't understand existing.
-
Way before your time, or even mine, OAM, but the '49 Mercury was the quintessential base for customizing into a low-riding sled of a hot rod.
-
Yes, the Eagle. I remember a very trendy Mom in our neighborhood had one of those, I think it was the Talon. I think it was a hatchback or coupe style It was brightly illuminated on the display in that 80s era blue-green hue. digital speedometer.
Mercurys were basically alternatively badged Ford models (Sable, Topaz, Tracer, Grand Marquis, which my Dad drove one for a bit as a 'G' ride for the Secret Service, a Cougar was a popular model, with huge heavy doors)
-
golf buddy of mine had an Eagle
junk
-
A lot of cars back then were junk. I can't think of a really bad new car today, some of the Dodge's don't impress me, but I wouldn't consider them junk.
There are cars I don't like because they favor form over function at a high price like the Mini Cooper and the Fiat 500, but they are not junk, IMHO.
I don't like the Camaro because you can't see out of it, it feels like being in a vault. I was considering a convertible when the wife said she wanted one. Fortunately she backed off that request. My preference was a BMW 240i but they get expensive in a hurry. I like that car a lot. We both like the GTI, but we rarely have the sun roof open, which is a sign I think we'd rarely have the top down with a convertible. I wouldn't put the top down to go to the store.
I've had rental Mustang convertibles, the last was the 4 cylinder with the 10 speed. It was fun in CA to have the top down but I didn't not like how it drove. It seemed very down on power, and yes it likely had regular grade gas in it, but it was slow. The transmission seemed confused often as not.
I'd prefer the Mustang over the Camaro for practical reasons even though the Camaro drives better on a track.
Yeah, I'd track it about once in a never.
-
I used to travel to Southern California a lot for work. Newport Beach, San Diego, a little bit to Malibu. I stopped renting convertibles there, because it was too cold to drive them with the top down, even in the summer. A few hours midday were okay but since I was working during the weekdays, that really only meant a couple hours on Saturday and Sunday.
-
So, if you had $80,000 to spend on a "sports car" today, a new one however defined, what would you buy?
You can't keep the change.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18 (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18)
Some of the options available, using the term loosely.
As noted before, I think I'd lean to a Cayman S pretty well equipped.
The new "Vette would get my attention also.
-
A lot of cars back then were junk. I can't think of a really bad new car today, some of the Dodge's don't impress me, but I wouldn't consider them junk.
There are cars I don't like because they favor form over function at a high price like the Mini Cooper and the Fiat 500, but they are not junk, IMHO.
I don't like the Camaro because you can't see out of it, it feels like being in a vault. I was considering a convertible when the wife said she wanted one. Fortunately she backed off that request. My preference was a BMW 240i but they get expensive in a hurry. I like that car a lot. We both like the GTI, but we rarely have the sun roof open, which is a sign I think we'd rarely have the top down with a convertible. I wouldn't put the top down to go to the store.
I've had rental Mustang convertibles, the last was the 4 cylinder with the 10 speed. It was fun in CA to have the top down but I didn't not like how it drove. It seemed very down on power, and yes it likely had regular grade gas in it, but it was slow. The transmission seemed confused often as not.
I'd prefer the Mustang over the Camaro for practical reasons even though the Camaro drives better on a track.
Yeah, I'd track it about once in a never.
Coyote V8 with 6-speed manual beats Ecoboost I4 with 10-speed self-shifter.
-
Yeah, I always thought this about those auto companies tacked on at the end of those dealerships....like Southland Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep-Eagle......who the hell drove an Eagle car? I don't think I've ever seen one. What else seemed generic.....Mercury!?! Never knew anyone who drove a Mercury anything, and it was the subject of a country song, I believe.
Definitely those 2 - Eagle and Mercury, to me, seemed like a WTF thing that I couldn't understand existing.
They were the stripped-down brands.
Heck, in some ways they may have existed solely to give Ford and Dodge more brand equity. Kind of like restaurants that don't have a small and a large soda, they have a medium and a large. You only need to offer a small to make the medium seem better.
-
I used to travel to Southern California a lot for work. Newport Beach, San Diego, a little bit to Malibu. I stopped renting convertibles there, because it was too cold to drive them with the top down, even in the summer. A few hours midday were okay but since I was working during the weekdays, that really only meant a couple hours on Saturday and Sunday.
I think a bit differently on this one. Part of it might be that I grew up in the Midwest, so "cold" for me isn't the same thing that it is for people who grew up in the southern US. But I drive my Jeep nearly year-round.
While it's not my daily driver, I have now removed the top from the Jeep. I have a little bimini top for it in case I'll be driving enough to need sun protection, but it's an open-air vehicle regardless. It's very rarely too cold to drive it, with the exception of maybe December-February and only if I need to drive it in the morning/evening.
Obviously there are things you do to mitigate. In the winter, I'll often have the windows up and the heater running, and wear a little quarter-zip pullover sweatshirt. In the summer, I really don't need anything. When I leave for work it's in the 60s at worst, but the bigger problem in the summer is that unless I'm traveling at a decent rate of speed during the middle of the day, it's more that I use the A/C to avoid being too hot.
tl;dr version: It's not too cold here for a convertible unless you're a wuss.
-
I think there are "golden eras" to certain things. The conditions are just right, inertia builds to a head, and a product or idea-- or sport-- captures the public's attention in a way that it didn't before, and that it might not ever again.
I think the "golden era" for cars is past. That's not to say that great cars aren't being made or can't be made, it's just that the general public's ability to fall in love with a car, is more limited now, than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. There are a lot of reasons for that. There's more diversity in the marketplace now than ever before, more niche products that satisfy niche consumers. But that diversity also means there are fewer people available to fall in love with just ONE car, or just ONE classification of cars.
I also think that the love people feel for cars in general, has waned. They were once a symbol of freedom and hope for a better life. Especially sports cars and pony cars-- these played directly into the idea of the "open range." But people have a more cynical and jaded view of cars now. Many curse them for using precious resources frivolously. Many believe they should not be fun, but take a more utilitarian view. Gas isn't cheap anymore, oil is a finite resource, space is becoming more limited, and the idea of the single-driver car is being attacked from multiple sides now.
All of that to say, I think the "golden era" of the auto is past. We're not going to see automobiles capture a wide portion of the public's opinion in such an optimistic and breathtaking way. You bring up the Cherokee and the Prius, which are both disruptive to be certain, but they did so based on their function, their utility-- not because they captured the imagination of drivers across the globe.
Just my $0.02 anyway. I have similar views (but for different reasons of course) on the golden era of college football, and why the teams that rose to prominence in that era are still the helmets of today-- even if they struggle for decades-- and breaking into the helmets is extremely difficult and rare.
I do think that individual vehicles have to hit the right "mindset" at the right time to catch the public's love.
I think the Mustang hit the market at a very hopeful time for the US. We had the space program in full swing. It was before the late 60's struggles of the Civil Rights era and then Vietnam really took its toll on the American psyche. It was part of the postwar economic boom. The earliest of the baby boomers were turning 18 years old, and those right behind them were probably looking for "aspirational" products, but also attainable ones, and most of those in their early 20's weren't really of age during WWII to really have understood it. It seemed the world was their oyster and everything was sunshine.
You drop a little, sporty, stylish, affordable car right in their laps at just the right time? It caught fire. It created a new class of vehicle.
The same was true of the Cherokee. It wasn't really the first true SUV, but it was perhaps the one that hit at the right time in the market to not be a "utility" vehicle but to be a "car/van replacement vehicle", and accessible to the everyman. It popularized a whole new class of vehicle.
That's hard to do. It's hard to be new and be successful. Even many of our unique and successful cars are nostalgia... When the VW Bug was re-introduced, it was a throwback. When the Mini was re-introduced, it was a throwback. Those were both successful, but they trade on their history. Even the Miata, which grabbed a very unique and niche part of the market, wasn't "new". It's basically a little British roadster that just happens to be made by a Japanese company. Nothing about it was truly "new" like the Mustang or the Cherokee.
The same is true of the Prius. It appealed to environmentalists and frugal types who wanted to reduce gas consumption, but it's not that unique of a vehicle. It's basically just a small hatchback which gets great mileage.
The one recent one that I think has really "caught" has been Tesla. While the form factors of the cars aren't new, the performance envelope in which they operate is basically sports car territory in sedan/crossover bodies. At the same time, their one-screen operation (which I hate the entire idea of--I want buttons for common features so I can operate the car without looking away from the road) and OTA updates are unique. The people who love Tesla REALLY love Tesla.
But I agree that part of this might be a fleeting thing. The "golden era" of the automobile is largely contingent on the driving characteristics of a vehicle. I think that if automaters fully solve the autonomous problem, most of what we use to differentiate vehicles will go away. If I'm not the one pressing the accelerator, do I really care if goes 0-60 in 4 seconds or 8? If I'm not the one turning the steering wheel, do I really care how well it corners?
Automakers, with autonomy, might be engineering themselves out of the most interesting parts of their jobs--designing something that's different than what other companies are making.
-
I think a bit differently on this one. Part of it might be that I grew up in the Midwest, so "cold" for me isn't the same thing that it is for people who grew up in the southern US. But I drive my Jeep nearly year-round.
While it's not my daily driver, I have now removed the top from the Jeep. I have a little bimini top for it in case I'll be driving enough to need sun protection, but it's an open-air vehicle regardless. It's very rarely too cold to drive it, with the exception of maybe December-February and only if I need to drive it in the morning/evening.
Obviously there are things you do to mitigate. In the winter, I'll often have the windows up and the heater running, and wear a little quarter-zip pullover sweatshirt. In the summer, I really don't need anything. When I leave for work it's in the 60s at worst, but the bigger problem in the summer is that unless I'm traveling at a decent rate of speed during the middle of the day, it's more that I use the A/C to avoid being too hot.
tl;dr version: It's not too cold here for a convertible unless you're a wuss.
Ha!
If you need to turn on the A/C in Southern California to avoid being too hot, then you really don't have any room for calling other folks a wuss.
I stand by my statement. Convertibles are useless in California, unless of course you have no job and can drive around midday, 7 days per week. In that case, then they might be useful in the months of July and August. But still not worth the time or hassle involved.
-
And I'll add that I'm speaking specifically about Coastal areas here. It's certainly plenty hot in The Valley, but who on earth would actually want to drive around in The Valley?
-
So, if you had $80,000 to spend on a "sports car" today, a new one however defined, what would you buy?
You can't keep the change.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18 (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18)
Some of the options available, using the term loosely.
As noted before, I think I'd lean to a Cayman S pretty well equipped.
The new "Vette would get my attention also.
I would think very seriously about the Corvette and the Mustang Shelby GT350. Despite living in NorCal, where it's really cold for a convertible, I know SFIrish would love one, so I'd also think pretty seriously about the Mustang GT, and the Mazda MX-5.
All those European cars would be nice, but in the end I think I'd pass on the Corvette, too, as too fancy for my style, and likely end up with a convertible Mustang GT.
-
They were the stripped-down brands.
Heck, in some ways they may have existed solely to give Ford and Dodge more brand equity. Kind of like restaurants that don't have a small and a large soda, they have a medium and a large. You only need to offer a small to make the medium seem better.
I don't remember where Eagle stood in the Chrysler Corp. hierarchy of brands, but Mercury was not stripped down, but rather was gussied up. Mercurys had different, more "luxurious" styling than Fords did, and they came with a higher level of standard equipment. They were between Ford and Lincoln.
The infamous Edsel of 1958-60 was an attempt to shoehorn another brand in between Mercury and Lincoln.
-
So, if you had $80,000 to spend on a "sports car" today, a new one however defined, what would you buy?
You can't keep the change.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18 (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18)
Some of the options available, using the term loosely.
As noted before, I think I'd lean to a Cayman S pretty well equipped.
The new "Vette would get my attention also.
I'd go with the mid engine Vette today.
The Caddy was $86,000
The Mercedes-AMG C63 S and the Porsche Cayman S would be more practical choices and very fine, but I want to enjoy the Vette just once while I can still get in and out.
-
Shelby GT350.
-
you're a Ford guy
-
you're a Ford guy
In my dotage, I seem to have become one.
Long ago, I was a traditional sports car guy, and as I coudn't afford a Corvette, that meant foreign cars.
-
I like German cars. Not much else from Europe.
Obviously I'm a Chevy guy when it comes to domestic
I'm too old and come from a time when Japanese cars were frowned upon
-
Ha!
If you need to turn on the A/C in Southern California to avoid being too hot, then you really don't have any room for calling other folks a wuss.
I stand by my statement. Convertibles are useless in California, unless of course you have no job and can drive around midday, 7 days per week. In that case, then they might be useful in the months of July and August. But still not worth the time or hassle involved.
LOL... I guess I'm just attuned to cold, while you're attuned to hot.
But I also stand by my statement. It's rare that it's "too cold" in SoCal for a convertible, unless you just have an inordinate amount of hatred for the cold. IMHO anything north of 60 degrees is acceptable for a convertible.
If you look at the typical weather (https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/mission-viejo/climate) (this is for John Wayne Airport) average nightly lows are >=58 from May through October. I'd say that for most people, by the time you get into the car in the morning, it should be above 60. Worst case (if you hate the cold) you keep the windows up and run the heat a little. And in the summer, when the days are longer, it'll still be quite nice on your evening commute home.
For me, I'm happy in the Jeep from March through November, because I like the cold. I'll occasionally drive it on exceptionally nice days Dec->Feb, but it's rare.
That said, I think convertibles are oddly less common here than I've seen in the Midwest. I personally think that's because we're spoiled by such constant sunshine in SoCal that we don't really need to drive around topless just to enjoy a rare sunny day. But it's certainly not because it's "too cold" for a convertible here.
-
If I'm going to be out in the open air with the wind in my nostrils, I'd rather be on a motorcycle
-
If I'm going to be out in the open air with the wind in my nostrils, I'd rather be on a motorcycle
No argument there. I used to ride when I first moved to CA, and I miss it terribly.
-
LOL... I guess I'm just attuned to cold, while you're attuned to hot.
But I also stand by my statement. It's rare that it's "too cold" in SoCal for a convertible, unless you just have an inordinate amount of hatred for the cold. IMHO anything north of 60 degrees is acceptable for a convertible.
If you look at the typical weather (https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/mission-viejo/climate) (this is for John Wayne Airport) average nightly lows are >=58 from May through October. I'd say that for most people, by the time you get into the car in the morning, it should be above 60. Worst case (if you hate the cold) you keep the windows up and run the heat a little. And in the summer, when the days are longer, it'll still be quite nice on your evening commute home.
For me, I'm happy in the Jeep from March through November, because I like the cold. I'll occasionally drive it on exceptionally nice days Dec->Feb, but it's rare.
That said, I think convertibles are oddly less common here than I've seen in the Midwest. I personally think that's because we're spoiled by such constant sunshine in SoCal that we don't really need to drive around topless just to enjoy a rare sunny day. But it's certainly not because it's "too cold" for a convertible here.
tl;dr
Still too cold in Cali for a convertible.
;)
-
I like German cars. Not much else from Europe.
Obviously I'm a Chevy guy when it comes to domestic
I'm too old and come from a time when Japanese cars were frowned upon
I mean, are we talking REALISTIC and AFFORDABLE cars? If so, then yeah, I like some of the German cars and not much else from Europe.
But I also love Ferraris. :) And Aston Martin might be making the most beautiful cars in the world right now, just my opinion of course.
As for the $80K sportscar, I guess whatever the top of the line converible Mustang is, would be my choice. Or if we're really playing fantasy-land, then a completely resto-modded 65 Mustang convertible.
And for motorcycles, I'll never ride one on the streets, my 19yo cousin was killed on one when I was 11 years old. I've always disliked them since, although I've ridden some dirtbikes with friends out on the ranch.
-
I like German Beers,oops wrong thread
-
I mean, are we talking REALISTIC and AFFORDABLE cars? If so, then yeah, I like some of the German cars and not much else from Europe.
But I also love Ferraris. :) And Aston Martin might be making the most beautiful cars in the world right now, just my opinion of course.
not many Ferraris and Aston Martins out here in dirt farmer country
Don't know much about them and have no experience, just been told by others that they spend more time in the shop than German autos
-
I'd go with the mid engine Vette today.
The Caddy was $86,000
The Mercedes-AMG C63 S and the Porsche Cayman S would be more practical choices and very fine, but I want to enjoy the Vette just once while I can still get in and out.
The C's are just too small, and I'm 5-8.
-
probably wouldn't hold my golf clubs
-
The trunk isn't bad, to be honest.
-
The Corvettes are built to handle two golf bags, seriously, it's a design requirement, even for the C8.
-
Golf is a dying game (not sport).
-
they know their audience
old guys that have a few coins and managing the mid-life crisis
-
Golf is a dying game (not sport).
I'll die before the sport does
that's ok with me
-
The raison d'etre of the C8 is said to be to capture a crowd other than 55 year old golfers. We'll see how that works.
I'm not sure many 911 drivers would be caught in a Vette no matter the numbers.
-
The raison d'etre of the C8 is said to be to capture a crowd other than 55 year old golfers. We'll see how that works.
I'm not sure many 911 drivers would be caught in a Vette no matter the numbers.
true and true, but they don't seem to gamble on losing the 55 year old golfer
they just want to add another group or two
-
It'll be interesting to see how well this sells after the newness wears off. The C7 sold like crazy in the first two years.
Is this one really a Ferrari killer? A Seiko tells time just fine, but isn't a Rolex.
-
probably wouldn't hold my golf clubs
With your scores your probably throwing them anyway
-
really don't need the clubs to drink bud heavy and harass beer cart girls
-
I'll die before the sport does
that's ok with me
Get the score card out and add some years instead of removing strokes
-
It'll be interesting to see how well this sells after the newness wears off. The C7 sold like crazy in the first two years.
Is this one really a Ferrari killer? A Seiko tells time just fine, but isn't a Rolex.
as you know.... this year's allotment is sold, they added another shift to the plant in Bowling Green
things will probably slow down after a couple years......... then it will depend on if the car is REALLY that good
but, no, guys that drive Ferraris would be caught dead in a Vette or anything else from the USA.
-
So, if you had $80,000 to spend on a "sports car" today, a new one however defined, what would you buy?
You can't keep the change.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18 (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4277/the-13-best-cars-under-100000-dollars/?slide=18)
Some of the options available, using the term loosely.
As noted before, I think I'd lean to a Cayman S pretty well equipped.
The new "Vette would get my attention also.
I'd have to make sure I fit in one of these, but I already said I want one. Starts at $74K.
https://www.arielna.com/arielatom-4 (https://www.arielna.com/arielatom-4)
Obviously this assumes that it never has to see "daily driver" duty. If I had to have one as a daily driver, I think I'd look at a 911. (Possibly lightly used to stay within $80K).
-
It'll be interesting to see how well this sells after the newness wears off. The C7 sold like crazy in the first two years.
Is this one really a Ferrari killer? A Seiko tells time just fine, but isn't a Rolex.
Who needs a Ferrari killer? I always read that the Acura NSX was targeted in the us as a Corvette killer, but that never worked out.
Ferraris are great, but their price level is in the stratosphere. As such, they sell <10K cars a year, across all Ferrari models. Isn't the Corvette already sold out for 40K of their first year of production?
The Corvette isn't going to attract all that many customers who have the income levels to comfortably afford a Ferrari. But it doesn't need to. The market at its price point is MUCH larger.
-
There aren't that many Ferraris sold in the US each year anyway new. Chevy could nab every one of them and it would be a small percentage, and they won't nab more than a few at best. The sell about 2,500 a year in the US. Porsche sells under 10,000 911s a year, a nifty market with their markups and options pricing.
Corvette sells about 20,000, more than that when the C7 was newer (34,000 in 2014).
Might they nab some 911 buyers? Might get more Cayman buyers, and some high end Mustang buyers.
That's if the car is really well sorted out and the interior is nicely done, the little things.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-corvette-history-c2/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d534150a341320001aaf4ff&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3pvSdCfhlojpEx_JAGOgOcaaiV6KVLX6KBM1_muMWbZu7rECWgnQ3rYbA (https://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-corvette-history-c2/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d534150a341320001aaf4ff&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3pvSdCfhlojpEx_JAGOgOcaaiV6KVLX6KBM1_muMWbZu7rECWgnQ3rYbA)
The C2 was in essence the first "real Vette". Jaguar was laying the foundation and Chevy was following the model.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-corvette-history-c2/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d534150a341320001aaf4ff&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3pvSdCfhlojpEx_JAGOgOcaaiV6KVLX6KBM1_muMWbZu7rECWgnQ3rYbA (https://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-corvette-history-c2/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d534150a341320001aaf4ff&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3pvSdCfhlojpEx_JAGOgOcaaiV6KVLX6KBM1_muMWbZu7rECWgnQ3rYbA)
The C2 was in essence the first "real Vette". Jaguar was laying the foundation and Chevy was following the model.
My favorite "generation" of the Corvette.
For pure looks, I love the '56-57 models, but they were trucks. And the '58s shared in the general uglification of GM cars of that year.
But the '63-67 Corvettes still look sharp, crisp, clean, and exciting. And they had the mechanicals to back up what the looks promised.
-
I'd have to make sure I fit in one of these, but I already said I want one. Starts at $74K.
https://www.arielna.com/arielatom-4 (https://www.arielna.com/arielatom-4)
Obviously this assumes that it never has to see "daily driver" duty. If I had to have one as a daily driver, I think I'd look at a 911. (Possibly lightly used to stay within $80K).
I've dug that Atom ever since I first saw them demo it on Top Gear, years ago. But it's pretty much a track car isn't it? I don't believe they're even street legal unless they ship to you as a kit car in pieces, and you assemble yourself, or something like that.
-
I've dug that Atom ever since I first saw them demo it on Top Gear, years ago. But it's pretty much a track car isn't it? I don't believe they're even street legal unless they ship to you as a kit car in pieces, and you assemble yourself, or something like that.
I think they might be street legal but only via the kit car (even if they assemble) exceptions. I'd figure it out before buying one, obviously.
-
BTW drove to the airport in the Jeep this morning. 65 and foggy. It was glorious. Not too cold at all.
-
GM would probably be better off financially if they just sold trucks and SUVs and perhaps one sedan, Ford says they are headed that way, including the Mustang.
-
BTW drove to the airport in the Jeep this morning. 65 and foggy. It was glorious. Not too cold at all.
Gross weather. No thanks. :)
-
GM would probably be better off financially if they just sold trucks and SUVs and perhaps one sedan, Ford says they are headed that way, including the Mustang.
Gotta keep Cadillac sedans and Corvette. That's about it.
-
The Caddy sedans are fine cars but nobody buys them much other than me.
-
I'll probably have a Caddy sedan (if they're available) after I can't get in and out of the Vette
hopefully there will be a V8 option
-
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct6/2019/2019-cadillac-ct6-v-review-blackwing-v-8/ (https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct6/2019/2019-cadillac-ct6-v-review-blackwing-v-8/)
They developed their own V8 but now are getting rid of the big sedan. I guess they may put it in the CT5, don't know.
-
may have to settle for a used Caddy to get the V8, but used is in my price range
could be 10 year-old used
-
The only used V8 sedan is the CTS-V, which is a monster of a car, supercharged Corvette engine with 640 horsepower. It drinks gas.
-
My FIL drives a fairly recent (last couple years?) Lincoln something or another. It's their sports sedan, not the Continental. I think it might be a V8? It's pretty quick, I got us from New Orleans to Austin in record time...
-
perfect
I've actually looked for used CTS-V's
they are rare
-
FORE!!!
-
Not bad for using the Ladies T
-
My FIL drives a fairly recent (last couple years?) Lincoln something or another. It's their sports sedan, not the Continental. I think it might be a V8? It's pretty quick, I got us from New Orleans to Austin in record time...
Probably a Lincoln MKZ, they are either 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder, basically a slightly modified Ford Fusion. The V6 is pretty quick but can have torque steer as it is FWD.
https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/mkz
T (https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/mkz)he Caddys have no Chevy equivalent (aside from the Camaro in effect) and are RWD (AWD optional).
-
ha!
Enjoy your cold Bud Fats, FF.
-
Probably a Lincoln MKZ, they are either 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder, basically a slightly modified Ford Fusion. The V6 is pretty quick but can have torque steer as it is FWD.
https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/mkz
T (https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/mkz)he Caddys have no Chevy equivalent (aside from the Camaro in effect) and are RWD (AWD optional).
MKZ sounds right. It was fairly luxurious, but honestly my F150 Platinum is even nicer in fit, finish, and features. It's also probably faster, with the 3.5L twin turbo Ecoboost engine.
-
Hot-shoe drivers will appreciate the optional twin-turbo 3.0-liter V-6 that makes 350 horsepower in front-drive models and 400 horsepower with all-wheel drive. With the six, the MKZ is hilariously overpowered and heavy throttle inputs tug aggressively at the front wheels (a phenomenon known as torque steer) in front-wheel drive models; ordering all-wheel drive not only increases the engine's power output, it also reduces that sensation somewhat and provided a brisk 4.8-second zero-to-60-mph time (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15112588/2014-lincoln-mkz-20t-awd-test-review/) in our testing.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct6/2019/2019-cadillac-ct6-v-review-blackwing-v-8/ (https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/ct6/2019/2019-cadillac-ct6-v-review-blackwing-v-8/)
They developed their own V8 but now are getting rid of the big sedan. I guess they may put it in the CT5, don't know.
I didn't open your link, but I saw the same story on the Car and Driver website.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a28593850/2020-cadillac-ct6-v-drive/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a28593850/2020-cadillac-ct6-v-drive/)
Hand-built "Blackwing" V8.
"Blackwing" in honor of the coat of arms of Antoine Laumet de la Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, the founder of Detroit.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Blason_de_la_compagnie_Cadillac.svg/800px-Blason_de_la_compagnie_Cadillac.svg.png)
The black ducks without bills or feet are known as Merlettes. Their wings are there, and they are black.
The same coat of arms, vastly simplified and compressed, is the "crest" of Cadillac Motor Division.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Cadillac_logo.svg/250px-Cadillac_logo.svg.png)
-
Yup, kind of a neat name I thought, but I wonder if that engine will be around very long. Perhaps they will have an Escalade V?
The Chevy 6.2 L is a fine engine despite being archaic.
-
If/when we go mostly autonomous and the variety of both vehicles, and brands/marques, diminishes-- I'll be saddened at the loss.
-
(https://img.newatlas.com/1957-jaguar-xkss-auction-goodingco-41.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&rect=0%2C0%2C1685%2C947&w=616&s=3400618a131ad8439856c906fd5e78c6)
Per the Font of All Wisdom and Knowledge:
The Jaguar XKSS is a road-going version of the Jaguar D-Type racing car, initially built in 1957. A small production run by Jaguar produced the remaining 9 of the scheduled production of 25 XKSS, launched in 2016.
Following Jaguar's withdrawal from competition at the end of the 1956 season, a number of completed and partly completed D-types remained unsold at the Browns Lane factory. In an attempt to recoup some of the investment made in building these unused chassis, and to exploit the lucrative American market for high-performance European sports cars, Sir William Lyons decided to convert a number to road-going specification. Only minor changes were made to the basic D-type structure: the addition of a passenger side door; the removal of the large fin behind the driver; and the removal of the divider between passenger and driver seats. In addition, changes were made for cosmetic, comfort and legal reasons: a full-width, chrome-surrounded windscreen was added; sidescreens were added to both driver and passenger doors; a rudimentary, folding, fabric roof was added for weather protection; chromed bumpers were added front and rear (a styling cue later used on the E-type); XK140 rear light clusters were mounted higher on the wings; and thin chrome strips were added to the edges of the front light fairings.
On the evening of 12 February 1957, a fire broke out at the Browns Lane plant destroying nine of the twenty-five cars that had already been completed or were semi-completed. Most of the surviving 16 XKSSs were sold in the US.
In March 2016, Jaguar announced that it would be completing the original 25 car order from 1957 by building from scratch the remaining 9 cars destroyed by the plant fire. The cars are expected to sell for more than £1 million each.
-
If/when we go mostly autonomous and the variety of both vehicles, and brands/marques, diminishes-- I'll be saddened at the loss.
Me too loss of cash all the times I had to call a Taxi
-
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-chevrolet-corvette-officially-starts-59995/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d55495e6f0c9700014b3604&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3tg6eU48saG-GwAaa4K8S7yg530Tizi02wMYxWoKovwvyZq2WBVzDEQ30 (https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-chevrolet-corvette-officially-starts-59995/?sm_id=organic_fb_AMAG_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d55495e6f0c9700014b3604&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3tg6eU48saG-GwAaa4K8S7yg530Tizi02wMYxWoKovwvyZq2WBVzDEQ30)
Front-axle lift, $1,495. Available only with the 2LT and 3LT trims, this system not only raises the nose at the press of a button but also stores up to 1,000 such locations in the cloud. The next time you approach the location, the lift system activates automatically.
:smiley_confused1:
Base model reported to have a 194 mph top speed.
-
Yup, kind of a neat name I thought, but I wonder if that engine will be around very long. Perhaps they will have an Escalade V?
The Chevy 6.2 L is a fine engine despite being archaic.
I like that the base mid-engine Vette 6.2 puts out the same torque as the C6 ZO6 with the 7 liter
-
Following the excitement of the 2020 Corvette Stingray unveiling, details on the Corvette Convertible and C8.R Racecar will be announced this Fall.
so, possibly the ZO6 and/or the ZR1 are gone and replaced by the C8.R?
-
I think they have a Z06 and ZR1 in the works. The race car has always been separate, and with quite a bit less horsepower.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020-porsche-taycan-review-electric-car-tesla-fighter/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d560e736f0c9700014b415b&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2HFlCkYhfJp4N1QyMdToAN3PJH0Fniypc8ORxGRUxE6pj_bATriuj-rBs (https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020-porsche-taycan-review-electric-car-tesla-fighter/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d560e736f0c9700014b415b&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR2HFlCkYhfJp4N1QyMdToAN3PJH0Fniypc8ORxGRUxE6pj_bATriuj-rBs)
-
The best deals on sports cars under $40,000
From Canada
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/reviews/article-the-best-deals-on-sports-cars-under-40000/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/reviews/article-the-best-deals-on-sports-cars-under-40000/)
I'd probably go with the all-wheel drive Subaru - would come in handy in the winter and who doesn't like a functional hood scoop?
-
The Mustang for me, obviously.
Although I'm curious about the Stinger. The Kia Optima caught my eye several years back, I think it's a very nice looking car, and the Stinger looks sort of cool to me, too.
-
The Stang would be my 2nd choice, I'm sure they would all be fun to drive.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/powerful-chevrolet-corvette-variants-coming/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d56ef5aa341320001ab2e65&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3OHZdphLi9FJM45iOY3-0C0MdmK2Ioem2QV4hHHTJkoa0v0igqzCVCaGE (https://www.motortrend.com/news/powerful-chevrolet-corvette-variants-coming/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d56ef5aa341320001ab2e65&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3OHZdphLi9FJM45iOY3-0C0MdmK2Ioem2QV4hHHTJkoa0v0igqzCVCaGE)
The Mustang 5.0 would be a hoot, and somewhat practical.
-
Not sure "practical" and "Mustang 5.0" go together, but sure, if I could justify it to my wife that way, I'm all for it! :)
-
SOMEWHAT practical, as compared with the Camaro for example, which is not.
I've had them as rentals, the two of us, and they are OK. The steering is pretty lame.
-
https://www.motortrend.com/news/powerful-chevrolet-corvette-variants-coming/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d56ef5aa341320001ab2e65&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3OHZdphLi9FJM45iOY3-0C0MdmK2Ioem2QV4hHHTJkoa0v0igqzCVCaGE (https://www.motortrend.com/news/powerful-chevrolet-corvette-variants-coming/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5d56ef5aa341320001ab2e65&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR3OHZdphLi9FJM45iOY3-0C0MdmK2Ioem2QV4hHHTJkoa0v0igqzCVCaGE)
The Mustang 5.0 would be a hoot, and somewhat practical.
the GT500 would be a hoot and not practical a tall
-
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28309491/bob-lutz-the-shadiest-people-i-ever-worked-with/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&fbclid=IwAR29e3gtDhBt3Ha2mpsvpznUqyp2805jRnHmSWgTuzdJVHoJCbtsk5eQh7w (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28309491/bob-lutz-the-shadiest-people-i-ever-worked-with/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&fbclid=IwAR29e3gtDhBt3Ha2mpsvpznUqyp2805jRnHmSWgTuzdJVHoJCbtsk5eQh7w)
Interesting, I'd bet he'd include Elon in this list also.
-
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28309491/bob-lutz-the-shadiest-people-i-ever-worked-with/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&fbclid=IwAR29e3gtDhBt3Ha2mpsvpznUqyp2805jRnHmSWgTuzdJVHoJCbtsk5eQh7w (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28309491/bob-lutz-the-shadiest-people-i-ever-worked-with/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&fbclid=IwAR29e3gtDhBt3Ha2mpsvpznUqyp2805jRnHmSWgTuzdJVHoJCbtsk5eQh7w)
Interesting, I'd bet he'd include Elon in this list also.
Funny stuff!
And I'll bet that you are correct about Elon Musk.
-
In a Friday interview with Motor1, Corvette Assembly Plant Manager Kai Spande let slip that we should expect to see the Corvette convertible "in the October timeframe.” Admittedly that’s a big circle to put on a calendar, but Spande’s words at least give us some clarity on when to expect the Corvette convertible.
If Chevy sticks to an October introduction of the all-new Corvette convertible, we should see the open-air model in showrooms by early 2020—just in time for warmer spring weather.
The Corvette convertible will use a retractable hardtop that will fold into a compartment just behind the passenger cabin. Because the roof will essentially sit on top of the Corvette's mid-mounted engine when retracted, the C8 convertible will do without the coupe's clear engine cover.
-
That sounds to me like a pretty fun car one could have for about $70,000. Or so.
-
don't like the video, not enough wheel spin and smoke from the tires
https://www.motortrend.com/news/how-to-use-launch-control-burnout-mode-2020-c8-corvette-video (https://www.motortrend.com/news/how-to-use-launch-control-burnout-mode-2020-c8-corvette-video)
-
We’ve recently named the Porsche 718 Cayman/Boxster as our Editor’s Pick for Best Sports Car on Just Get This.
https://gearpatrol.com/2019/09/11/best-sports-car-you-can-buy/ (https://gearpatrol.com/2019/09/11/best-sports-car-you-can-buy/)
The Cayman S has a top speed of 180 miles per hour and does 0-60 miles per hour in 4.0 seconds, which is plenty for every man.