The Automotive Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Superman00 said:
AT, I live in the DC metro area and drive to work everyday. If I get a MT, I would have to shift over a couple hundred time a day. lol
Click to expand...

NYC traffic is infinitely worse, and the transmission in my Z is infinitely more annoying to drive at slow speeds than than FR-S, not to mention the Z has an aggravating on-off button for a clutch pedal. The BRZ and FR-S by comparison are significantly easier to drive, smoother and wider clutch engagement, considerably less transmission jerk, etc.

No excuse for not getting this car in stick, imo.
 
Superman00 said:
AT, I live in the DC metro area and drive to work everyday. If I get a MT, I would have to shift over a couple hundred time a day. lol
Click to expand...

DC metro area traffic is nothing. Used to drive a 6-speed GTO there with that horribly balky transmission, driveline lash, heavy car with a high-torque engine, etc. I'd understand if you lived in the NY metro area, but DC isn't bad at all.

For once I agree with AS or anyone with such a hideous car :)
 
AlphaSnake said:
NYC traffic is infinitely worse, and the transmission in my Z is infinitely more annoying to drive at slow speeds than than FR-S, not to mention the Z has an aggravating on-off button for a clutch pedal. The BRZ and FR-S by comparison are significantly easier to drive, smoother and wider clutch engagement, considerably less transmission jerk, etc.

No excuse for not getting this car in stick, imo.
Click to expand...

Except you get better MPG than manual. To each his own, I rather not have to keep shifting when I'm moving like 10 feet. Just like last week when I started the gym again, both my arms were sore and I could barely move them. Having to drive to work with that is more painful than the novelty of a manual. Would it be fun? Yes, but the novelty wears off really fast when you are impatient.

coldfoot said:
DC metro area traffic is nothing. Used to drive a 6-speed GTO there with that horribly balky transmission, driveline lash, heavy car with a high-torque engine, etc. I'd understand if you lived in the NY metro area, but DC isn't bad at all.

For once I agree with AS or anyone with such a hideous car :)
Click to expand...

I can drive manual, but it's not something that I can stand for a long period of time. There are many circumstances in which a manual is a pain. I use to played a lot of pickup up basketball, I would sprain my left ankle a lot. I wouldn't be able to drive if it was a manual.
 
Superman00 said:
lol, that's the problem for me. I want driving to be fun, not a chore. I use to hate driving, and always let other people drive.
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't fun because my kneecap was dislocated, would have been shitty in an automatic as well.

At this point I have no interest in buying a car that isn't a manual.
 
mazda6-teaser-profile.jpg


http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/20/new-mazda6-teased-yet-again-full-profile-revealed-w-video/
 
ascii42 said:
Something about that looks off to me. Might be that the angle of the windshield doesn't go with the coke bottle curves. I'll have to see the whole car, but right now, it makes the greenhouse looks slightly large to me. Not that that's really a bad thing. Certainly better for visability.

Headroom in the back looks like it might be an issue.
Click to expand...

It's also a composite of several different low-quality YouTube clips, so it's not the clearest picture. I'm guessing that the A-pillar is a wee bit longer than what's shown in that composite.
 
ascii42 said:
Something about that looks off to me. Might be that the angle of the windshield doesn't go with the coke bottle curves. I'll have to see the whole car, but right now, it makes the greenhouse looks slightly large to me. Not that that's really a bad thing. Certainly better for visability.

Headroom in the back looks like it might be an issue.
Click to expand...

You're right. The A-pillar should flow into the fender or hood, not form some weird negative space between them.


BTW, do you figure one could stuff an STi drivetrain in here? 1700 lbs! (yes, it's a Subaru, I'm not an EJ207 ALL THE THINGS guy)

A22_leone_ht.jpg
 
Black_Stride said:
Tacky probably isnt the word you are looking for.....but i think i understand where you are coming from....you are one of those that doesnt like people modifying their cars for looks before focusing on pure performance huh?
Click to expand...

Not really, though I do think that most mods especially body kits are just aesthetically nauseating.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
So the new ATS is the shit.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1207_2013_cadillac_ats_first_test/

http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/cadillac_ats_2013


Looks great and performs even better. I'm very happy indeed for Cadillac. Good to see them legitimately kicking ass and talking shit. Might have to pick one of these up. It'll undoubtedly be more reliable than the German luxury cars.
Click to expand...

Yeah. All the impressions are great for it. I look forward to testing one out at some point. The one thing that puzzles me is how the ATS is basically the same length as the BMW 3-series, but has much less rear legroom and a smaller trunk. The rear legroom isn't terrible, but 10.2 cubic feet of trunk space is pretty meager.

The next Camaro is supposed to be on this new platform. If the ATS can weigh around 3400 lbs, the Camaro ought to weigh even less.

Heh. The Car Connection review makes the obligatory Cimarron reference. Besides that car, this is the first Cadillac since 1914 to offer a 4-cylinder engine.
 
AlphaSnake said:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/2013-cadillac-ats-first-drive-review-video/

Hrmm...

I find the car impressive, but concerned about its pricing, especially compared to some other cars out there.
Click to expand...

The V6 model is a bit too pricey. Once you equip it with MRC, it's almost the same price as the much larger and equally well equipped XTS.

The 2L turbo seems like the version to get. With the luxury package and a manual transmission, it comes it at just under $40k.



I find this line weird:
As hard as Cadillac continues to fight to establish itself as a serious player in global luxury, this engine is a setback.
Click to expand...

The European makes offer smaller and less powerful engines in Europe. It's mostly in America that this engine is out of place.
 
Here is Chris Shunk's last Autoblog podcast. Not sure where he is going but will definitely miss him on the cast.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/17/autoblog-podcast-291/

Dan Roth has an auto Scion FR-S in the AB garage and will be talking about the ILX hybrid and the FR-S on the podcast this week.

I bet the ATS is sexy as hell in person. It is hard for me to appreciate the size in the pictures I have seen because I haven't seen it next to anything for a comparison.
 
Inside Line thinks ATS is a good car but without any good engine choices

I happen to agree. I wouldn't get a GM engine besides a small block pushrod V8. They seem to have matched the E90 BMW handling (which is better than F10), but the competition has moved and makes more spacious cars that get better fuel economy with their 8-speed transmissions.

ATS-V with a LS3 would be a true heir to the E39 M5 however, if only its rear styling was less ugly. 1994 DTS rear end looks out of place in a 2012 sports sedan.
 
coldfoot said:
Inside Line thinks ATS is a good car but without any good engine choices

I happen to agree. I wouldn't get a GM engine besides a small block pushrod V8. They seem to have matched the E90 BMW handling (which is better than F10), but the competition has moved and makes more spacious cars that get better fuel economy with their 8-speed transmissions.

ATS-V with a LS3 would be a true heir to the E39 M5 however, if only its rear styling was less ugly. 1994 DTS rear end looks out of place in a 2012 sports sedan.
Click to expand...

Cadillac has yet to announce whether the ATS-V will get a V8 or a TTV6, as far as I know. If it is a V8, it'll probably be the next generation Corvette V8.

And yeah, the rear doesn't really work for me either. The fin-like tailights are fine to me (it is a Cadillac), but the trunk lid and center brake light are just awkward. I guess it's functional, or whatever.
 
ascii42 said:
Cadillac has yet to announce whether the ATS-V will get a V8 or a TTV6, as far as I know. If it is a V8, it'll probably be the next generation Corvette V8.

And yeah, the rear doesn't really work for me either. The fin-like tailights are fine to me (it is a Cadillac), but the trunk lid and center brake light are just awkward. I guess it's functional, or whatever.
Click to expand...

The CTS-V is a big V8 already, why would they steal its thunder with a V8 in the ATS? I'd say a turbo 6 is a good bet.

Also:

"In designing the ATS, Cadillac benchmarked the BMW E46 3 Series, which Cadillac chief designer Dave Masch and his team argued is the most dynamic and driver-focused 3 Series."

I approve, but benchmark doesn't mean 'follow', so I expect there's a ton of electronic chassis management bullshit, am I right?
 
Dreams-Visions said:
So the new ATS is the shit.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1207_2013_cadillac_ats_first_test/

http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/cadillac_ats_2013


Looks great and performs even better. I'm very happy indeed for Cadillac. Good to see them legitimately kicking ass and talking shit. Might have to pick one of these up. It'll undoubtedly be more reliable than the German luxury cars.
Click to expand...

x2

Can't wait for solid info on the V version. First Cadillac I would consider buying.

I would also prefer they keep the horrible chrome grille off this version.
 
N-Bomb said:
The CTS-V is a big V8 already, why would they steal its thunder with a V8 in the ATS? I'd say a turbo 6 is a good bet.
Click to expand...
Supercharged V8 vs. naturally aspirated V8. 560hp vs. ~430hp. CTS-V is safe. Also a basic V8 that's shared with the Corvette/Camaro, etc. would cost less than a Turbo 6 that's unique to the model, and purists love NA engines.
 
Halvie said:
x2

Can't wait for solid info on the V version. First Cadillac I would consider buying.

I would also prefer they keep the horrible chrome grille off this version.
Click to expand...

V grilles are stainless steel, not chrome. But yeah, it'll be interesting to see what they do.
 
It's done!

I'll take proper pics later.

06099364d50e11e1a0c81231380ff428_7.jpg


compared to before:
WjECbl.jpg


Right, not a ton of difference. Well, I'll take some more before and afters later, too.
 
I figured the new grille on the CX-5 would be spreading around. I think I like it on the Mazda6 more than the CX-5. Looks good. I'm not sure about the lower part on the front. It's too dark to tell, but it might look a bit funny.
 
hey there, everyone. Need some advice regarding a car issue.

2000 Mitsubishi Mirage. It's been a champ, no serious issues. Recently started leaking transmission fluid. Today I go to check the fluid level and the dipstick is stuck. It comes out about halfway and won't budge.

My mechanic will be here to morrow to check it out. I just wanted to see if any of your experts could shed some light on what I have to look forward to. Serious issue possible? Any way to get the dipstick out (a quick google search seems to indicate this is a common issue on Lancers but I have a Mirage)?

Thanks in advance for any help that can be given.
 
coldfoot said:
Inside Line thinks ATS is a good car but without any good engine choices

I happen to agree. I wouldn't get a GM engine besides a small block pushrod V8. They seem to have matched the E90 BMW handling (which is better than F10), but the competition has moved and makes more spacious cars that get better fuel economy with their 8-speed transmissions.
Click to expand...

meh. of all the reviews I've read to date, this is the ONLY one that says the Turbo 4 isn't enjoyable.

I'll go with the 7 or 8 first drives I've read that say otherwise than the 1 that says the opposite.

Moreover, I'll test drive it when it's at dealers.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
meh. of all the reviews I've read to date, this is the ONLY one that says the Turbo 4 isn't enjoyable.

I'll go with the 7 or 8 first drives I've read that say otherwise than the 1 that says the opposite.

Moreover, I'll test drive it when it's at dealers.
Click to expand...

Not that I would ever buy this car (or any sports sedan) in the first place, but C&D wasn't that impressed with it either. I go by IL and C&D over all others, especially that toilet paper they call Motor Trend.

Still would drive it myself if I considered shopping on my own, however this is not a category of car that I have any interest in as sedans suck.
 
Gunsmithx said:
awesome, nice to see it finished!
Click to expand...

Halvie said:
Dyno planned? Looking nice++
Click to expand...

Thanks guys! Dyno's already been done - they didn't print out the chart, but he said he'll email it to me. According to my tuner, it's putting down 230-240 at the wheels, so close to 300 at the crank, likely, on 91 gas. I'll post it once I've got it. This thing actually scares me. Stock, you had to really work to break the law, now you can do it without thinking (but not without noticing).

Pics!

5JGty.jpg

Crappy interior shot. Still needs work (by me) - gotta get a decent shift knob and install the boost gauge. I want to switch to crank windows. Never much liked power windows, and the regulator on the driver's side is failing, so that's as good an excuse as any.

Q0hxQ.jpg

Auto to 6spd swap. New clutch taking some getting used to, especially with light flywheel!

uIptW.png

Old vs. new cluster. Main differences (don't much care for the blue, but oh well) are tach/speedo placement/limits, colours, DCCD display.

bOHZA.png

Front wheels/brakes.

edZ1R.png

Rear "

fUoJ1.jpg

Engine bay! Stuff's packed in pretty good! It's mostly stock except for the Perrin turbo inlet. Room to grow, as they say :)


The rest of the exterior is really nothing to write home about at this point. Respray next year, maybe some other stuff. We'll see. My wallet's tapped out right now!
 
ameratsu said:
goddamn that's a lot of engine bay rust
Click to expand...

It's actually caked on rust-proofing :P

They powerwashed a ton of it off, (you can see areas on the shock towers that are cleaner in the after photo), but some of it just wouldn't. I'll work on it myself later. No, this car is pretty rust-free aside from the rear 1/4 where it's typical of the model, and that's minor as well.
 
coldfoot said:
Not that I would ever buy this car (or any sports sedan) in the first place, but C&D wasn't that impressed with it either. I go by IL and C&D over all others, especially that toilet paper they call Motor Trend.

Still would drive it myself if I considered shopping on my own, however this is not a category of car that I have any interest in as sedans suck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hate how they offer the convenience of easy access to the rear seat. How miserably awful...

But to each his own.
 
ascii42 said:
Yeah, I hate how they offer the convenience of easy access to the rear seat. How miserably awful...
Click to expand...
Please point me out to where I said coupes were better than sedans?

I prefer monospace designs like a hatch or a wagon, where you at least get some practicality in exchange for sacrificing the sleekness of a coupe, unlike a sedan where you don't get sleekness nor practicality. To me, sedan is a poor compromise. Either get a hatch/wagon/SUV or a 2-seat roadster.
 
N-Bomb said:
Thanks guys! Dyno's already been done - they didn't print out the chart, but he said he'll email it to me. According to my tuner, it's putting down 230-240 at the wheels, so close to 300 at the crank, likely, on 91 gas. I'll post it once I've got it. This thing actually scares me. Stock, you had to really work to break the law, now you can do it without thinking (but not without noticing).
Click to expand...

Any more plans, or just enjoy it for a while?
 
That's delicious...damn.

A proper MazdaSpeed version of this car would look bananas. AWD. Lowered suspension. Kickin motor. It'd shit on Audis, Subies, Evos, and the like every day.

Edit: Talking about the Mazda6 clearly.
 
coldfoot said:
Please point me out to where I said coupes were better than sedans?

I prefer monospace designs like a hatch or a wagon, where you at least get some practicality in exchange for sacrificing the sleekness of a coupe, unlike a sedan where you don't get sleekness nor practicality. To me, sedan is a poor compromise. Either get a hatch/wagon/SUV or a 2-seat roadster.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I like wagons as well. They certainly offer more practicality than a sedan would. I disagree that sedans don't offer added practicality over a coupe though. Sacrificing some looks to get extra doors isn't necessarily a bad deal in my book. And in the case of, for example, the Cadillac CTS, I'd say I prefer the looks of the sedan over the coupe. All the coupe really offers is being more "dramatic." But you're right, given the option, I'd get the wagon. Meh on roadsters though, they offer too many compromises of their own to add an ability I don't need or even want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Automotive Discussion Thread | OT3 | Playing with our sticks while petting Jaguars!
90 91 92 93 94
5K
469K
EGOMON replied
Fantasy Football Discussion Thread - 2017 Season
68 69 70 71 72
4K
250K
PlayALLtheGames replied
Something wrong with the Funny post thread?
0
1K
Amakusa replied
New All You Can Eat Sushi Thread — So Full I May Not Survive the Night
25
2K
eddie4 replied
Game of Thrones *NO BOOK DISCUSSION* |OT2| Season 7 - [Read the OP]
331 332 333 334 335
17K
2M
Night.Ninja replied
Top Bottom