The midlfe update brings some tweaked styling, further adoption of the infotainment screen with Android Auto/Apple CarPlay but without a volume knob, a few new safety features.
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-honda-accord-photos-and-info-news (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-honda-accord-photos-and-info-news)
(http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2016-Honda-Accord-sedan-101-876x535.jpg)
(http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2016-Honda-Accord-sedan-103-876x535.jpg)
I don't understand how car play and android auto are supposed to work with the double screen system.
Quote from: MrH on July 23, 2015, 05:41:38 PM
I don't understand how car play and android auto are supposed to work with the double screen system.
It looks like those systems might just ignore the top screen, based on the photo. It wouldn't be the first Honda to retrofit a touchscreen for some functions below a largely superfluous bigger screen.
(http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/2016-honda-accord-sedan-inline2-photo-660940-s-original.jpg)
Yeah, I don't get what the top screen is used for then...? Bizarre
No volume knob? lolfuckthat
Quote from: MrH on July 23, 2015, 05:55:15 PM
Yeah, I don't get what the top screen is used for then...? Bizarre
There will be some benefits to it, like keeping a display active at the time the touchscreen is switched over to some menu. But it's probably there mainly because it would cost too much to redesign the dashboard to remove it. The latest all-new Hondas -- Fit, HR-V, Pilot -- have just one screen; the ones that were designed initially with the screen higher up -- CR-V, Civic, Accord, Odyssey -- have two.
Quote from: ifcar on July 23, 2015, 06:04:34 PM
There will be some benefits to it, like keeping a display active at the time the touchscreen is switched over to some menu. But it's probably there mainly because it would cost too much to redesign the dashboard to remove it. The latest all-new Hondas -- Fit, HR-V, Pilot -- have just one screen; the ones that were designed initially with the screen higher up -- CR-V, Civic, Accord, Odyssey -- have two.
Yeah, I figured they don't want to retool for an entirely new dash design. I'm just curious how this will all work together. It's probably going to be janky as hell.
FUUUUU the beak is back! :rage: :cry:
Would you like some wheel with that sidewall? Jeeez
I think it looks really good. 2nd screen probably for HVAC and rear camera, which isn't a bad idea. Too much to have that on the CarPlay screen.
Quote from: giant_mtb on July 23, 2015, 06:01:59 PM
No volume knob? lolfuckthat
Im saying.....
They are doing too damn much.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 23, 2015, 10:02:23 PM
Would you like some wheel with that sidewall? Jeeez
:confused:
Way to make it uglier Honda.
Also, while I am sure the top screen does show HVAC when you're adjusting it, there's actually a third screen below the other two dedicated to the display of the HVAC settings. Obviously not really in the line of sight though. When I testdrove an Accord last fall, I found the dual system to be surprisingly intuitive.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 24, 2015, 06:41:27 AM
:confused:
I probably said it backwards. But with the size of the car, the overall tire diameter is way too short. It looks like it's riding on roller skate wheels. And the fact that there's not much rubber showing highlights it imo. That the rocker panel flares out instead of slightly tucking under makes the problem worse. They borrowed a page from Toyota there.
I think those wheels are plenty big. They've gotta be at least 18s.
The wheels are big, the tires should be a little bigger.
IMO the car is too big and boring for those little details to even matter. Most of these things will be shipped out on 225 65 R17s in accountant beige.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 24, 2015, 08:11:34 AM
I probably said it backwards. But with the size of the car, the overall tire diameter is way too short. It looks like it's riding on roller skate wheels. And the fact that there's not much rubber showing highlights it imo. That the rocker panel flares out instead of slightly tucking under makes the problem worse. They borrowed a page from Toyota there.
Yeah, I think you got it backwards.
"Would you like some sidewall with your tire" would have made more sense.
Like when someone puts a lot of sugar in their coffee, you ask them if they want some coffee with their sugar. :lol:
Edit: That being said, those sidewalls look a lot like mine. :hmm:
I don't think the sidewalks are small, I think the lip of the rim is painted black
Quote from: 2o6 on July 24, 2015, 08:47:40 AM
I don't think the sidewalks are small, I think the lip of the rim is painted black
That would make the sidewalls look too big...
The Accord reminds me of 1970s Elvis. A washed-up, has-been who used to be awesome but then over the years gradually got fat, stopped making hits and existed off his past glories. And just like the fat, profusely sweating, jump suit-wearing Elvis, the Accord has become a grotesque parody of itself.
Yes, the Accord still sells, mostly by trading on its past reputation, to buyers who keep coming back out of force of habit and never bother to cross-shop the competition. You could almost say the same thing about the Camry, too. Except, unlike the Accord, the Camry was never cool.
Its such a shame because I know Honda can do much better than this. Sadly, they've once again chosen the easy way out and decided to phone it in, knowing buyers will keep coming back regardless, just because of the H on the badge. It is this same complacency that nearly killed the Detroit Three.
The sound you hear is Soichiro spinning in his grave.
The Accord and Camry have both have periods of what you describe, but the current models are both outstanding in their class.
Word. Camry and Accord are probably the best cars made today, and the best value, esp. with not bowing to the turbo-4 craze. I don't agree they've ever had such "periods" though. 5th gen Accord and early 8th gen Accord was a bit of a blah, as was the 6th gen Camry, plus any year of the coupe version of either was definitely blah, but washed-up, etc., esp. WRT the competition? lol not a chance. The new Accord Sport with 6MT is a great package too.
The wheels are 19's
I don't think the sidewalls are small or the wheels are small; the wheel gap is too big.
And this is ugly. Wasn't the pre-facelift Accord nice looking?
Also, if there's no volume knob, how do you change the volume?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2015, 11:04:05 PM
Word. Camry and Accord are probably the best cars made today, and the best value, esp. with not bowing to the turbo-4 craze. I don't agree they've ever had such "periods" though. 5th gen Accord and early 8th gen Accord was a bit of a blah, as was the 6th gen Camry, plus any year of the coupe version of either was definitely blah, but washed-up, etc., esp. WRT the competition? lol not a chance. The new Accord Sport with 6MT is a great package too.
The 2012-14 Camry was mediocre to drive even by the class standards (both ride and handling), had mediocre fuel economy, and had poor safety scores. The 2008-12 Accord was expensive, noisy, had mediocre fuel economy, and wasn't fun to drive like the previous or subsequent models. But both have since been fixed up nicely.
Quote from: Raza on July 25, 2015, 05:18:15 AM
Also, if there's no volume knob, how do you change the volume?
You either use the steering wheel controls or hit those little teeny buttons with the plus and minus on the left of the screen:
(http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2016-Honda-Accord-sedan-105-876x535.jpg)
Prediction: Mazda 6 sales will explode!
They've "Acura'd" up the front fascia.
Whoops.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 24, 2015, 10:57:18 AM
That would make the sidewalls look too big...
Idk it looks more like a visual trick to make the wheels look larger than they are rather than actual slim sidewalls
Or I'm desenitized to big wheels now
Quote from: Madman on July 24, 2015, 05:56:38 PM
The Accord reminds me of 1970s Elvis. A washed-up, has-been who used to be awesome but then over the years gradually got fat, stopped making hits and existed off his past glories. And just like the fat, profusely sweating, jump suit-wearing Elvis, the Accord has become a grotesque parody of itself.
Yes, the Accord still sells, mostly by trading on its past reputation, to buyers who keep coming back out of force of habit and never bother to cross-shop the competition. You could almost say the same thing about the Camry, too. Except, unlike the Accord, the Camry was never cool.
Its such a shame because I know Honda can do much better than this. Sadly, they've once again chosen the easy way out and decided to phone it in, knowing buyers will keep coming back regardless, just because of the H on the badge. It is this same complacency that nearly killed the Detroit Three.
The sound you hear is Soichiro spinning in his grave.
Wtf are you talking about
Quote from: Madman on July 24, 2015, 05:56:38 PM
The Accord reminds me of 1970s Elvis. A washed-up, has-been who used to be awesome but then over the years gradually got fat, stopped making hits and existed off his past glories. And just like the fat, profusely sweating, jump suit-wearing Elvis, the Accord has become a grotesque parody of itself.
Yes, the Accord still sells, mostly by trading on its past reputation, to buyers who keep coming back out of force of habit and never bother to cross-shop the competition. You could almost say the same thing about the Camry, too. Except, unlike the Accord, the Camry was never cool.
Its such a shame because I know Honda can do much better than this. Sadly, they've once again chosen the easy way out and decided to phone it in, knowing buyers will keep coming back regardless, just because of the H on the badge. It is this same complacency that nearly killed the Detroit Three.
The sound you hear is Soichiro spinning in his grave.
Lol you are like every internet car enthusiast meme wrapped up in one.
Accord is still a great value and the dynamic champ of its segment. It got a lot bigger but the Civic has filled the role of the old Accord. Admittedly the 9th gen Civic is a little booty doo but it's still a good car. Def way better than the old Accords you are reminiscing over, by a wide margin, including on dynamics.
What do u want, a Euro Accord that is uncompetitive that nobody would buy? Come on guy. But even still the large sedan segment is in decline, because CUVs and "compact" sedans fit people's needs better. I don't think what has happened to the Accord is Honda's fault. I just hope the 11th gen Civic has a V6 option....
There hasnt been much out of the box thinking from Honda for quite a while, though. Their cars are good but they aren't the engineer's hero they used to be.
With both ever more regulation and extreme competition pushing things to a mean, there won't be any engineering breakouts anytime soon.
Quote from: Laconian on July 25, 2015, 05:33:48 PM
There hasnt been much out of the box thinking from Honda for quite a while, though. Their cars are good but they aren't the engineer's hero they used to be.
The same can be said for their motorcycles, too.
Oh, Honda. :( :cry:
Quote from: Laconian on July 25, 2015, 05:33:48 PM
There hasnt been much out of the box thinking from Honda for quite a while, though. Their cars are good but they aren't the engineer's hero they used to be.
Honda's idea of "outside the box" lately has been trying to invent niches that no one wanted. Let's make a pickup, except less capable! Let's make a midsize crossover, except less roomy! Let's make a hybrid, except less roomy and less fuel-efficient! Ooh, that last one is so good, let's also make a sporty two-seat version!
The midsize crossover was a real shame for us, because we were receptive to an Accord wagon, and the Crosstour was just oh-so-bad. Technically speaking, I guess we ended up getting one anyway. :P
There's a contingent on the car blogs that's pro-Crosstour/ZDX, but I figure they're a small pack of contrarians, like the "Panther Love" folks.
Quote from: Laconian on July 25, 2015, 06:57:46 PM
There's a contingent on the car blogs that's pro-Crosstour/ZDX, but I figure they're a small pack of contrarians, like the "Panther Love" folks.
Madmen :lol:
The NSX and a baby NSX are supposedly on the way.... we will see though. Yea Honda did kind of fall off, but their bread and butter cars are still pretty good.
Quote from: Laconian on July 25, 2015, 06:57:46 PM
The midsize crossover was a real shame for us, because we were receptive to an Accord wagon, and the Crosstour was just oh-so-bad. Technically speaking, I guess we ended up getting one anyway. :P
There's a contingent on the car blogs that's pro-Crosstour/ZDX, but I figure they're a small pack of contrarians, like the "Panther Love" folks.
I'm sure the contingent is focusing on the fact that they're nice to drive, which they are. But they would have still been nice to drive if they hadn't been idiotically shaped to eliminate headroom and cargo room.
Quote from: Laconian on July 25, 2015, 06:57:46 PM
The midsize crossover was a real shame for us, because we were receptive to an Accord wagon, and the Crosstour was just oh-so-bad. Technically speaking, I guess we ended up getting one anyway. :P
There's a contingent on the car blogs that's pro-Crosstour/ZDX, but I figure they're a small pack of contrarians, like the "Panther Love" folks.
My gay neighbors had a ZDX until recently.
Quote from: ifcar on July 25, 2015, 06:15:56 PM
Honda's idea of "outside the box" lately has been trying to invent niches that no one wanted. Let's make a pickup, except less capable! Let's make a midsize crossover, except less roomy! Let's make a hybrid, except less roomy and less fuel-efficient! Ooh, that last one is so good, let's also make a sporty two-seat version!
Same can be said of some of their recent new motorcycle efforts.
Honda's grown exceptionally conservative of late and really shows no interest in breaking new ground in many respect, save to see how many vehicle variants they can build off of either the Accord or Civic platforms. No major powertrain breakthroughs since they developed VTEC 25 years ago. Their hybrid DSG w/ torque converter is somewhat interesting, but we'll see where they go with it. They have all but abandoned the enthusiast/fun market for the time being. Remember when Honda made affordable fun cars that were giants in their classes like the CRX, Prelude, and Civic Si? Where are they now? No Prelude successor, the CR-Z is an eco-friendly dud, and the Civic Si is an also ran compared to other sport compacts in the segment. It's basically become what the last Sentra SE-R was about 10 years ago. And even their hybrid drive system is second-rate compared to most anyone else's. Hate to say it, but Honda's more of an appliance company than Toyota these days.
Quote from: MX793 on August 02, 2015, 07:02:58 PM
but Honda's more of an appliance company than Toyota these days.
comfort is a nice thing, but doesn't lead to innovation.
Quote from: MX793 on August 02, 2015, 06:53:57 PM
Same can be said of some of their recent new motorcycle efforts.
Like the Africa Twin.
Let's make a dirtbike that weighs 500 lb but less than 100 hp, and give it an optional autotragic!
:wtf:
Quote from: thecarnut on August 04, 2015, 01:14:18 PM
Like the Africa Twin.
Let's make a dirtbike that weighs 500 lb but less than 100 hp, and give it an optional autotragic!
:wtf:
Africa Twin isn't that different from something like the Super Tenere. I was thinking more like the NM4 or DN-01.
Quote from: MX793 on August 04, 2015, 01:45:22 PM
Africa Twin isn't that different from something like the Super Tenere. I was thinking more like the NM4 or DN-01.
Super Tenere is olde and even heavier. That's not a great bike to compare it to. The Africa Twin is down on power compared to stuff from KTM and BMW. It looks nice though.
Also, you have a point with the DN-01 and especially the NM4. WTF were they thinking with the NM4?!
Quote from: thecarnut on August 04, 2015, 02:53:48 PM
Super Tenere is olde and even heavier. That's not a great bike to compare it to. The Africa Twin is down on power compared to stuff from KTM and BMW. It looks nice though.
Not really. The A-Twin sits somewhere between the F800GS Adventure (85 hp, 500 lbs) and the larger R1200GS Adventure (125 hp, 575 lbs). I'm guessing price will be closer to the F800. The S1000XR is not really a competitor in this segment (not nearly the off-road capability) even though it's grouped with the "adventure bikes". V-Strom 1000 is 100 hp and the same weight. Super Tenere is only 108 hp and a fair bit heavier. The KTM 1190 Adventure is really the only bike in this segment that completely stomps it in power, followed by the Triumph Tiger Explorer 1200 (135 hp, 570 lbs). From my days off-road, I'd say that big power is not necessarily a benefit. Look at the KLR650, which weighs over 400 lbs and makes maybe 40 hp.
I love the Accord...wth is this?
Quote from: MX793 on August 02, 2015, 07:02:58 PM
Honda's grown exceptionally conservative of late and really shows no interest in breaking new ground in many respect, save to see how many vehicle variants they can build off of either the Accord or Civic platforms. No major powertrain breakthroughs since they developed VTEC 25 years ago. Their hybrid DSG w/ torque converter is somewhat interesting, but we'll see where they go with it. They have all but abandoned the enthusiast/fun market for the time being. Remember when Honda made affordable fun cars that were giants in their classes like the CRX, Prelude, and Civic Si? Where are they now? No Prelude successor, the CR-Z is an eco-friendly dud, and the Civic Si is an also ran compared to other sport compacts in the segment. It's basically become what the last Sentra SE-R was about 10 years ago. And even their hybrid drive system is second-rate compared to most anyone else's. Hate to say it, but Honda's more of an appliance company than Toyota these days.
As an unashamed fanboi I resemble these remarks.
No powertrain breakthroughs were really necessary. VTEC was way ahead of its time. It would be nice if they went to CVVL and put CVT on exhaust cams, but their engines are still competitive without them.
*Takes deep breath* S2000 was not that good IMO. Maybe on the right road, on the right day, but as a DD it kind of sucked. NSX was their crowning achievement and I'm not crazy about the new one... but they are supposedly committed to a new one and a Cayman sized one in the spirit of the original. They had a silly amount of overlap with their FWD cars... Prelude, Civic Si, Integra, Del Sol.... all of those have been consolidated into the Civic Si, which matches or beats them all in performance, and is not far off from its contemporary competition while having an honest to god mechanical LSD. If more is needed the Accord 6-6 coupe is a rocket, albeit with a serious need for an LSD, suspension, brakes and tires.
Compared to their competitors I am not sure what the gripe is either. Toyota and Nissan's lineups are more boring, aside from the GT-R/Juke. There are no offerings from either to compete with the Civic Si or Accord V6-6. The Civic Si is dynamically superior to the FoST and on the level of the GTI/GLI while being much cheaper. Not much slower either.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 12, 2015, 08:13:05 AM
As an unashamed fanboi I resemble these remarks.
No powertrain breakthroughs were really necessary. VTEC was way ahead of its time. It would be nice if they went to CVVL and put CVT on exhaust cams, but their engines are still competitive without them.
*Takes deep breath* S2000 was not that good IMO. Maybe on the right road, on the right day, but as a DD it kind of sucked. NSX was their crowning achievement and I'm not crazy about the new one... but they are supposedly committed to a new one and a Cayman sized one in the spirit of the original. They had a silly amount of overlap with their FWD cars... Prelude, Civic Si, Integra, Del Sol.... all of those have been consolidated into the Civic Si, which matches or beats them all in performance, and is not far off from its contemporary competition while having an honest to god mechanical LSD. If more is needed the Accord 6-6 coupe is a rocket, albeit with a serious need for an LSD, suspension, brakes and tires.
Compared to their competitors I am not sure what the gripe is either. Toyota and Nissan's lineups are more boring, aside from the GT-R/Juke. There are no offerings from either to compete with the Civic Si or Accord V6-6. The Civic Si is dynamically superior to the FoST and on the level of the GTI/GLI while being much cheaper. Not much slower either.
So, the Civic Si is good because it's faster than cars from 20 years ago and isn't too far behind today's competition?
I do think most mainstream Hondas, the Accord in particular, are more fun to drive than the typical competitor. Driving enjoyment isn't necessarily related to innovation, of course, but I'd certainly prefer the former.
VTEC was good, a revelation in '89, but continuous lift and phasing systems like VANOS/Valvetronic (BMW) and Valvematic (Toyota) are superior to a stepped system. Honda's love for SOHC somewhat limits them with respect to independent continuous control of intake and exhaust. To their credit, even 25 year old VTEC is ahead of the US domestic automakers, none of which have any sort of variable lift tech in use. Well, Chrysler may now since they're using some Fiat motors, but that tech didn't come from the Chrysler side.
The Si is far and away slower than other entrants in the class. Several seconds slower in C&D's Lightning Lap than the latest GTI, FoST, and even the less expensive FiST. And while it is one of the less expensive entrants in the class, it's not that much less. Like I said, the car fills the same slot that the Sentra SE-R did 10 years ago. Not as fast as others in class, but also cheaper. It's basically left duking it out with the new turbo Hyundai/Kia sporty compacts (and a better option to the Koreans, at least for the time being).
Accord 6/6 is quick in a straight line, and dynamics are decent for a midsize sedan, but it's not going to hang with an actual performance car. Certainly not an alternative to a sport compact. MT recently compared the Accord coupe to the EB Mustang and it got trounced in everything but the drag strip. Though I credit Honda for at least offering it.
Honda isn't pushing the boundaries because it doesn't really have to.
WRT VTEC/SOHC- Honda's old school engines are generally pretty competitive in performance and fuel economy. Most glaring example of this is their V6. More HP and significantly better performance than 2.0Ts in cars with similar weight and gearing with the same or better performance. Most other Japanese automakers engines are not that much more sophisticated, if at all. Only Toyota using Valvematic is the new Corolla and it's no more powerful or efficient than the 10 year old R18 in the Civic. Only Nissans using VVEL, which is crazy complex, are the Z and VQ powered Infinitis. I think the next gen Accord and Civic engines will be all DOHC too. And Valvetronic lol. It took BMW ~15 years to figure out how to make VVT actuators that don't fail/leak.
I will eat the Civic Si point, its over 0.5s slower to 60 and through the quarter. New GTI is as fast as my old Z :mask: Next go round it will get the 2.0T everyone has been asking for, with a mechanical LSD, and the order shall be re-established.
Quote from: MX793 on August 12, 2015, 10:07:19 AM
VTEC was good, a revelation in '89, but continuous lift and phasing systems like VANOS/Valvetronic (BMW) and Valvematic (Toyota) are superior to a stepped system. Honda's love for SOHC somewhat limits them with respect to independent continuous control of intake and exhaust. To their credit, even 25 year old VTEC is ahead of the US domestic automakers, none of which have any sort of variable lift tech in use. Well, Chrysler may now since they're using some Fiat motors, but that tech didn't come from the Chrysler side.
The Si is far and away slower than other entrants in the class. Several seconds slower in C&D's Lightning Lap than the latest GTI, FoST, and even the less expensive FiST. And while it is one of the less expensive entrants in the class, it's not that much less. Like I said, the car fills the same slot that the Sentra SE-R did 10 years ago. Not as fast as others in class, but also cheaper. It's basically left duking it out with the new turbo Hyundai/Kia sporty compacts (and a better option to the Koreans, at least for the time being).
Accord 6/6 is quick in a straight line, and dynamics are decent for a midsize sedan, but it's not going to hang with an actual performance car. Certainly not an alternative to a sport compact. MT recently compared the Accord coupe to the EB Mustang and it got trounced in everything but the drag strip. Though I credit Honda for at least offering it.
FWIW, that wasn't a direct comparo, plus the handling #s for the Accord were from a MY2013 and the MY2016 has received upgrades in that area. It's still no performance car but "trounced" I'd say has to wait.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 12, 2015, 11:35:27 AM
Honda isn't pushing the boundaries because it doesn't really have to.
WRT VTEC/SOHC- Honda's old school engines are generally pretty competitive in performance and fuel economy. Most glaring example of this is their V6. More HP and significantly better performance than 2.0Ts in cars with similar weight and gearing with the same or better performance. Most other Japanese automakers engines are not that much more sophisticated, if at all. Only Toyota using Valvematic is the new Corolla and it's no more powerful or efficient than the 10 year old R18 in the Civic. Only Nissans using VVEL, which is crazy complex, are the Z and VQ powered Infinitis. I think the next gen Accord and Civic engines will be all DOHC too. And Valvetronic lol. It took BMW ~15 years to figure out how to make VVT actuators that don't fail/leak.
I will eat the Civic Si point, its over 0.5s slower to 60 and through the quarter. New GTI is as fast as my old Z :mask: Next go round it will get the 2.0T everyone has been asking for, with a mechanical LSD, and the order shall be re-established.
It's totally funny that the ~20-year-old SOHC J Series V6 embarrasses the competition's NEW turbo-4s in all measures, including real-world MPG, and totally hangs with any new N/A V6s, including being tops in NVH.
Imagine what a new N/A DOHC Honda V6 would look like today.
Sadly, I think that Japanese V6 stagnation is a harbinger of effort instead thrown at development of turbo motors. It will be a sad day when the N/A J Series and VQ are not longer available.
When the J and VQ came out, especially the VQ, they were hail marys. A 20 yr run is probably what they needed to recoup development costs. It's not surprising though. Good design is good design. See: GM pooprod V8s. I think part of it is complacency/laziness but a large part of it is simply if it aint broke dont fix it. All that said the low/midrange grunt of BMW's N54/55 is hard to argue against, esp with its 10-20% better real world gas mileage. But it seems only the Germans are actually able to make good on turbo engine promises.
IMO the B-series engine is still the best thing that Honda has made. Early K-series (K20A2) were good as well.
VQ and J Series are better motors than the N54/55 - despite being ~20 years old they are far simpler, more robust/reliable, less costly, just as efficient or more so (J Series). Imagine what this picture looks like if both V6s were new? You'd see ~350 hp, 10-20% better MPG, and even more refinement.
Things are changing though. Used to be appliance repair was a big thing but no such thing really exists and people held onto their electronic devices for more than two years. Now, things are quick churn and disposable and cars will probably go that way - designed to last the term of financing/lease. We pretty much have seen it with super luxury cars - after ~7-10 years they're worth no more than an Accord (sometimes less). They simply become far too expensive to fix.
Everything is disposable. It's pretty sad. Every new device or gadget or appliance or car is "more efficient" or better than it was before, so everybody just fuckin throws away perfectly usable items so they can get a new one. Makes no sense...people waste a lot more blindly believing they're somehow helping by throwing everything away and buying new stuff all the time because it's greener than the last model. And people wonder why we're running out of room to put shit.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2015, 01:06:38 PM
VQ and J Series are better motors than the N54/55 - despite being ~20 years old they are far simpler, more robust/reliable, less costly, just as efficient or more so (J Series). Imagine what this picture looks like if both V6s were new? You'd see ~350 hp, 10-20% better MPG, and even more refinement.
Things are changing though. Used to be appliance repair was a big thing but no such thing really exists and people held onto their electronic devices for more than two years. Now, things are quick churn and disposable and cars will probably go that way - designed to last the term of financing/lease. We pretty much have seen it with super luxury cars - after ~7-10 years they're worth no more than an Accord (sometimes less). They simply become far too expensive to fix.
Super-lux has never had good resale. That segment is all about having the latest and greatest. They are as much status symbols as conveyances. Nobody wants last year's model, so resale tanks. Add in the complexity and cost for repairs, and resale falls further since most middle class folks are scared off by the upkeep and repair costs.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 12, 2015, 01:18:00 PM
Everything is disposable. It's pretty sad. Every new device or gadget or appliance or car is "more efficient" or better than it was before, so everybody just fuckin throws away perfectly usable items so they can get a new one. Makes no sense...people waste a lot more blindly believing they're somehow helping by throwing everything away and buying new stuff all the time because it's greener than the last model. And people wonder why we're running out of room to put shit.
Well, I'm not so sure the disposable nature of retail products is a bad thing really. It enables newer tech to get into peoples' hands quicker and if the devices are designed correctly they will be more recyclable than more durable products. The hitch is people just have to get accustomed to cycling through products quicker.
Quote from: MX793 on August 12, 2015, 01:25:21 PM
Super-lux has never had good resale. That segment is all about having the latest and greatest. They are as much status symbols as conveyances. Nobody wants last year's model, so resale tanks. Add in the complexity and cost for repairs, and resale falls further since most middle class folks are scared off by the upkeep and repair costs.
Though not a perfect analogy I would disagree about buying habits of the demographic. For every person all giddy about buying the brand new SL65, there are 1,000 who would gladly buy one used, for the same reasons.
If a 10-year-old CL65 or 760IL had the about the same upkeep and repair costs as a 10-year-old Accord the former would hold their value just dandy IMO (enter the first gen NSX).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2015, 02:07:08 PM
Well, I'm not so sure the disposable nature of retail products is a bad thing really. It enables newer tech to get into peoples' hands quicker and if the devices are designed correctly they will be more recyclable than more durable products. The hitch is people just have to get accustomed to cycling through products quicker.
Sure, but recycling uses resources, too. It takes energy to recycle things. If I "recycle" my old cell phone, the materials have to be broken down, separated, sorted, and then shipped alllll the way back to China so it can be "recycled" into something new. It's bullshit, IMO.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 12, 2015, 12:31:27 PM
All that said the low/midrange grunt of BMW's N54/55 is hard to argue against
I will gladly argue against HPFP failures.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2015, 11:56:48 AM
It's totally funny that the ~20-year-old SOHC J Series V6 embarrasses the competition's NEW turbo-4s in all measures, including real-world MPG, and totally hangs with any new N/A V6s, including being tops in NVH.
Imagine what a new N/A DOHC Honda V6 would look like today.
Sadly, I think that Japanese V6 stagnation is a harbinger of effort instead thrown at development of turbo motors. It will be a sad day when the N/A J Series and VQ are not longer available.
To be fair, much of the competitions' 6s are generally better than their new turbo-4s as well (Ford's 3.5/3.7 Cyclone > 2.0T/2.3T, GM's 3.6 HFV6 > 2.0T, Hyundai Lambda V6 > Theta 2.0T). Subaru is probably the only company I'd say their turbo-4s are hands down better than their NA 6.
Quote from: Laconian on August 12, 2015, 04:46:19 PM
I will gladly argue against HPFP failures.
They sorted that out. Jury is still out on carbon buildup though.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2015, 02:13:30 PM
Though not a perfect analogy I would disagree about buying habits of the demographic. For every person all giddy about buying the brand new SL65, there are 1,000 who would gladly buy one used, for the same reasons.
If a 10-year-old CL65 or 760IL had the about the same upkeep and repair costs as a 10-year-old Accord the former would hold their value just dandy IMO (enter the first gen NSX).
The higher the MSRP the more likely the car is leased. Only folks buying 12 cylinder depriciation mills are Russians. Only folks buying S550s and the like are TL&C operators who blow through lease mileage limits. ~50-60% of luxury cars are leased.... they are def building them to a ~3 year lifespan (if that)
(http://i.imgur.com/fA4JxRB.jpg)
Well, that's the bees knees.
Sweet.
Quote from: 68_427 on August 19, 2015, 10:49:26 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fA4JxRB.jpg)
That's gotta be a typo. Where did you find this?
Wut.
Nice!
There's another ad for the Accord Coupe that doesn't list the mpgs for a V6 manual. They clearly just mixed them up.
The specs and available options are all on Honda's website, and this definitely isn't happening. I hate you Cale for making me waste time this morning trying to check the validity :lol:
They still REALLY need an LSD for the V6. That would be cool though. I think I would still rather get the Civic Si. The 9th gen addresses what I didn't like about the 8th (TORQUE) and the looks are growing on me.
Accord V6 M/T sedan could be a viable alternative to the (mostly) AT poser class.
Not from what the coupe indicates. Engine easily overwhelms the chassis. The 4 banger Sport 6MT is the sweet spot. V6 needs an LSD, better brakes and a better suspension to handle the power.
Would be interested in seeing Honda offer an Accord Si with SH-FWD like the old Prelude.
Quote from: MX793 on August 21, 2015, 07:03:27 AM
Would be interested in seeing Honda offer an Accord Si with SH-FWD like the old Prelude.
People did not like rear steering so much, I guess.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 21, 2015, 06:43:25 AM
Not from what the coupe indicates. Engine easily overwhelms the chassis. The 4 banger Sport 6MT is the sweet spot. V6 needs an LSD, better brakes and a better suspension to handle the power.
C&D liked it ("Here is yet another Honda that proves front-drive cars can handle"). Sure ~280 hp is a lot to put through FWD and it's no replacement for RWD but it works pretty swell esp. against the backdrop of a $40k+ A5 or some such.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 21, 2015, 07:09:17 AM
People did not like rear steering so much, I guess.
I was thinking more the ATTS torque vectoring differential.
Quote from: MX793 on August 21, 2015, 08:15:32 AM
I was thinking more the ATTS torque vectoring differential.
Oh, I thought you meant real old skool rear steering. Were the two systems ever combined?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 21, 2015, 08:40:35 AM
Oh, I thought you meant real old skool rear steering. Were the two systems ever combined?
Not that I'm aware of. Definitely not in North America.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 21, 2015, 07:27:46 AM
C&D liked it ("Here is yet another Honda that proves front-drive cars can handle"). Sure ~280 hp is a lot to put through FWD and it's no replacement for RWD but it works pretty swell esp. against the backdrop of a $40k+ A5 or some such.
My homies at Everyday Driver felt otherwise. Said the coupe felt like a sedan with a big engine. And those poseur class rides look a lot better when you factor in lease rates. Same monthly payment on this theoretical car with $10K or so down will get you into a Q50 or w/e for like $3K down. If I had to choose I would probably lease too.
The Q50 is fugly though
Uh, leasing is more expensive than buying, and leasing a $50k car is WAY more expensive than buying a $35k car.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 21, 2015, 09:20:32 AM
Uh, leasing is more expensive than buying, and leasing a $50k car is WAY more expensive than buying a $35k car.
Depends how u do it and what time frame u are looking at.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 22, 2015, 08:48:40 AM
Depends how u do it and what time frame u are looking at.
Very interested in seeing a lease that is cheaper than buying.
Ditto.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 22, 2015, 08:48:40 AM
Depends how u do it and what time frame u are looking at.
Unless they just get the residual wrong, which is unlikely, then the difference comes down to the interest rate, which is almost always higher than loans (especially loans from the manufacturer's finance group) because the financier is taking on more risk plus they are difficult for the consumer to understand / calculate.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 21, 2015, 09:20:32 AM
Uh, leasing is more expensive than buying, and leasing a $50k car is WAY more expensive than buying a $35k car.
"BUT LOW LOW LOW monthly payments!!!!!"
:facepalm:
Leasing a car is like renting an apartment; its not just about the overall cost during the same time frame but your intention and where you plan to be 2/3/5+ years from now. Sometimes, leasing just makes more sense than buying.
Quote from: TBR on August 23, 2015, 08:18:48 AM
Unless they just get the residual wrong, which is unlikely, then the difference comes down to the interest rate, which is almost always higher than loans (especially loans from the manufacturer's finance group) because the financier is taking on more risk plus they are difficult for the consumer to understand / calculate.
There is also risk in mileage overage and condition at lease end.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 13, 2015, 07:59:58 AM
]
The higher the MSRP the more likely the car is leased. Only folks buying 12 cylinder depriciation mills are Russians. Only folks buying S550s and the like are TL&C operators who blow through lease mileage limits. ~50-60% of luxury cars are leased.... they are def building them to a ~3 year lifespan (if that)
If Mercedes is leasing out a car, it's getting that car back at the end of the lease period. So they still have a strong interest in their value remaining at that point.
Quote from: ifcar on August 24, 2015, 10:10:11 PM
If Mercedes is leasing out a car, it's getting that car back at the end of the lease period. So they still have a strong interest in their value remaining at that point.
That's the power of the badge. People are OK with their Benzo being in the shop, in or out of warranty.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 21, 2015, 06:43:25 AM
Not from what the coupe indicates. Engine easily overwhelms the chassis. The 4 banger Sport 6MT is the sweet spot. V6 needs an LSD, better brakes and a better suspension to handle the power.
Who's going go buy it NEW? Answer: 8 people. Everyone goes on and on about the cars they wish were in production, but what's the likelihood of anyone ACTUALLY purchasing them? It's almost zero. Honda has better things to do.
Quote from: CJ on August 25, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Who's going go buy it NEW? Answer: 8 people. Everyone goes on and on about the cars they wish were in production, but what's the likelihood of anyone ACTUALLY purchasing them? It's almost zero. Honda has better things to do.
I didn't say it would be a hot seller. Just that the V6 needs certain things to handle the HP.
Quote from: ifcar on August 24, 2015, 10:10:11 PM
If Mercedes is leasing out a car, it's getting that car back at the end of the lease period. So they still have a strong interest in their value remaining at that point.
Their interest is getting the lessee to pay for that ginormous amount of depreciation.
Quote from: CJ on August 25, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Who's going go buy it NEW? Answer: 8 people. Everyone goes on and on about the cars they wish were in production, but what's the likelihood of anyone ACTUALLY purchasing them? It's almost zero. Honda has better things to do.
Well, Honda better start doing those things - the Accord is on the edge of falling out of the top 10 sales chart...
Quote from: GoCougs on August 25, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
Well, Honda better start doing those things - the Accord is on the edge of falling out of the top 10 sales chart...
That's what I'm referring to.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 25, 2015, 11:44:32 AM
Their interest is getting the lessee to pay for that ginormous amount of depreciation.
Sure, as long as they can get away with the high payments.
Quote from: CJ on August 25, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Who's going go buy it NEW? Answer: 8 people. Everyone goes on and on about the cars they wish were in production, but what's the likelihood of anyone ACTUALLY purchasing them? It's almost zero. Honda has better things to do.
No one makes a lot of money off the WOW COOL cars, but they go a long way towards boosting the overall brand image. I'd bet a lot of people go to go look at the new WRX for example, and drive off with an Impreza...
An Accord with a stick isn't wow cool. Laypeople consider a stickshift to be a liability.
One of the big problems with MT acceptance in the US is that cars bought by couples need to be drivable by both parties. There might be a few people that can still drive stick, but what are the odds that their spouses can too?
If 20% of people drive stick (assuming equal distribution by gender which obv. is an oversimplification), that's 20%*20%=4%.
Quote from: Laconian on August 26, 2015, 11:07:23 AM
An Accord with a stick isn't wow cool. Laypeople consider a stickshift to be a liability.
One of the big problems with MT acceptance in the US is that cars bought by couples need to be drivable by both parties. There might be a few people that can still drive stick, but what are the odds that their spouses can too?
If 20% of people drive stick (assuming equal distribution by gender which obv. is an oversimplification), that's 20%*20%=4%.
Stick should be mandatory to pass driver's ed. So should other things. Graduated licensing, too. You can't drive an automatic with more than 100 hp until such and such.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 26, 2015, 11:49:16 AM
You can't drive an automatic with more than 100 hp until such and such.
So that leaves the Smart ForTwo (70 HP), the Chevrolet Spark (84 HP), the Mitsubishi Mirage (74 HP) and the Scion iQ (94 HP) as the only 2015 model year cars a new driver could have? Oh, there's also a used 2011-14 Mazda 2 (an even 100 HP) which just sneaks in under the "no more then 100 HP" threshold.
Doesn't leave much choice, does it?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 26, 2015, 06:17:50 AM
No one makes a lot of money off the WOW COOL cars, but they go a long way towards boosting the overall brand image. I'd bet a lot of people go to go look at the new WRX for example, and drive off with an Impreza...
Nah halo cars are a myth. Case in point, Honda and Toyota are the top selling Japanese brands and they have the most boring lineups. The gtr is not helping move Sentras
Quote from: Madman on August 26, 2015, 12:15:51 PM
So that leaves the Smart ForTwo (70 HP), the Chevrolet Spark (84 HP), the Mitsubishi Mirage (74 HP) and the Scion iQ (94 HP) as the only 2015 model year cars a new driver could have? Oh, there's also a used 2011-14 Mazda 2 (an even 100 HP) which just sneaks in under the "no more then 100 HP" threshold.
Doesn't leave much choice, does it?
The market would adjust.
So make it 150. Or under 3000 lbs. Make it something.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 26, 2015, 01:02:07 PM
Nah halo cars are a myth. Case in point, Honda and Toyota are the top selling Japanese brands and they have the most boring lineups. The gtr is not helping move Sentras
They're coasting on dependability rep.
Look at Subaru's market share the last 10yrs. Only growing.
Quote from: Laconian on August 26, 2015, 11:07:23 AM
An Accord with a stick isn't wow cool. Laypeople consider a stickshift to be a liability.
One of the big problems with MT acceptance in the US is that cars bought by couples need to be drivable by both parties. There might be a few people that can still drive stick, but what are the odds that their spouses can too?
If 20% of people drive stick (assuming equal distribution by gender which obv. is an oversimplification), that's 20%*20%=4%.
And then, of course with most new/newer models, the AT-equipped version of a vehicle is as quick or quicker and usually gets better MPG vs. the MT version ;).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 26, 2015, 01:02:07 PM
Nah halo cars are a myth. Case in point, Honda and Toyota are the top selling Japanese brands and they have the most boring lineups. The gtr is not helping move Sentras
Halo cars work if there's some connection to the lower model. The GTR would help sell an inexpensive sporty coupe if Nissan were to offer one. But the GTR is less of a halo over a Sentra than something just completely unrelated aside from the Nissan name.
Similarly, the Corvette would never have helped sell a Chevette or Aveo, but it lent performance cred to the Camaro.
Quote from: CJ on August 25, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Who's going go buy it NEW? Answer: 8 people. Everyone goes on and on about the cars they wish were in production, but what's the likelihood of anyone ACTUALLY purchasing them? It's almost zero. Honda has better things to do.
And this is why cars suck nowadays. The race to mediocrity. In the future, all will be Camcords with colors assigned to you.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 26, 2015, 02:14:54 PM
And then, of course with most new/newer models, the AT-equipped version of a vehicle is as quick or quicker and usually gets better MPG vs. the MT version ;).
That only matters to mag racers and penny pinching beigeists. Check it out, my accountant friends! My automatic car gets 1mpg better than the manual version that only costs $500-1200 less! If I keep the car for 80 years, I'll save two dollars! And the 0-60 is....hold on to your pocket protectors.....UNAFFECTED!
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 26, 2015, 01:49:44 PM
They're coasting on dependability rep.
Look at Subaru's market share the last 10yrs. Only growing.
They are hardly coasting. They make great cars for normal people. And like you say, Subaru's rep comes from its dependability. I have a coworker who drives about 40K a year and lives in the mountains. Every year he gets a new Subaru Outback. He couldn't tell you an STI from a sexually transmitted infection.
Quote from: ifcar on August 26, 2015, 11:58:29 PM
Halo cars work if there's some connection to the lower model. The GTR would help sell an inexpensive sporty coupe if Nissan were to offer one. But the GTR is less of a halo over a Sentra than something just completely unrelated aside from the Nissan name.
Similarly, the Corvette would never have helped sell a Chevette or Aveo, but it lent performance cred to the Camaro.
In the grand scheme of things it's irrelevant though. OK, maybe not completely. The Vette and Camaro are probably decent profit engines. But their combined sales pale in comparison to even a measly Cruze.
And Nissan does have an inexpensive sporty coupe. It's actually a mega performance bargain and IMO a better driver's car than the GT-R. It's also bombing in sales and probably won't return for another year :lol: Halo cars kind of work within a model range. For example I definitely see a lot of Lancer ES and GTSs with their wheels plastidipped and their exhausts grafted wit fart cans, screaming "I wish I could afford an EVO". I'm sure the Focus ST helps sell Focuses and Fiesta STs. But the effect is really small. Again Toyota and Honda are top selling brands with no halo cars. From a business standpoint halo cars are a low key waste of time.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 26, 2015, 02:14:54 PM
And then, of course with most new/newer models, the AT-equipped version of a vehicle is as quick or quicker and usually gets better MPG vs. the MT version ;).
Some people are willing to make the sacrifice to enjoy driving. Everyone doesn't live in spec charts and spreadsheets.
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 05:55:01 AM
And this is why cars suck nowadays. The race to mediocrity. In the future, all will be Camcords with colors assigned to you.
I would argue the opposite, actually. You, a self identifying automotive purist, went from a Boxster, arguably the purest expression of a sports car in the modern era this side of an Elise, to a JETTA, and enjoyed it thoroughly + still recommend it to this day. You speak high praises of a Civic Si. Etc. Cars like the Fiesta ST, GTI, even a run of the mill Mazda 3 deliver driving engagement in spades. We are in the midst of a driver's car era, because mainstream cars provide such great platforms.... which makes taking on the sacrifices of a full on sports car pointless for most people. Your Z4 is a great sports car, but it's more of a statement of personal expression than a necessity for driving thrills, over say, a 330i ZHP. ZHP might only be able to deliver like 90% of the engagement and performance of the Z4.... but that's pretty fucking good for a car that can seat 5.
I used to be an advocate of the multiple car lineup. "Get the right tool for the job". Then when I had the Civic and Z at the same time I stopped driving the Z. Maybe some people can legit do the multiple car thing. And I think there may still be some legit cases for it. For example my wife and MIL do a lot of garage sales. Plus we are gonna start on kids soon. We can all probably share a minivan. But outside of special needs, I feel like given a choice of multiple cars people will gravitate to the one that best serves their driving needs the best 90% of the time. And for most people.... even enthusiasts.... that car is probably not a sports car.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 27, 2015, 06:15:51 AM
From a business standpoint halo cars are a low key waste of time.
True, but they have to give the enginerds something to play around with to come up with new ideas...
For the record, I don't call myself a purist anymore. Just an asshole.
I'm on my phone, about to get into the car, so I'll respond to the rest later.
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 10:23:11 AM
For the record, I don't call myself a purist anymore. Just an asshole.
I'm on my phone, about to get into the car, so I'll respond to the rest later.
Pure asshole.
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 05:56:38 AM
That only matters to mag racers and penny pinching beigeists. Check it out, my accountant friends! My automatic car gets 1mpg better than the manual version that only costs $500-1200 less! If I keep the car for 80 years, I'll save two dollars! And the 0-60 is....hold on to your pocket protectors.....UNAFFECTED!
:clap:
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 05:56:38 AM
That only matters to mag racers and penny pinching beigeists. Check it out, my accountant friends! My automatic car gets 1mpg better than the manual version that only costs $500-1200 less! If I keep the car for 80 years, I'll save two dollars! And the 0-60 is....hold on to your pocket protectors.....UNAFFECTED!
Meh, you're way overthinking it - it matters to people who want cars that are better to drive (most cars suck with a M/T, esp. with AWD and turbos) and get better mpg (the car that is subject of this post has a ~15% advantage mpg for the AT).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 27, 2015, 12:40:59 PM
Meh, you're way overthinking it - it matters to people who want cars that are better to drive (most cars suck with a M/T, esp. with AWD and turbos) and get better mpg (the car that is subject of this post has a ~15% advantage mpg for the AT).
Saying things does not make them so. There isn't an automatic transmission in the world that is better to drive than its manual counterpart. See what I mean?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 27, 2015, 12:40:59 PM
(most cars suck with a M/T, esp. with AWD and turbos)
Uh, what? Just because you're an unthusiast doesn't mean everyone else is.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 27, 2015, 12:53:34 PM
Saying things does not make them so. There isn't an automatic transmission in the world that is better to drive than its manual counterpart. See what I mean?
But that is a true statement.
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 05:52:07 PM
Uh, what? Just because you're an unthusiast doesn't mean everyone else is.
Like many of your attacks, this is predicated on a rejectable premise.
Feel free to peruse the top 30 sellers in the USA (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/08/usa-30-best-selling-autos-july-2015-sales-figures.html) and do your best to try to convince which cars are "better" with a M/T. I'll give you of course the Accord Coupe V6, and then I'll be generous and give you the Wrangler and maybe the Tacoma, but other than that? Knock yourself out ;).
As cars get ever more complicated and integrated in design (AWD, turbos, hybrids, self driving/parking, etc.) the worse cars become to be driven with a M/T (ergo, their escalating disappearance, esp. in ultra hi-po cars).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 27, 2015, 08:34:06 PM
Like many of your attacks, this is predicated on a rejectable premise.
Feel free to peruse the top 30 sellers in the USA (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/08/usa-30-best-selling-autos-july-2015-sales-figures.html) and do your best to try to convince which cars are "better" with a M/T. I'll give you of course the Accord Coupe V6, and then I'll be generous and give you the Wrangler and maybe the Tacoma, but other than that? Knock yourself out ;).
As cars get ever more complicated and integrated in design (AWD, turbos, hybrids, self driving/parking, etc.) the worse cars become to be driven with a M/T (ergo, their escalating disappearance, esp. in ultra hi-po cars).
Dude your premise sucks
Civic, Accord and Focus are definitely better with stickshifts
Rest of the list sucks to drive beyond repair
Cars like the Rustang, 911, corvette, gti still have like 50% manual take rates
You are completely talking out of your ass
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 27, 2015, 08:43:55 PM
Dude your premise sucks
Civic, Accord and Focus are definitely better with stickshifts
Rest of the list sucks to drive beyond repair
Cars like the Rustang, 911, corvette, gti still have like 50% manual take rates
You are completely talking out of your ass
Good points on the GTI and 911 (and Corvette (Z06)). Not too long ago an A/T in each of 3 was simply unthinkable and now the take rate is 50% (and let's not forget that the last iterations of the Golf R, 911TT and 911 GT3 have been DSG only).
Premise reconfirmed.
Quote from: Laconian on August 26, 2015, 11:07:23 AM
An Accord with a stick isn't wow cool. Laypeople consider a stickshift to be a liability.
One of the big problems with MT acceptance in the US is that cars bought by couples need to be drivable by both parties. There might be a few people that can still drive stick, but what are the odds that their spouses can too?
If 20% of people drive stick (assuming equal distribution by gender which obv. is an oversimplification), that's 20%*20%=4%.
Both my wife and I prefer manuals over automatics.
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 05:52:07 PM
Uh, what? Just because you're an unthusiast doesn't mean everyone else is.
+1
Quote from: GoCougs on August 27, 2015, 09:02:36 PM
Good points on the GTI and 911 (and Corvette (Z06)). Not too long ago an A/T in each of 3 was simply unthinkable and now the take rate is 50% (and let's not forget that the last iterations of the Golf R, 911TT and 911 GT3 have been DSG only).
Premise reconfirmed.
GTI's manual take rate has not budged since the DSG replaced the awful autos, so that's out. First Golf R was stick only, and they are offering a stick for the 2016 model year, so that's out. "Not too long ago".... the 911 got an auto box 26 years ago so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. And the Corvette has always been, to some degree, an old man's car. With HELOC rates being as low as they are jumping up to a Z06 is not unheard of. That is smart business. You might have almost had a point with the Z06 if they made it auto only.
But none of those inaccuracies matter. Your premise- "as cars get more complicated they will be worse to drive with stickshift"- still sucks. Like I showed, demand for certain stickshift cars is still high, and despite modern car complexity there are still plenty of stickshift only cars. Z28, Viper, Fiesta/Focus ST, GT350/R, Civic Si, etc. So clearly people still enjoy them enough that there is a business case to NOT make auto versions of those cars. And exactly what complexities make stickshift cars objectively worse to drive than autos?
Turbo? AWD? Manual?
Those three words in combination are music to somebody's ears around here, especially in the winter.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 27, 2015, 08:34:06 PM
Like many of your attacks, this is predicated on a rejectable premise.
Feel free to peruse the top 30 sellers in the USA (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/08/usa-30-best-selling-autos-july-2015-sales-figures.html) and do your best to try to convince which cars are "better" with a M/T. I'll give you of course the Accord Coupe V6, and then I'll be generous and give you the Wrangler and maybe the Tacoma, but other than that? Knock yourself out ;).
As cars get ever more complicated and integrated in design (AWD, turbos, hybrids, self driving/parking, etc.) the worse cars become to be driven with a M/T (ergo, their escalating disappearance, esp. in ultra hi-po cars).
Your premise is wholly and undoubtably false. Therefore your challenge, like most of your contributions to this forum, is completely worthless.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 06:37:17 AM
GTI's manual take rate has not budged since the DSG replaced the awful autos, so that's out. First Golf R was stick only, and they are offering a stick for the 2016 model year, so that's out. "Not too long ago".... the 911 got an auto box 26 years ago so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. And the Corvette has always been, to some degree, an old man's car. With HELOC rates being as low as they are jumping up to a Z06 is not unheard of. That is smart business. You might have almost had a point with the Z06 if they made it auto only.
But none of those inaccuracies matter. Your premise- "as cars get more complicated they will be worse to drive with stickshift"- still sucks. Like I showed, demand for certain stickshift cars is still high, and despite modern car complexity there are still plenty of stickshift only cars. Z28, Viper, Fiesta/Focus ST, GT350/R, Civic Si, etc. So clearly people still enjoy them enough that there is a business case to NOT make auto versions of those cars. And exactly what complexities make stickshift cars objectively worse to drive than autos?
So, in other words, I was correct, and you confirmed it with your examples, and changing the premise to cars that sell in the hundreds to a few thousand a year in a market of 16.5MM won't help. So in addition to your mention of the GTI, Z06 and 911, let's add other cars that were once unthinkable to have A/T - all Ferraris and all Lambos (I think) and analogous hyper exotics (Porsche 959 -> 918, McClaren F1 -> P1).
Let's take the GTR. With the high bandwidth torque split front and rear and left to right and sophisticated traction/stability control, it does not want an interruption or variation in power delivery. A M/T in that car would be awful as they'd have to buck down that capability. Wash/rinse/repeat, and that is why most any car of the class or above, does not have a M/T, save for maybe the Z06 (but then again, that proves the point, now that plenty are now sold with an A/T).
Quote from: Raza on August 28, 2015, 11:06:30 AM
Your premise is wholly and undoubtably false. Therefore your challenge, like most of your contributions to this forum, is completely worthless.
Well, in your defense, I wouldn't like losing to me either.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 11:24:16 AM
Well, in your defense, I wouldn't like losing to me either.
Just because you blow the most hot air doesn't mean you win. This isn't a ballooning forum. You can talk all you want, but that doesn't you've said anything.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 11:22:47 AM
So, in other words, I was correct, and you confirmed it with your examples, and changing the premise to cars that sell in the hundreds to a few thousand a year in a market of 16.5MM won't help. So in addition to your mention of the GTI, Z06 and 911, let's add other cars that were once unthinkable to have A/T - all Ferraris and all Lambos (I think) and analogous hyper exotics (Porsche 959 -> 918, McClaren F1 -> P1).
Let's take the GTR. With the high bandwidth torque split front and rear and left to right and sophisticated traction/stability control, it does not want an interruption or variation in power delivery. A M/T in that car would be awful as they'd have to buck down that capability. Wash/rinse/repeat, and that is why most any car of the class or above, does not have a M/T, save for maybe the Z06 (but then again, that proves the point, now that plenty are now sold with an A/T).
Naw, your premise is still BS, and you are just talkin in circles instead of actually demonstrating its validity. You still haven't demonstrated how the complexities of today's cars make manual transmission equipped cars "awful to drive" (or what "awful to drive" even means objectively/quantifiably). And you are putting your foot in your mouth on other issues with this train of logic. Are N/A engines "awful to drive" compared to turbo engines? Because a lot of the same forces that have pushed manual transmissions to the fringe are at work with the proliferation of turbocharging. GT-R's AWD system is no more sophisticated than that in something like an S4 or the last TL Type-S, which... surprise surprise... came in stickshift. Plenty of cars have sophisticated torque vectoring and multi-stage stability control systems with stickshift.... like the Z06, the GT4, various Lotuses etc. etc. Unlike you, I have actually driven the GT-R.... in my experienced opinion, its transmission worked for the job of getting around a track with minimum distraction, but it did not help at all with making the car fun to drive. U should maybe close your textbooks and spreadsheets and go drive some cars, before declaring what is and isn't objectively "awful to drive".... the R35 GT-R was a major step in the wrong direction in the realm of driving engagement and performance cars at large.
Boy, Sporty, you and diversions of premises. I can't keep up any more.
Most cars just aren't very good with a M/T and by the year that includes ever more performance models as they advance in complexity and performance.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 01:44:03 PM
Boy, Sporty, you and diversions of premises. I can't keep up any more.
Most cars just aren't very good with a M/T and by the year that includes ever more performance models as they advance in complexity and performance.
Keep sticking to your line, that'll make it true. :wanker:
Quote from: Raza on August 28, 2015, 02:41:20 PM
Keep sticking to your line, that'll make it true. :wanker:
So what vehicles in the top 30 are better in any way to drive with a M/T? Save for my generous and extremely few proffered caveats I challenge you to rationally assert that an F150 or Escape or Soul or Camry or CRV or w/e is in any way better to drive with a M/T.
I've yet to drive a vehicle with an automatic or SMG/DSG gearbox that I preferred over a traditional manual. Autos, when left to their own devices, rarely behave how I want them to (upshifting the instant the throttle is lifted and then hesitating to downshift again when throttle is reapplied, downshifting mid-corner as throttle is applied, slipping the torque converter instead of running in the appropriate gear). And I've found manual mode on any traditional slushy to be sluggish. Not to mention with newer boxes that have 8 (or more) ratios, you're constantly flicking through gears with the inability to skip gears as with a traditional manual. SMGs/DSGs are slightly better, as they have no torque converter to provide that "slushy" feeling whereby engine speed and road speed aren't really connected, but still have their flaws. They either don't permit aggressive starts or require you fumble through a veritable rain dance to engage some kind of launch control if they do, and don't generally offer the same level of control.
I will also add that a traditional, 3-pedal manual is superior in the snow, IMO/IME. Much better control for modulating power to the wheels when trying to take off from a stop.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
So what vehicles in the top 30 are better in any way to drive with a M/T? Save for my generous and extremely few proffered caveats I challenge you to rationally assert that an F150 or Escape or Soul or Camry or CRV or w/e is in any way better to drive with a M/T.
Every single one. I'm assuming. I didn't look at your list, because going by the top 30 sales is totally a beigeist line of argument, and I don't give a fuck about beigeists. It's okay if you are one. Dude, you can be who you are. It's 2015. Gays can marry. Dudes can be chicks and kill people in car accidents and still get the cover of Vanity Fair. Be you, brother, let it out.
For the record, though, the Escape, Soul, Camry, and CRV would all be better to drive. Don't know about the F150, I don't know anything about pickups. Better to sit in traffic while checking texts and drinking shitty coffee? No, but that's hardly driving.
Quote from: Raza on August 28, 2015, 03:47:05 PM
Every single one. I'm assuming. I didn't look at your list, because going by the top 30 sales is totally a beigeist line of argument, and I don't give a fuck about beigeists. It's okay if you are one. Dude, you can be who you are. It's 2015. Gays can marry. Dudes can be chicks and kill people in car accidents and still get the cover of Vanity Fair. Be you, brother, let it out.
For the record, though, the Escape, Soul, Camry, and CRV would all be better to drive. Don't know about the F150, I don't know anything about pickups. Better to sit in traffic while checking texts and drinking shitty coffee? No, but that's hardly driving.
Trust me when I say I cry out in pain every time I defeat you.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
Trust me when I say I cry out in pain every time I defeat you.
I like you Cougs, I really do. I just wish you could see the light and benefit from my guidance rather than staying in the dark. I mean, it's so Plato.
You just keep talking. If posting while saying nothing of any substance ever is winning, then dude, you're the Charlie Sheen of fuck all. Explain how they're better with automatics. Try not to use "MPG" and "0-60" in your "explanation". Or just avoid answering the question and/or blame the welfare state. Whatever man, it's not my fault you can't accept that you don't belong on a car enthusiast site. You lose, like you always lose, because you insist on thinking every discussion is something to win and that if you just keep talking, you win.
Every single car is better with a manual. If you don't think so, you're wrong. Period. I win.
Quote from: Raza on August 28, 2015, 03:47:05 PM
Every single one. I'm assuming. I didn't look at your list, because going by the top 30 sales is totally a beigeist line of argument, and I don't give a fuck about beigeists. It's okay if you are one. Dude, you can be who you are. It's 2015. Gays can marry. Dudes can be chicks and kill people in car accidents and still get the cover of Vanity Fair. Be you, brother, let it out.
For the record, though, the Escape, Soul, Camry, and CRV would all be better to drive. Don't know about the F150, I don't know anything about pickups. Better to sit in traffic while checking texts and drinking shitty coffee? No, but that's hardly driving.
My work truck is an F-150. I wish it was a manual. When it is time for a new work truck, I will again ask for a manual.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 28, 2015, 04:15:32 PM
My work truck is an F-150. I wish it was a manual. When it is time for a new work truck, I will again ask for a manual.
They haven't made an F-150 with a manual gearbox in over a decade. Chevy and Dodge dropped manuals from their 1/2 tons before Ford did.
Quote from: MX793 on August 28, 2015, 04:19:07 PM
They haven't made an F-150 with a manual gearbox in over a decade. Chevy and Dodge dropped manuals from their 1/2 tons before Ford did.
I know. Maybe I can get a Tacoma crew cab...? I have no idea what is available with a manual, anymore. It is sad
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 01:44:03 PM
Boy, Sporty, you and diversions of premises. I can't keep up any more.
Most cars just aren't very good with a M/T and by the year that includes ever more performance models as they advance in complexity and performance.
Lol I answered your claims one by one and brought it all back to your claim that modern cars are objectively horrible to drive with M/Ts due to their complexity.
And now you are moving the goal post by adding performance to your claim, hoping we wouldn't notice.
I'm gonna ask for the 4th time. How do the complexities of modern cars make them horrible to drive? Your GT-R example is not relevant to the top 30 you keep referencing. What is so complicated about a CR-V today, vs one from 10-15 years ago, that makes a theoretical stickshift version "horrible to drive"?
Quote from: Raza on August 28, 2015, 03:59:38 PM
I like you Cougs, I really do. I just wish you could see the light and benefit from my guidance rather than staying in the dark. I mean, it's so Plato.
You just keep talking. If posting while saying nothing of any substance ever is winning, then dude, you're the Charlie Sheen of fuck all. Explain how they're better with automatics. Try not to use "MPG" and "0-60" in your "explanation". Or just avoid answering the question and/or blame the welfare state. Whatever man, it's not my fault you can't accept that you don't belong on a car enthusiast site. You lose, like you always lose, because you insist on thinking every discussion is something to win and that if you just keep talking, you win.
Every single car is better with a manual. If you don't think so, you're wrong. Period. I win.
I'd pay some decent coin to see you of all people try to muscle about a Suburban with a M/T ;).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 05:00:09 PM
Lol I answered your claims one by one and brought it all back to your claim that modern cars are objectively horrible to drive with M/Ts due to their complexity.
And now you are moving the goal post by adding performance to your claim, hoping we wouldn't notice.
I'm gonna ask for the 4th time. How do the complexities of modern cars make them horrible to drive? Your GT-R example is not relevant to the top 30 you keep referencing. What is so complicated about a CR-V today, vs one from 10-15 years ago, that makes a theoretical stickshift version "horrible to drive"?
For someone who isn't very good at driving stick, or even just proficient at it, it probably is fairly horrible to drive versus a modern automatic. There are plenty of people out there who "know how to drive stick", but aren't necessarily good at it. There's a big difference between being able to get from A to B without stalling and being good at it. By "good at it", I mean being proficient at rev matching, double-clutching, and clutchless shifting (not recommended practice, but if you lose the master cylinder it's a skill that comes in handy).
When I test drove a 2015 Mustang GT earlier this year, I was chatting with the salesman who mentioned he generally preferred autos, but knew how to drive a stick and recently picked up a used WRX (which was MT-only). During the drive, I took off from a stoplight in 2nd gear just as smoothly as if I was in 1st (no excessive clutch slip or bucking/sputtering or anything). The car had 3.73s and I was on a slight downhill, so a 2nd gear launch was actually smoother. I do it pretty frequently in my V6, which has very similar gearing, and the added grunt of the 5.0 made it that much easier. Salesman was actually paying attention and remarked with some surprise that I had just taken off so smoothly in 2nd. When I responded that it was intentional, given the power and short gearing, he then replied that he'd never seen anyone do that before.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 05:00:09 PM
Lol I answered your claims one by one and brought it all back to your claim that modern cars are objectively horrible to drive with M/Ts due to their complexity.
And now you are moving the goal post by adding performance to your claim, hoping we wouldn't notice.
I'm gonna ask for the 4th time. How do the complexities of modern cars make them horrible to drive? Your GT-R example is not relevant to the top 30 you keep referencing. What is so complicated about a CR-V today, vs one from 10-15 years ago, that makes a theoretical stickshift version "horrible to drive"?
You make me cry out pain too if it helps.
You tried to bring hi-po cars into and it defeated your premise, and I then I added to it by using the GTR (and pretty much all cars over ~$100,000) as example of why those cars would suck with a M/T and thus why they are not available that way.
As to more plebeian affairs (Camry, CRV, Escape, w/e) what is the value of a M/T? The cars aren't any fun really to begin with (though I wouldn't mind giving a 6.2L Silverado M/T a go) and then you make it slower and get less MPG by saddling it with a M/T.
Do autos truly get better mileage in real-world driving, or just in EPA tests in which automakers program the shift points to suit the test?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 05:24:24 PM
I'd pay some decent coin to see you of all people try to muscle about a Suburban with a M/T ;).
Do you know how a manual transmission works? What does the size of a car have to do with its shifting mechanism?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 05:59:54 PM
You make me cry out pain too if it helps.
You tried to bring hi-po cars into and it defeated your premise, and I then I added to it by using the GTR (and pretty much all cars over ~$100,000) as example of why those cars would suck with a M/T and thus why they are not available that way.
As to more plebeian affairs (Camry, CRV, Escape, w/e) what is the value of a M/T? The cars aren't any fun really to begin with (though I wouldn't mind giving a 6.2L Silverado M/T a go) and then you make it slower and get less MPG by saddling it with a M/T.
Im not going in circles with you anymore. Now you are taking points I made and claiming them as your own lol. And after all those keystrokes you still haven't answered the question. Only person who takes being wrong worse is r0tor.
Quote from: MX793 on August 28, 2015, 06:06:50 PM
Do autos truly get better mileage in real-world driving, or just in EPA tests in which automakers program the shift points to suit the test?
Cougs doesn't believe in real world fuel economy data, or EPA fuel economy testing, unless they validate his predetermined beliefs.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 06:11:15 PM
Do you know how a manual transmission works? What does the size of a car have to do with its shifting mechanism?
Well, in his defense, you are the one who said your civic is hard to take off with from a stop :lol:
If I had bought either of my current vehicles with an automatic, I would eventually realize what I did and kill myself.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 06:11:15 PM
Do you know how a manual transmission works? What does the size of a car have to do with its shifting mechanism?
Im not going in circles with you anymore. Now you are taking points I made and claiming them as your own lol. And after all those keystrokes you still haven't answered the question. Only person who takes being wrong worse is r0tor.
As a red-blooded American who has owned a full-size pickup with M/T, well, I can tell you you'll just have to do it to find out, and I'm talking about more than punishing a clutch when backing up a trailer or shifting when in 4Lo.
Meh, *rot0r shrug* to the rest.
Now we have moved the goalposts 20 ft to accommodate backing up a trailer in 4Lo :wtf:
Quote from: MX793 on August 28, 2015, 06:06:50 PM
Do autos truly get better mileage in real-world driving, or just in EPA tests in which automakers program the shift points to suit the test?
My only real-world experience pf M/T vs. CVTs, and of course that is a resounding yes. But many AT cars aren't CVTs.
Firstly, ATs have always been tuned for quickest upshifts when in "D" (and tight converters if so equipped).
Secondly, some ATs these days typically have 1-2 more gears than their MT counterparts (G37, 3er, Corvette, Mustang, Camaro, etc., etc.).
Third, since the engine knows exactly when the transmission will be shifting it can, it can modulate the engine for best efficiency (any mismatch in RPM and gear engagement = loss momentum = lost MPG).
Fourth, ATs typically have a bigger gear ratio spread and taller top gear (sometimes much more so, as in the G37) as the converter can act a bit like a clutch when needed.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 06:59:47 PM
Now we have moved the goalposts 20 ft to accommodate backing up a trailer in 4Lo :wtf:
Who said anything about size of vehicle shifting mechanism (whatever that is)?
I'm still crying out FWIW.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 07:00:24 PM
My only real-world experience pf M/T vs. CVTs, and of course that is a resounding yes. But many AT cars aren't CVTs.
Firstly, ATs have always been tuned for quickest upshifts when in "D" (and tight converters if so equipped).
Secondly, some ATs these days typically have 1-2 more gears than their MT counterparts (G37, 3er, Corvette, Mustang, Camaro, etc., etc.).
Third, since the engine knows exactly when the transmission will be shifting it can, it can modulate the engine for best efficiency (any mismatch in RPM and gear engagement = loss momentum = lost MPG).
Fourth, ATs typically have a bigger gear ratio spread and taller top gear (sometimes much more so, as in the G37) as the converter can act a bit like a clutch when needed.
I've owned 3 manuals and one automatic. Never had trouble exceeding EPA numbers in the manuals. The auto? I'm lucky to match EPA.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 28, 2015, 06:59:47 PM
Now we have moved the goalposts 20 ft to accommodate backing up a trailer in 4Lo :wtf:
4lo is actually easier than 4hi. Throttle input is rarely necessary.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 05:24:24 PM
I'd pay some decent coin to see you of all people try to muscle about a Suburban with a M/T ;).
Make it happen.
Fuelly and the EPA indicate the difference is not that big for many cars. When a mainstreamer is available with stick and auto, stick is always faster, gas mileage is generally within 1-2 MPG combined. CVT, DSG, regular planetary box, doesn't matter. Premise gets weaker and weaker.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 28, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
So what vehicles in the top 30 are better in any way to drive with a M/T?
All of them.
Autos are for ninnies who can't drive or people who are stuck because the car they want doesn't come in manual.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 29, 2015, 05:38:53 PM
All of them.
Autos are for ninnies who can't drive or people who are stuck because the car they want doesn't come in manual.
I remember many times looking for a car, saying things like "I'm flexible on colors. Black, gray, blue, red, even silver or white maybe. Just nothing loud, like yellow. I'm fine with low numbers of options. My only must have is a manual [and a sunroof if fixed roof]." Then you'd have idiots coming back with "I found a car that's exactly what you want....except it's an automatic." Do you mean that it's a car that's been painted? Because my one no-budge requirement was a stick. Transmission is so fundamental to the experience of a car, I can't imagine wanting a car that is an automatic unless it's something really old and relaxed like an old SL. Something that inspires you to just cruise and never really get on it; where the enjoyment isn't about driving hard and pushing yourself. But then again, I would still lament having to wait for the transmission to react to my inputs rather than being proactive. Automatics just suck. But, for a Pagoda SL, I think I'd forgive one.
Quote from: Raza on August 29, 2015, 05:47:53 PM
I remember many times looking for a car, saying things like "I'm flexible on colors. Black, gray, blue, red, even silver or white maybe. Just nothing loud, like yellow. I'm fine with low numbers of options. My only must have is a manual [and a sunroof if fixed roof]." Then you'd have idiots coming back with "I found a car that's exactly what you want....except it's an automatic." Do you mean that it's a car that's been painted? Because my one no-budge requirement was a stick. Transmission is so fundamental to the experience of a car, I can't imagine wanting a car that is an automatic unless it's something really old and relaxed like an old SL. Something that inspires you to just cruise and never really get on it; where the enjoyment isn't about driving hard and pushing yourself. But then again, I would still lament having to wait for the transmission to react to my inputs rather than being proactive. Automatics just suck. But, for a Pagoda SL, I think I'd forgive one.
Our CLK is an automatic, the only slush box we've owned and driven in 25 years. The automatic suits the car, so I'm OK with it. Still though I'd have preferred a 5 speed manual in the car.
I'd have bought an SLK just because they come with manual, but the luggage space is pathetic and since we use the car for trips it would not be a practical choice.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 28, 2015, 07:33:34 PM
4lo is actually easier than 4hi. Throttle input is rarely necessary.
Shifting, bro, esp. under power. All that reduction is much more likely to make it a herky jerky affair.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 30, 2015, 01:17:41 PM
Shifting, bro, esp. under power. All that reduction is much more likely to make it a herky jerky affair.
Don't act like I haven't owned at least three manual 4x4s. In fact, letting an automatic shift in 4lo is obscenely unsmooth in every vehicle I have driven. I cannot help your lack of skill with a clutch. Like many things, it takes practice, and some people will just never get it.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 30, 2015, 01:25:52 PM
Don't act like I haven't owned at least three manual 4x4s. In fact, letting an automatic shift in 4lo is obscenely unsmooth in every vehicle I have driven. I cannot help your lack of skill with a clutch. Like many things, it takes practice, and some people will just never get it.
I remind you of something you already know: most off road 4WD rigs, factory and modified, amateur and professional, are chosen to be AT (which is not because buyers/drivers/builders didn't "practice" how to drive M/T).
E90 manual is quicker/gets better fuel economy...when modded though...
I think an automatic NC Miata gets at least 8-10 mpg more than mine.
Then again, my foot is always on the floor and the tach is always at 5k+. :devil:
Quote from: GoCougs on August 30, 2015, 05:28:35 PM
I remind you of something you already know: most off road 4WD rigs, factory and modified, amateur and professional, are chosen to be AT (which is not because buyers/drivers/builders didn't "practice" how to drive M/T).
??? You really don't know any jeepers do you
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 01, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
??? You really don't know any jeepers do you
Or Samurai enthusiasts.
In fact, real, actual professional off roaders who require the greatest in durability an on-trail serviceability will use a throttle lock and/or hand throttle and/or redundant hand brake controls, not opt for an overheating AT.
It is entirely possible to replace a clutch in the field, but rebuilding, or doing any work on an AT requires a near sterile environment.
Sure some like M/Ts but that doesn't invalidate that in total most off road rigs of any stripe and level are AT.
AT conversions are common for CJ-5/7 - feel free to Google all of the threads and sites and videos. These rigs are all AT. Get a good tight converter and you have far better wheel speed control, which is important in getting thru a course like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZWLFaiW5g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZWLFaiW5g)
AT can be kept cool with the right plumbing and coolers. Not so easy to cool a clutch, esp. when it is slipped and ridden as has to be done for plenty of off road tasks.
AT are greatly more difficult to work on but they are plenty durable if done right. In the grand scheme of things, there are more failed clutches (which requires that the tranny come out anyways) than failed ATs.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2015, 11:06:02 AM
Sure some like M/Ts but that doesn't invalidate that in total most off road rigs of any stripe and level are AT.
AT conversions are common for CJ-5/7 - feel free to Google all of the threads and sites and videos. These rigs are all AT. Get a good tight converter and you have far better wheel speed control, which is important in getting thru a course like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZWLFaiW5g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZWLFaiW5g)
AT can be kept cool with the right plumbing and coolers. Not so easy to cool a clutch, esp. when it is slipped and ridden as has to be done for plenty of off road tasks.
AT are greatly more difficult to work on but they are plenty durable if done right. In the grand scheme of things, there are more failed clutches (which requires that the tranny come out anyways) than failed ATs.
Discourse is pointless when everything pulled out of one's ass. But please, do continue with your contrarionism for its own sake.
meh, googling show a ford vs. chevy type endless debate.
But for those scared of a 3rd pedal please continue to buy automatics.
The two most capable off road/4WD factory rigs that can be driven on the street (Hummer H1 and Ford Raptor) are both AT only.
Formula hill climbers are all AT (see 1:56) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or8BZctyRpo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or8BZctyRpo)
Custom buggies are all AT (see 1:05) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpoKsIO6v7k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpoKsIO6v7k)
Custom rock crawlers are all AT (see 3:00) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOdny710vw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOdny710vw)
Big mud trucks are all AT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbbR-VxBJ28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbbR-VxBJ28)
CJ-7 w/AT swap and there are near countless vids (see 0:10) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBKQr_6vn0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBKQr_6vn0)
There is no counter argument to the fact that most off road rigs of any type or stripe are AT.
H1 is A/T to maximize the number of users who can operate it. Saves the military from having to train soldiers how to drive stick. Not to mention wear and tear incurred when they are operated by those who don't know how.
Raptor is A/T because Ford doesn't have an M/T on the shelf that would work (no M/T in any F150).
Hill climbers are A/T for the same reason most dragsters are. They're very similar vehicle types.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2015, 02:29:03 PM
The two most capable off road/4WD factory rigs that can be driven on the street (Hummer H1 and Ford Raptor) are both AT only.
Formula hill climbers are all AT (see 1:56) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or8BZctyRpo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or8BZctyRpo)
Custom buggies are all AT (see 1:05) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpoKsIO6v7k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpoKsIO6v7k)
Custom rock crawlers are all AT (see 3:00) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOdny710vw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOdny710vw)
Big mud trucks are all AT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbbR-VxBJ28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbbR-VxBJ28)
CJ-7 w/AT swap and there are near countless vids (see 0:10) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBKQr_6vn0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBKQr_6vn0)
There is no counter argument to the fact that most off road rigs of any type or stripe are AT.
Nobody argued against "most", or easiest to operate. Just "best".
Your internetery is low, Gougs
Quote from: MX793 on September 01, 2015, 02:42:13 PM
H1 is A/T to maximize the number of users who can operate it. Saves the military from having to train soldiers how to drive stick. Not to mention wear and tear incurred when they are operated by those who don't know how.
Raptor is A/T because Ford doesn't have an M/T on the shelf that would work (no M/T in any F150).
Hill climbers are A/T for the same reason most dragsters are. They're very similar vehicle types.
I'm sure ease of use is part of it, but also the H1 would have limitations in performance with a M/T owing to low power, slow-to-rev diesel and lots of gear ratio (i.e., interruption in wheel speed is bad) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueVmxUJTD0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueVmxUJTD0)
Automakers don't decide what to put in their vehicles because of what is or isn't "on the shelf." Either way, the Raptor's off road analog, the Trophy Truck (the fastest class in the Baja 1000, et al.), are all AT and the old GM TH400 no less (http://www.fourwheeler.com/features/trophy-truck-technology-2/ (http://www.fourwheeler.com/features/trophy-truck-technology-2/)).
Sure, there are lots of reasons why ATs dominate off road, but nonetheless they do.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 01, 2015, 02:55:47 PM
Nobody argued against "most", or easiest to operate. Just "best".
Your internetery is low, Gougs
M/T are not the best either overall. If they were custom rigs and Trophy Trucks and CJs all the rest would mostly be M/T. Most aren't because M/T is a performance detriment in many/most off road situations vs. a properly sorted AT.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2015, 03:11:00 PM
Automakers don't decide what to put in their vehicles because of what is or isn't "on the shelf."
:wtf:!!!
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2015, 02:29:03 PM
(Hummer H1
-998 internetry
Americans buy 98% auto transmissions in the civilian sector because they can't drive. Army isn't going to teach people to drive stick. Trying to drive in combat zone is super stressful. So NO CLUTCH since like 1970s.
(you might get a point back if you know why I picked the number I picked)
Quote from: MX793 on September 01, 2015, 02:42:13 PM
(no M/T in any F150).
serious?? I've only driven two F150 and the first one had a clutch. (1990s)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 02, 2015, 02:02:22 PM
serious?? I've only driven two F150 and the first one had a clutch. (1990s)
Ford stopped offering the MT option when they dropped the 4.2L V6 (only engine you could pair with the MT) back in '07. That powertrain combination was fleet-only for the final couple of years, so I think '03 might have been the last year an MT was available to any buyer. I believe '96 was the last year you could get an MT w/ V8 in the F-150.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2015, 03:12:54 PM
M/T are not the best either overall. If they were custom rigs and Trophy Trucks and CJs all the rest would mostly be M/T. Most aren't because M/T is a performance detriment in many/most off road situations vs. a properly sorted AT.
LOL.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 30, 2015, 01:25:52 PM
Don't act like I haven't owned at least three manual 4x4s. In fact, letting an automatic shift in 4lo is obscenely unsmooth in every vehicle I have driven. I cannot help your lack of skill with a clutch. Like many things, it takes practice, and some people will just never get it.
Clutch? I thought you were a trucker man.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 02, 2015, 02:00:00 PM
-998 internetry
Americans buy 98% auto transmissions in the civilian sector because they can't drive. Army isn't going to teach people to drive stick. Trying to drive in combat zone is super stressful. So NO CLUTCH since like 1970s.
(you might get a point back if you know why I picked the number I picked)
Which is exactly why in the '80s the army refitted a lot of the old M35 Deuces with automatics: They could no longer get enough people who could drive them .
But yeah, Cougs here is more right than wrong: automatics are indeed quantifiably better in a lot of low traction situations. That doesn't make them better for any one particular buyer though.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 02, 2015, 08:40:29 PM
But yeah, Cougs here is more right than wrong: automatics are indeed quantifiably better in a lot of low traction situations. That doesn't make them better for any one particular buyer though.
Negative
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 02, 2015, 02:00:00 PM
-998 internetry
Americans buy 98% auto transmissions in the civilian sector because they can't drive. Army isn't going to teach people to drive stick. Trying to drive in combat zone is super stressful. So NO CLUTCH since like 1970s.
(you might get a point back if you know why I picked the number I picked)
Well, not many in the civilian sector can shoot guns, fly planes, get up early, etc., etc., either ;). But point taken, but also point given on H1 performance with M/T vs. A/T.
No, I do not know about 998.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 02, 2015, 11:42:39 PM
Well, not many in the civilian sector can shoot guns, fly planes, get up early, etc., etc., either ;). But point taken, but also point given on H1 performance with M/T vs. A/T.
No, I do not know about 998.
The M998 was the standard configuration humvee, before they got all uparmored and shit.
Transmission was the old GM TH400
Quote from: GoCougs on September 02, 2015, 11:42:39 PM
Well, not many in the civilian sector can shoot guns, fly planes, get up early, etc., etc., either ;). But point taken, but also point given on H1 performance with M/T vs. A/T.
Your syntax is weird but the H1 was never tested with M/T.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 03, 2015, 12:57:42 AM
The M998 was the standard configuration humvee, before they got all uparmored and shit.
Transmission was the old GM TH400
+1097 internetry :lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 03, 2015, 07:25:49 AM
Your syntax is weird but the H1 was never tested with M/T.
Correct, because performance would be dismal, so they didn't bother.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 03, 2015, 11:05:14 AM
Correct, because performance would be dismal, so they didn't bother.
The 3 speed auto they came with wasn't exactly blistering. A 6MT would provide adequate ratio spread for the engine in those. Particularly if a low range is provided.
You can't do this with a Humvee, either
(https://hansonmechanical.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/side012.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on September 03, 2015, 11:05:14 AM
Correct, because performance would be dismal, so they didn't bother.
NO because 10-15 yrs earlier all Army vehicles had been converted or bought in A/T. They weren't going to change that. That's like saying they built them only in LHD because RHD performance would be dismal. (HINT they never tested that either)
Quote from: MX793 on September 03, 2015, 11:15:25 AM
The 3 speed auto they came with wasn't exactly blistering. A 6MT would provide adequate ratio spread for the engine in those. Particularly if a low range is provided.
With such steep gearing (i.e., low top speed) my bet is the utility of more gears was little if not zero.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 03, 2015, 12:01:42 PM
With such steep gearing (i.e., low top speed) my bet is the utility of more gears was little if not zero.
HMMWV has high, low, and low-lock-diff modes also. So in low mode there is utility.
But really, since fuel consumption is not a high priority, durability and simplicity rises in importance.
The lower the gearing the lesser the utility of more gears.