Jack is mad as hell, and not for the wrong reasons IMO.
Quote
The Truth About Cars
Avoidable Contact: Return Of The Mack.
By Jack Baruth on October 9, 2013
528i
Yes, that's right: it's now easily possible to blow seventy thousand dollars or more on a two-liter, four-cylinder BMW sedan. The image you see above is not an attempt to make the most expensive 528i possible; it's simply a car with most of the options. The ones you'd want, like the best sound system and the heated/cooled seats.
Of course, most of the cheapo Funfers you'll see on the street won't be loaded like this; they'll be $53,000 Premium-Packaged specials designed to lease for $600 a month including tax. In other words, they're base Delta 88s, and the one above is a Delta 88 Royale Brougham. BMW has become Oldsmobile circa 1973, the same way Mercedes-Benz has become Cadillac circa 1973. Were you alive for the Seventies? Did you enjoy the era? I hope you did, because it's returning. Brougham is back, baby. With a vengeance.
Surely you didn't think the party would last forever. Surely you didn't think that the combination of rising fuel prices and rapacious insurance rates and a stagnant economy would produce anything but the conditions that they produced forty years ago. The only difference is that last time, OPEC accidentally burned its consumer-frogs and they jumped out of the pan — into Hondas, into anything with four cylinders, into a President begging Americans to put on a sweater in their own houses. This time the cost of fuel has been turned up relatively slowly and as a result many of us have found ourselves boiling behind the wheel of a Tahoe or Tundra or BMW X5, watching the pump ring past seventy or eighty dollars once or twice every week.
"But wait," I can hear you saying. "You forgot another reason the cars of the early Seventies sucked: they had ridiculous bumper regulations that put a hundred pound's worth of steel and hydraulic rams out at both ends of the car." True... but look at what European pedestrian-safety regulations are doing to modern cars. Today's EU-compliant car is at least six inches higher at the A-pillar/doorsill interaction point than its immediate predecessor and as much as a foot higher than the sleek Bimmers or Benzes of the Seventies. I'd rather have an old Mercedes SL with the big bumpers. Hell, I do have a Mercedes SL with the big bumpers. I found myself face-to-face with a new SLK350 in traffic the other day. It was like looking up at a minivan.
"Fair enough," you might respond, "but what about the emissions regulations that hung thermal reactors and first-generation cats and CVCC on once-mighty engines, reducing them to shadows of their former selves?" There's a modern equivalent to that as well, and as with the pedestrian regulation, it's coming from the Europeans this time, not Richard Nixon. CO2 "emissions" have become as important to the bureaucrats of Brussels as volatile organics were to California smog regulators in 1973. The only difference is that CARB's efforts eventually bore tangible fruit, mostly because Los Angeles is pretty far away from China's coal-burning power plants.
Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of combustion that occurs at pretty much the rate of combustion, so the only way you can avoid being taxed into the depths of your colon by Euro-regulators is to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. Or, I should say, the amount of fuel you burn during EU testing. This could theoretically be handled with cylinder deactivation but in Europe the authorities often seem to be willing and able to enforce the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.
Which is how we've stumbled into this turbo-four-cylinder stupidity. Let me clearly delineate the hierarchy of common gasoline-burning engine designs for those of you who are new to this, from best and most admirable to least interesting:
Gas turbine a la Chrysler experimental
V-16
V-12
Straight-eight
Straight-six
V-8
Boxer six
The Sea Of Despair across which manufacturers travel when cost, regulations, or packaging considerations make it necessary. Above this line are things you want to drive, below it are compromises.
Boxer four
V-6
Inline four
Inline three
The addition of a turbocharger to any of the engines above does not dramatically change their desirability; witness the degradation of the Audi S5 when it abandoned the sublime, throaty 4.2 V-8 for a blown chugger of a V-6. Supercars are never designed to take one of those compromise engine types; on the rare occasion when one is substituted, as with the Jaguar XJ220, it ruins the car's desirability. Think about it: the XJ220 didn't just use any V-6, it used one that was designed and built from the freaking ground up as a competition engine. It used an engine that was in Group B, in a car designed by Williams Grand Prix. Then they turbocharged it on top of that...
...and people still said, "Oh, it's a V-6″. But if the V-6 is a despicable bastardy born of the necessity to fit more twist under the noses of transverse prole-mobiles, the inline four is yet still more miserable. It's the community college of engines. It's poverty and misery on the trot. It's unbalanced and it sounds lousy and it looks stupid and it is about the last thing you'd ever willingly have in a car. Yes, I know that there are many Honda fans who sing rapturous praises about their paint-shakers, but consider this: the one time that sainted Honda really decided to take a swing at building something that was awesome, without regard for efficiency or even decency, what did they build? Don't say NSX, dumb-ass; that was meant from the start to be a practical alternative to dreamy V-8-powered Ferraris that were themselves meant to be practical alternatives to dreamier V-12-powered Ferraris.
Honda's moonshot was the CBX.
The world's first Japanese straight-six production motorcycle.
Q.
E.
D.
There was a time when all the great luxury cars came with inline sixes, and that time was known as "The Nineties". Sure, the Jaguar XJ6 had an inline six, as did the majestic, unparalleled E34-generation BMW 535i. But did you know that even Mercedes-Benz had a proper six? It's true. Even the despised W210 was a straight-six in both gasoline and diesel until the facelift, when a V-6 took over for petrol-power applications. Your humble author managed to win his class in One Lap of America driving one of the last straight-six Mercedes Benz automobiles — the W211 E320 CDI. There are rumors that M-B might bring the straight-six back, but so far the rumors haven't taken any tangible form. Let's hope.
If you look at the current sedan range from Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Jaguar, however, you won't see very many of those proper engines. Instead, you'll see a range of... turbo fours. The bulk of the 3-Series and 5-Series and C-Class and A4 range now runs on the same number of cylinders as the Chevrolet Chevette. And too often, your only option is for a V-6, usually one with a blower of some type hanging off the exhaust.
The bright bulbs at BMW and Benz are already considering the fact that there's no need to have long noses in the next generation of mid-sizers. A four-cylinder will be the majority engine and a small-displacement V-8 with high-pressure turbos will satisfy the AMG and M crowd. Better to have a short, tall front end for pedestrian impact. As long as you're doing that, you can move the hip point up to make the transition from CUV to My First Luxury Sedan a little bit more palatable.
But that's not enough to satisfy the coming regulatory and societal demands. The entry-luxury car needs to be radically lighter and lower-powered to meet 98-gram CO2 requirements. It will need a higher hood and a shorter front overhang and it will need to be oddly-shaped for maximum aero and,
most of all,
it will need to be slower. The Euros have always had slow "luxury cars", whether we're talking 516i or 280SEL, but this time around the Americans won't escape the pain, because the things that make the cars slow will be baked into them. The W126 was available with everything from a 2.8-liter six to a 5.6-liter V-8 but we no longer live in an era where you can engineer that kind of variance into a platform. It's wasteful. Better to engineer around the four-cylinder and turn up the boost, a la CLA and CLA45.
The sublime everyday excellence of something like a previous-generation 528i or an old W124 300E is going to disappear. Hell, it's already disappeared. Does anybody think the current BMW sedans are improvements on their predecessors? Of course not. Audi and Mercedes-Benz are starting, frankly speaking, from a lower base so we don't mourn the old A6 or E320 quite as much — but that doesn't mean the new cars are in any way outstanding.
We've turned a corner, the same way we turned a corner in 1973. Tomorrow's cars will be slower, uglier, less interesting, less enthusiast-friendly. Forget nostalgia for the E46 — nostalgia for the E90 and E60 is where it's at now, and it's justified nostalgia. New cars, with their popcorn-popper forced-induction four-bangers tucked beneath twelve inches of foam padding and plastic modesty panels, are less desirable than they've been in forty years.
The auto industry isn't made up of stupid people. They know what's going on, same as we do. And they know what the playbook calls for in this situation. They know what the proven success methods are, because they can read a history book and a new-car sales sheet just as well as we can. It's easy to forget that cars like the Chrysler 300 and Cadillac Coupe de Ville were once performance cars in the Fifties. It's easy to forget that, once upon a time, the luxury car buyer expected to leave poor people in his dust up a steep hill or down a long highway. BMW and Mercedes-Benz didn't invent the idea of an expensive car that happened to be faster than what the average man on the street could afford.
Come 1973, even five hundred smog-strangled cubic inches couldn't make Cadillacs fast enough to matter, the same way the super-puffer AMG four-cylinder won't really impress anyone by the time it gets dropped in a two-ton E-Class. The underhood arms race has come to an end. Sure, there will continue to be fast cars, the same way you could run thirteens in a Trans Am in 1975, but most mass-market vehicles will be slower than their predecessors in the years to come. The sporting pretensions of the 3-Series and the C-Class will be slowly disassembled by low-power engines and low-rolling-resistance tires. What will be left?
The answer will come easily to anybody who remembers 1975. In place of speed and power and beauty, we will have prestige and upscale appeal and market positioning. You won't buy a BMW because it smokes down a back road; you'll buy a BMW because it's expensive and because it has "DNA" from a car that once smoked down a back road. You'll buy a Mercedes because it has a three-pointed LED star on it and because you dimly remember taking a ride in a CL65 AMG once. The "heritage" predecessors will appear in the ads more often; one way to know that a brand is bankrupt of ideas is when you see the new cars juxtaposed with the old ones on television.
There will be more toys, more options, more Individual things to make your car more "personal". More special editions, more shades of window-frame trim, more wheels, more bumper treatments. More gadgets, more connectivity to distract you from the fact that you're not ripping the tread off the tires down the freeway entrance ramp.
Already we're seeing engine nomenclature disappear from the trunks and fenders of prestige automobiles as engines shrink and horsepower drops. If the Germans are smart, they'll eventually dispense with it entirely, replacing badges like "E250″ with simple "E" or "5″ or something like that. The big money options won't be powerplants anymore; they'll be complex packages of luxury and technology and interior trim. At some point, somebody is going to need a name for these packages, something to clearly demonstrate to the valet who has the $50,000 four-cylinder BMW and who has the $100,000 four-cylinder BMW. I have a few suggestions. They're all time-tested and proven to work in situations like this:
Regency
Signature
Ultra
Park Avenue
Fifth Avenue
Limited
Fleetwood
GranVille
Brougham.
Posted in Avoidable Contact, Editorials
Tagged as
Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!
Back to Top
Once again, a dumb article by a dumb guy.
Yeah Baruth is a dumbass. As is pretty much everyone who's ever written on TTAC save the original Niedermayer and Murilee Martin (WTF happened to that guy anyways?)
V12>V10>V8>I6>V6>I4
I8 no.
I think he makes some good points. We def seem to be headed into another emissions/regulations driven slump. There's nothing on the automotive horizon (within the realm of mortals) that is looking too exciting, maybe outside of the Mazda 3/6
I hate it when someone goes on a mindless rant about 4-cylinder engines.
I wonder how Jacky boy feels about many classic BMWs or Porsches, which used the inline-4 / Boxer-4 layout. Hell, I wonder how he feels about the many European sports cars that used inline-4s, Boxer-4s or even V4s!
Did you guys actually read it, I certainly didn't bother.
The title alone was enough to dismiss this as garbage.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on October 09, 2013, 08:15:10 PM
Did you guys actually read it, I certainly didn't bother.
The title alone was enough to dismiss this as garbage.
:hesaid:
Salt Cat Racing - The BIG Engine - Straight 8, 367 C.I. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQrduPZ1xfI#ws)
Straight 8!
Actually, I agree with him. I usually think he's a giant twat, but this time I think he's on the money.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 09, 2013, 08:14:08 PM
I think he makes some good points. We def seem to be headed into another emissions/regulations driven slump. There's nothing on the automotive horizon (within the realm of mortals) that is looking too exciting, maybe outside of the Mazda 3/6
Well, the part about the safety regs making cars look silly with high beltlines and stuff, that's alright (and obvious). The rest of the thing is junk, though. Particularly his ranking of engines and "discussion" of cool engines in cool cars.
I wish we could have some small displacement V8s and sixes rather than fours. I'm sure that a 3.5L V8 is less efficient than a 3.5L V6, but for cars like the Corvette or Mustang, having a V8 is pretty important to the car's identity.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 09, 2013, 08:29:41 PM
I wish we could have some small displacement V8s and sixes rather than fours. I'm sure that a 3.5L V8 is less efficient than a 3.5L V6, but for cars like the Corvette or Mustang, having a V8 is pretty important to the car's identity.
A 2.0L V8 would make a shit ton more sense in the Ford Transit. So what if there are twice as many parts if they are all half the size?
2x the awesome.
Linton Design 2.0L V8 Start Up from EPS Motorsport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ychxTyvoXLQ#ws)
Quote from: Rupert on October 09, 2013, 08:25:55 PM
Well, the part about the safety regs making cars look silly with high beltlines and stuff, that's alright (and obvious). The rest of the thing is junk, though. Particularly his ranking of engines and "discussion" of cool engines in cool cars.
Im really not feeling the "turbos over everything" wave.
Who cares about the cylinder count if the performance and feel are there? Yeah, I love my I6, but hell, it's noticeably less fuel efficient than my Jetta's 2.0T in a lighter car and has less midrange power. And the 2.0T sounded good and felt good, even it's not as good as the I6 in my Z4. Even my 1.8T was a delight, with meager power, but strong torque, reality-defying high speed acceleration, and again, a decent sound. Both my fours were better engines on feel and sound than my old Mercedes 3.2L V6.
People are too caught up on labels. Such is the world of magazine racing.
He complains about four-cylinder cars being slower, but they're not. They don't sound as nice, but they're keeping up with the performance by the numbers.
I think 4-cyls can sound great, actually. As good or better than a V8.
I'm OK with 4 cylinder sports cars as long as the performance is there. But luxury cars (5 series size and larger) should never have fewer than 6 cylinders under hood.
I don't hate 4 cylinder cars. But I hope I never own another one again.
We are getting to where, in Europe at least, the only naturally aspirated cars will be exotics and supercars. That's just not acceptable to me.
The saving grace on that end is Europe is a dead market, and the pockets of growth are not so hard up about emissions as them. But the idea of something like a Mustang with nothing but a turbo 4 with varying states of tune or a snub nosed M3 with a tri turbo inline 6 is pretty fucking depressing IMO. And that's what it seems like the Eurocrats are pushing for.
Bah, N/A power delivery is not that great. Modern cars don't even really have turbo lag.
You want to feel lag, go drive an '81 280ZX Turbo with 7.3:1 compression.
Its not about the lag. It's really about the sound and the character. Turbo engines are OK, but it's still nice to be able to opt out. To me, VWAG's applications in the GTI and Passat are good. All turbo makes sense in daily drivers (done RELIABLY). But for something performance oriented there's gotta be choice. I don't think I will buy a BMW made beyond ~2012. This period of transition we are in is kind of a watershed moment.
Quote from: Raza on October 09, 2013, 09:06:48 PM
Who cares about the cylinder count if the performance and feel are there? Yeah, I love my I6, but hell, it's noticeably less fuel efficient than my Jetta's 2.0T in a lighter car and has less midrange power. And the 2.0T sounded good and felt good, even it's not as good as the I6 in my Z4. Even my 1.8T was a delight, with meager power, but strong torque, reality-defying high speed acceleration, and again, a decent sound. Both my fours were better engines on feel and sound than my old Mercedes 3.2L V6.
People are too caught up on labels. Such is the world of magazine racing.
No
Im pretty sure in the past you acknowledged your preference for the I6's sound and character. At the minimum definitely the sound... the quote was something like "I didnt realize what the big deal was until I drove the car" or something like that.
Plus it's not just the engines. It's the regulations, and it's the compensation for the decline in design and engine character with needless mindless unservicable out of warranty technology.
Quote:
Forget nostalgia for the E46 — nostalgia for the E90 and E60 is where it's at now, and it's justified nostalgia. New cars, with their popcorn-popper forced-induction four-bangers tucked beneath twelve inches of foam padding and plastic modesty panels, are less desirable than they've been in forty years.
/end quote.
How about nostalgia for the E30? The ultimate evolution of which was the FOUR cylinder M3!
Oops!
Quote from: Madman on October 10, 2013, 07:14:38 AM
Quote:
Forget nostalgia for the E46 — nostalgia for the E90 and E60 is where it's at now, and it's justified nostalgia. New cars, with their popcorn-popper forced-induction four-bangers tucked beneath twelve inches of foam padding and plastic modesty panels, are less desirable than they've been in forty years.
/end quote.
How about nostalgia for the E30? The ultimate evolution of which was the FOUR cylinder M3!
Oops!
Yes, four cylinders, as mandated by the various racing classes the E30 M3 was created to compete in.
The Z3/Z4, which IMO carried on the E30 M3's "purity", are both better with the 6 bangers. And while the E36 + E46 went a different way than the E30, they are still great cars.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 07:24:32 AM
Yes, four cylinders, as mandated by the various racing classes the E30 M3 was created to compete in.
The Z3/Z4, which IMO carried on the E30 M3's "purity", are both better with the 6 bangers. And while the E36 + E46 went a different way than the E30, they are still great cars.
The "Hairdresser's Special" Z3 carried on the "purity" of the M3? WTF?!?!?
Put the crack pipe down, son.
Z3 had a lot of E30 in its bones. It really wasn't based on the E36.
Honestly, I feel that the death of an "interesting" car is directly related to the field of sensational, ignorant journalism.
Fuck, even today, a 60HP Fiesta is still faster and refined than a comparable model from 20 years ago. New cars are getting better every day.
Quote from: MX793 on October 10, 2013, 08:26:11 AM
Z3 had a lot of E30 in its bones. It really wasn't based on the E36.
And it was worse for it. It's handling was widely criticised.
Sporty, your crusade is frankly pointless and uninformed. Go drive the cars that you deem so "inferior" first instead of repeating other's opinions mindlessly.
Just as a token: the 1M (turbo) is a better car than the E46 M3. It is only lacking in engine sound and very slightly on throttle response. Completely made up by superior handling, steering, gearbox, power, and agility.
BMW's lost me when they started pumping engine sounds into the car with the radio. I find that pathetic. Those cars could have a self cleaning dick sucking machine in the driver seat and I'd still not like it all that much.
I like that you specifies a self-cleaning dick sucking machine. :lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 05:51:12 AM
We are getting to where, in Europe at least, the only naturally aspirated cars will be exotics and supercars. That's just not acceptable to me.
The saving grace on that end is Europe is a dead market, and the pockets of growth are not so hard up about emissions as them. But the idea of something like a Mustang with nothing but a turbo 4 with varying states of tune or a snub nosed M3 with a tri turbo inline 6 is pretty fucking depressing IMO. And that's what it seems like the Eurocrats are pushing for.
I give you the Mustang, which of course will never happen, but a tri-turbo I6 would be awesome!
IMO, M3s should have I6s, anyway.
Ooo I meant tri turbo I3. Maybe thats what set MCM off
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 06:43:51 AM
No
Im pretty sure in the past you acknowledged your preference for the I6's sound and character. At the minimum definitely the sound... the quote was something like "I didnt realize what the big deal was until I drove the car" or something like that.
Plus it's not just the engines. It's the regulations, and it's the compensation for the decline in design and engine character with needless mindless unservicable out of warranty technology.
I'm still acknowledging my preference for the 3.0L I6's sound, feel, and character. I was saying my turbo I4s were better than my V6.
Quote from: Madman on October 10, 2013, 07:43:14 AM
The "Hairdresser's Special" Z3 carried on the "purity" of the M3? WTF?!?!?
Put the crack pipe down, son.
The Z3 was anything but a hairdresser's car. Floppy chassis and old rear suspension meant the thing was really a handful when it had power. Sure, you could buy the poverty-spec 1.9, but overall, while the Z3 was not really a good car, it was indeed a hairy animal.
Inline 4s (turbo or not) are uninteresting to me, and not appropriate in entry lux or luxury cars. I6, V6's, and V8's have more character and better sound. But, I think his other points about regulations are right on the money. Turbo 4 pots are going to be the top of the line engine in most cars because of government regulations. Those engines are being used because they can game the EPA and Euro tests when in reality they provide no tangible benefits over a V6 and are much more expensive to replace the inevitable failed turbo.
Also, cars are fucking monstrous now because of regulations. Most noticeably in cowl height and overall height. I'm finding that new cars aren't all that interesting to me anymore because of powertrains and how ugly they're getting (mostly due to their immense height). I mean think about it. The roof on a Toyota RAV4 is just 4" higher than on the Taurus...a fucking sedan. A lot of cars have to have 18"-20" wheels just so the wheels don't look tiny.
Between regulations making cars uglier and bigger, regulations forcing manufacturers into small turbo 4s, and manufacturers ditching manual trannies, things are definitely beginning to go downhill. I think 2012-2013 will go down as the peak in this automotive era.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
Ooo I meant tri turbo I3. Maybe thats what set MCM off
That's pretty cool, too.
Remember the Mustang SVO? That was a really cool turbo 4 car.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 11:45:46 AM
I think 2012-2013 will go down as the peak in this automotive era.
I share many of the same concerns, and don't care for turbo-4's myself, but I wouldn't be so pessimistic just yet. 2014 is the year of the C7 Stingray and 991 GT3. Next year we get a Mustang with a proper rear suspension
and the 5.0 Coyote motor. We still have a few good years left to relish.
I think you guys are being stupid.
You lust after the Chevy Sonic, so your opinion doesn't count.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 11:45:46 AM
Inline 4s (turbo or not) are uninteresting to me, and not appropriate in entry lux or luxury cars. I6, V6's, and V8's have more character and better sound. But, I think his other points about regulations are right on the money. Turbo 4 pots are going to be the top of the line engine in most cars because of government regulations. Those engines are being used because they can game the EPA and Euro tests when in reality they provide no tangible benefits over a V6 and are much more expensive to replace the inevitable failed turbo.
Also, cars are fucking monstrous now because of regulations. Most noticeably in cowl height and overall height. I'm finding that new cars aren't all that interesting to me anymore because of powertrains and how ugly they're getting (mostly due to their immense height). I mean think about it. The roof on a Toyota RAV4 is just 4" higher than on the Taurus...a fucking sedan. A lot of cars have to have 18"-20" wheels just so the wheels don't look tiny.
Between regulations making cars uglier and bigger, regulations forcing manufacturers into small turbo 4s, and manufacturers ditching manual trannies, things are definitely beginning to go downhill. I think 2012-2013 will go down as the peak in this automotive era.
What was the regulation responsible for the Taurus being a bloated pig? It's entirely a style decision -- the car is the same underneath as it's been since 2005.
Look I do think right now is a pretty damn good time for enthusiasts, in some respects. The used car market is amazing. Porsche has really hit its stride. The low end of the market (Mustang, Miata, GTI, etc) has never been better. Like I said Europe is the source of the clampdown, but as far as volume goes Europe is fading further and further into irrelevance. But even outside of Europe, cars are getting heavier and uglier. V6s are turning to turbo 4s, 4 bangers are turning to 3s and in Europe even 2s. And I'm not even sure it's even worth it. I just read a review of the C7 where they said they got 36 MPG from it on the highway in V4 mode. Like, for real. A turbo 4 family sedan is happy to get slightly more than that in an EPA test. So cars are being overhauled and compromised to chase metrics that don't even mean much in the real world, many times.
Retarded
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
Look I do think right now is a pretty damn good time for enthusiasts, in some respects. The used car market is amazing. Porsche has really hit its stride. The low end of the market (Mustang, Miata, GTI, etc) has never been better. Like I said Europe is the source of the clampdown, but as far as volume goes Europe is fading further and further into irrelevance. But even outside of Europe, cars are getting heavier and uglier. V6s are turning to turbo 4s, 4 bangers are turning to 3s and in Europe even 2s. And I'm not even sure it's even worth it. I just read a review of the C7 where they said they got 36 MPG from it on the highway in V4 mode. Like, for real. A turbo 4 family sedan is happy to get slightly more than that in an EPA test. So cars are being overhauled and compromised to chase metrics that don't even mean much in the real world, many times.
I agree. Cars have never been better than they are right now, but I see cars starting to go downhill pretty fast in the last half of this decade as the ridiculous EPA requirements start kicking in.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 12:22:51 PM
You lust after the Chevy Sonic, so your opinion doesn't count.
Yes, the critically acclaimed for driving dynamics , Sonic.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 10, 2013, 08:47:13 AM
Honestly, I feel that the death of an "interesting" car is directly related to the field of sensational, ignorant journalism.
Fuck, even today, a 60HP Fiesta is still faster and refined than a comparable model from 20 years ago. New cars are getting better every day.
A big plus fucking 1 to this man! :golfclap:
I think all of you guys shitting on this article, will be agreeing with it in 10 years when cars will be completely ruined by all these regulations.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 01:09:07 PM
I agree. Cars have never been better than they are right now, but I see cars starting to go downhill pretty fast in the last half of this decade as the ridiculous EPA requirements start kicking in.
There has been stagnation and backsliding. The F30 is not as good to drive as the E90. The E86 is not nearly as good to drive as the E85. The MR-2 Spyder, S2000, Sky, and Solstice don't exist and don't have successors.
As cars, they are generally more comfortable, more reliable, and technologically advanced; to the layman, "better". To the enthusiast, not so much. But I'm not going to rest the downturn on the shoulders of cylinder counts.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
I think all of you guys shitting on this article, will be agreeing with it in 10 years when cars will be completely ruined by all these regulations.
I think the vast majority of you guys ripping on all new cars, haven't drove shit when it comes to things that are out on the market currently. It's just the same old usual jawing based on a bunch of sensationalist journalist garbage you read, not actual experience. Oh, and a dose of the usual romanticizing of the past. Typical CarSPIN drivel. :lol:
Quote from: Raza on October 10, 2013, 02:43:08 PM
There has been stagnation and backsliding. The F30 is not as good to drive as the E90. The E86 is not nearly as good to drive as the E85. The MR-2 Spyder, S2000, Sky, and Solstice don't exist and don't have successors.
As cars, they are generally more comfortable, more reliable, and technologically advanced; to the layman, "better". To the enthusiast, not so much. But I'm not going to rest the downturn on the shoulders of cylinder counts.
Not by themselves no. The article never stated it was the only reason either.
Quote from: MrH on October 10, 2013, 02:46:40 PM
I think the vast majority of you guys ripping on all new cars, haven't drove shit when it comes to things that are out on the market currently. It's just the same old usual jawing based on a bunch of sensationalist journalist garbage you read, not actual experience. Oh, and a dose of the usual romanticizing of the past. Typical CarSPIN drivel. :lol:
You couldn't be more wrong. I have driven a lot of what's out there and that's part of the reason I mostly agree with this article. Having said that, none of us are ripping on all new cars. Some of my favourite cars ever built are on the market right now. But when almost everything is going to be a 4 pot in the future, it's not exactly exciting.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 02:48:00 PM
Not by themselves no. The article never stated it was the only reason either.
I'm on a lot of medication right now, don't have the attention span to read that much nonsense in one sitting. :lol: :rastaman:
fuor cilinders are god enjines
Quote from: Rupert on October 10, 2013, 10:11:52 AM
I like that you specifies a self-cleaning dick sucking machine. :lol:
That's very important. Shit will make a mess.
I never thought I'd be an old fart who hated everything new. And truth be told I don't "hate" everything new now in the automotive world. If you're buying a car to get you from point A to point B without any problems then today is the best we've ever had it. For most people now is a great time to buy a car. But for me I can only think of a handful of cars that do anything for me at all. And the problem is that many of them are way too expensive for an average guy like me. My choices are American muscle cars, BRZ or Miata really. And that's not much to pick from.
If everything is X-by-wire with simulated tactile feedback and fake engine noise, why not just play a video game instead?
Quote from: SVT666 on October 10, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. I have driven a lot of what's out there and that's part of the reason I mostly agree with this article. Having said that, none of us are ripping on all new cars. Some of my favourite cars ever built are on the market right now. But when almost everything is going to be a 4 pot in the future, it's not exactly exciting.
Basically. It's like, "enjoy it while it lasts, cause the future's not looking too brite"
I'm not really bummed about luxury cars because I never really cared about them in the first place... but it's the trickle down that I'm worried about. Infiniti is supposedly gonna be partnering up with Mercedes for their next crop of cars and they already have an A-class rebadge in the works. The Q50 is a mess. What does that mean for the Z? Z4 is a trophy wife casualty. CHEAP quality high revving NA 4s are pretty much done.... there's just a lot of little shit that just doesn't look good.
Quote from: Laconian on October 10, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
If everything is X-by-wire with simulated tactile feedback and fake engine noise, why not just play a video game instead?
Here's an even more fun question. Video game makers do a lot of sound capturing for the cars in games. What are these "sound symposer" cars gonna sound like in games?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 05:51:09 PM
Basically. It's like, "enjoy it while it lasts, cause the future's not looking too brite"
I'm not really bummed about luxury cars because I never really cared about them in the first place... but it's the trickle down that I'm worried about. Infiniti is supposedly gonna be partnering up with Mercedes for their next crop of cars and they already have an A-class rebadge in the works. The Q50 is a mess. What does that mean for the Z? Z4 is a trophy wife casualty. CHEAP quality high revving NA 4s are pretty much done.... there's just a lot of little shit that just doesn't look good.
... And the A45 AMG is possibly the best driver's car Mercedes has ever made. NEXT!
Quote from: MrH on October 10, 2013, 06:09:39 PM
... And the A45 AMG is possibly the best driver's car Mercedes has ever made. NEXT!
I could give a fuck less. I can't buy one and even if I could I wouldn't. My choices are only a Miata or BRZ right now. Good cars but not much of a selection.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 10, 2013, 06:36:07 PM
I could give a fuck less. I can't buy one and even if I could I wouldn't. My choices are only a Miata or BRZ right now. Good cars but not much of a selection.
?
....wut. He was talking about Q50's and Z4's. Why did this conversation suddenly turn just towards cars you can afford new?
Quote from: MrH on October 10, 2013, 06:09:39 PM
... And the A45 AMG is possibly the best driver's car Mercedes has ever made. NEXT!
You must not have heard about the 190E 2.3 16... or pretty much any of the AMG Black Series cars... hell even the last C63 wasn't bad
Hmmm... front heavy AWD hot hatch w/no engine note... or 3 series size sedan with RWD and a big honking V8... whatever floats your boat
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 10, 2013, 08:14:09 PM
You must not have heard about the 190E 2.3 16... or pretty much any of the AMG Black Series cars... hell even the last C63 wasn't bad
Hmmm... front heavy AWD hot hatch w/no engine note... or 3 series size sedan with RWD and a big honking V8... whatever floats your boat
I'll give you the 190E, but most black series cars seemed pretty awful and horribly overpriced. Clarkson is about the only person who gave a damn about them.
Quote from: MrH on October 10, 2013, 02:46:40 PM
I think the vast majority of you guys ripping on all new cars, haven't drove shit when it comes to things that are out on the market currently. It's just the same old usual jawing based on a bunch of sensationalist journalist garbage you read, not actual experience. Oh, and a dose of the usual romanticizing of the past. Typical CarSPIN drivel. :lol:
Spot on, Mike!
With the odd exception, the current breed of so-called journalists are latter-day boy racers who either regurgitate mfr's PR bumf and/or are looking for sensationalist headlines that will sell copy.
Although it is tempting to view the past through the proverbial rose tinted specs, the reality is that the latest models continue to evidence some very innovative and creative engineering solutions to the ever more sophisticated demands of buyers, and the world's legislators who (however misguided they may seem to be at times) are trying to make society "better". I agree with the esteemed Steve Cropley (a journalist whom I do respect) when he asserts that there has never been a better time to be a car enthusiast than now.
Quote from: MrH on October 10, 2013, 08:29:44 PM
I'll give you the 190E, but most black series cars seemed pretty awful and horribly overpriced. Clarkson is about the only person who gave a damn about them.
The other problem with the A45 is what it's up against price wise. A45, or WRX STi/M135i and like 8K in your pocket? A45, or something like a used Cayman or M3? Its like 5-10K too much money.
Quote from: Colin on October 11, 2013, 02:45:12 AM
Spot on, Mike!
With the odd exception, the current breed of so-called journalists are latter-day boy racers who either regurgitate mfr's PR bumf and/or are looking for sensationalist headlines that will sell copy.
Although it is tempting to view the past through the proverbial rose tinted specs, the reality is that the latest models continue to evidence some very innovative and creative engineering solutions to the ever more sophisticated demands of buyers, and the world's legislators who (however misguided they may seem to be at times) are trying to make society "better". I agree with the esteemed Steve Cropley (a journalist whom I do respect) when he asserts that there has never been a better time to be a car enthusiast than now.
I agree with that. But things are starting to take a turn for the worse and with exceptionally high fuel economy requirements coming in the next 10 years, I see it as inevitable. Cars are peaking right now. Some have already peaked and are not as good as the last version, some are peaking right now, and others will likely peak with the next generation. I can't see them getting better when fleet fuel economy requirements are going sky high.
Im hearing something like Europe wants to set a 100g/km CO2 cap. A Miata does something like 181g/km. Wheres the rest gonna come from.
Its going to come from hyper optimizing for the test regimen, making the cars have bizarre gearing and weird cylinder deactivation whatnot.
Quote from: Laconian on October 11, 2013, 10:02:18 AM
Its going to come from hyper optimizing for the test regimen, making the cars have bizarre gearing and weird cylinder deactivation whatnot.
...and electric hybrid powertrains.
For sure, the twin pressures of much better fuel consumption and reduced emissions are challenging the creative minds of many in the industry............ huge progress has been made in the latter in the last few years, whilst the former has been challenged by all the added weight that has been a consequence of the double hit of extra equipment (a lot of which frankly is probably unwanted by some buyers!) and safety systems (most of which are probably a good idea for the distracted drivers that abound!). Based on what we have seen in recent years, I have little doubt that the industry will manage to hit the ever more challenging requirements put upon it.
Whilst I have to admit that the rather sonorous V10 that I drove for 4 years was rather nice (if a bit costly to keep in fuel!), and I do miss it, the supercharged V6 is not as bad a substitute as I had feared before I took delivery. And if you get to drive a 3 cylinder like the Ford 1 litre unit, it's not all bad, either.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 11, 2013, 08:37:22 AM
I agree with that. But things are starting to take a turn for the worse and with exceptionally high fuel economy requirements coming in the next 10 years, I see it as inevitable. Cars are peaking right now. Some have already peaked and are not as good as the last version, some are peaking right now, and others will likely peak with the next generation. I can't see them getting better when fleet fuel economy requirements are going sky high.
This just sounds like pessimistic doom and gloom to me. There's no real evidence of any of this that hasn't already happened, and there's no reason that the next generation of a car whose previous generation was better than the current generation wouldn't be even better than the previous generation. Unless all you care about is the cylinder count.
Quote from: Rupert on October 11, 2013, 02:33:10 PM
This just sounds like pessimistic doom and gloom to me. There's no real evidence of any of this that hasn't already happened, and there's no reason that the next generation of a car whose previous generation was better than the current generation wouldn't be even better than the previous generation. Unless all you care about is the cylinder count.
Not so sure about that.
Acura- TL & TSX are both worse than the versions they replaced, NSX is a pipe dream/tease
BMW- not going to offend folks sensibilities but some legitimate voices say there has been a decline
Honda- conversion to "green" company is complete... no more DOHC VTEC, no sports cars
Infiniti- Q name change makes no sense, Q50 ruined by electric steering
Mitsubishi- "in its last throes", pretty sure the EVO is dead and gone, THE MIRAGE
Nissan- whole line up is sad aside from the GT-R and Z. Maxima used to be a great car, Sentra had its fun variants etc all gone.
Volkswagen- Golf/GTI are good, but Jetta is duller, Passat is full blown American, CC platform is ~7 years old
Neutral- Audi, Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Hyundai/Kia, Subaru, Toyota, Volvo
Trending up- Ferrari, Ford, Mazda, Porsche
And everyone is already buckling under the pressure of emissions, even the companies trending upward
This is in sharp contrast w/10 years ago... everyone on the decline now was either in their stride or trending upward at that time. So it's not just empty chatter
I've been hearing these doom-and-gloom tantrums ever since I was a kid. And do you know what? Today's cars are better then ever!
Most observers fail to understand that today we have the technology to have our cake and eat it too, in regards to performance, fuel economy and emissions. That's something automotive engineers of the 1970s didn't have. Thanks to the power of the microchip, we already have turbocharged four cylinder engines that will soundly trounce any 1960s V8. Today's engineers have more tools in their arsenal to answer any challenge the future may bring then at any time in the past.
Screw the naysayers and bring on the future!
Quote from: Madman on October 11, 2013, 09:58:06 PM
I've been hearing these doom-and-gloom tantrums ever since I was a kid. And do you know what? Today's cars are better then ever!
Most observers fail to understand that today we have the technology to have our cake and eat it too, in regards to performance, fuel economy and emissions. That's something automotive engineers of the 1970s didn't have. Thanks to the power of the microchip, we already have turbocharged four cylinder engines that will soundly trounce any 1960s V8. Today's engineers have more tools in their arsenal to answer any challenge the future may bring then at any time in the past.
Screw the naysayers and bring on the future!
Ding Ding! :ohyeah:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 11, 2013, 03:14:31 PM
Not so sure about that.
Acura- TL & TSX are both worse than the versions they replaced, NSX is a pipe dream/tease
BMW- not going to offend folks sensibilities but some legitimate voices say there has been a decline
Honda- conversion to "green" company is complete... no more DOHC VTEC, no sports cars
Infiniti- Q name change makes no sense, Q50 ruined by electric steering
Mitsubishi- "in its last throes", pretty sure the EVO is dead and gone, THE MIRAGE
Nissan- whole line up is sad aside from the GT-R and Z. Maxima used to be a great car, Sentra had its fun variants etc all gone.
Volkswagen- Golf/GTI are good, but Jetta is duller, Passat is full blown American, CC platform is ~7 years old
Neutral- Audi, Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Hyundai/Kia, Subaru, Toyota, Volvo
Trending up- Ferrari, Ford, Mazda, Porsche
And everyone is already buckling under the pressure of emissions, even the companies trending upward
This is in sharp contrast w/10 years ago... everyone on the decline now was either in their stride or trending upward at that time. So it's not just empty chatter
You just cherry picked a bunch of garbage you read about these cars and ignored all the good vehicles that are being made.
And you're still on the NSX isn't going to be made train? :wtf:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 11, 2013, 03:14:31 PM
Not so sure about that.
Acura- TL & TSX are both worse than the versions they replaced, NSX is a pipe dream/tease
BMW- not going to offend folks sensibilities but some legitimate voices say there has been a decline
Honda- conversion to "green" company is complete... no more DOHC VTEC, no sports cars
Infiniti- Q name change makes no sense, Q50 ruined by electric steering
Mitsubishi- "in its last throes", pretty sure the EVO is dead and gone, THE MIRAGE
Nissan- whole line up is sad aside from the GT-R and Z. Maxima used to be a great car, Sentra had its fun variants etc all gone.
Volkswagen- Golf/GTI are good, but Jetta is duller, Passat is full blown American, CC platform is ~7 years old
Neutral- Audi, Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Hyundai/Kia, Subaru, Toyota, Volvo
Trending up- Ferrari, Ford, Mazda, Porsche
And everyone is already buckling under the pressure of emissions, even the companies trending upward
This is in sharp contrast w/10 years ago... everyone on the decline now was either in their stride or trending upward at that time. So it's not just empty chatter
This illustrates some of the problems with rants like this(the article posted by the OP). People think of the past as some sort of glory days or hi point, glossing over the same problems they(car makers) had then that they are facing now. A good example is the above listed examples.
The TL and TSX are worse then the cars they replaced, maybe so. The previous generations of these cars were average and mid class offerings. Yet now that a replacement is out these old models are always viewed as superior. Happens all the time, granted sometimes it is relevant.
Your honda reference makes it sound like the fall of a great company that offered sports machines for the common man. Other than the S2000 and NSX, they have not been known to be a performance company. I really don't know where this logic comes from. So, really no "conversion" going on there. Just business as usual.
Mitsubishi has never been more than an average car company that made one very solid and very well known performance car, and even in the states it has just recently reached that status.
Nissan-everything sucks except their z car and gt-r. Welcome to 1970,1980,1990,2000 well pretty much the existance of nissan. and this is the best example. They have only ever really had one or two performance cars(like almost every manufacturer). They have what they had 20 years ago.
I am of course making reference to vehicles for the performance market.
As for standard, joe blow stuff this argument is even weaker. Cars are the best they have been in decades, and only getting better.
I'm sure in 20 years there will be a post about how awesome the 2015-2020 cars where and how everything newer is junk.
Just going to leave this here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/BMW_2002_Turbo_(2008-06-28_Sp).JPG)
Jack's wrong about 4 cyls being desirable only to Honda fans.
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/01/08/16/26/1972_alfa_romeo_gtv-pic-39929.jpeg)
Not sure why 4 banger cars from 40 years ago are relevant now. Plus it's not like the 2002 was the 7 series of its day
Ironically, I recall a post on TTAC like a month ago (from Jack too I believe) that auto journalists look at past cars too fondly.
Quote from: Xer0 on October 17, 2013, 09:46:03 AM
Ironically, I recall a post on TTAC like a month ago (from Jack too I believe) that auto journalists look at past cars too fondly.
Yeah, I vaguely remember that too.
There was also the piece on how folks don't put the Japanese bubble cars in the right context. This doesn't contradict that though.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 09:27:15 AM
Not sure why 4 banger cars from 40 years ago are relevant now. Plus it's not like the 2002 was the 7 series of its day
Jack's comments weren't JUST aimed at new cars, Sporty. he talked about Chrysler Turbines and Honda CBXs and Jaguar XJ220s. None of them were new cars, either. Yes, I did read the entire thing, and he's a putz, as usual.