What do you guys think? Has GM finally shed its stodgy image?
I feel like up until very recently all GM products have been bland and cheap. They were never terrible, but just unappealing.
I look at Ford now, and it seems like they've got a lot more style, better engines, more features, and better interiors.
I still don't trust GM reliability. Every GM product I or my family has owned has been shit, except for our old Olds Alero. That was actually fairly decent. Even the new GMs I have seen or sat in still don't feel as upscale as the new Fords or even the new Chryslers. Granted, I have not been anywhere near the interior of the new Malibu, so that may have changed. I really don't like the new GM corporate grille either...though, I'm not really digging the new Ford corporate grille either (Focus and Escape).
I think they're on the rite track. The expensive flagships are as good if not better than the Germans and the mainstremers are very competitive. I'm hoping next year the C7 will be the icing on the cake!
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 14, 2012, 03:36:14 PM
I think they're on the rite track. The expensive flagships are as good if not better than the Germans and the mainstremers are very competitive.
The CTS is not. It plays third fiddle behind BMW and Infiniti.
I was refering to the CTS-V and Z06/ZR1. IMHO it's time for an overhaul on the CTS.
From my time working on cars for a living, my general impression was that GM powertrain reliability was overall pretty good, even if you got one of the leaky-ass OHV V-6 engines. Electrical reliability was a bit of a concern, as was overall build quality and materials. When I left the industry, GM's electrical reliability was dropping rapidly, IMO, while the powertrain reliability and build quality improved, dramatically in the case of the latter.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 03:20:40 PM
Granted, I have not been anywhere near the interior of the new Malibu, so that may have changed.
Hint: It hasn't. The 2008-2012 Malibu's interior was nicer, I thought.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Hint: It hasn't. The 2008-2012 Malibu's interior was nicer, I thought.
Agreed.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 03:20:40 PM
I still don't trust GM reliability. Every GM product I or my family has owned has been shit, except for our old Olds Alero. That was actually fairly decent. Even the new GMs I have seen or sat in still don't feel as upscale as the new Fords or even the new Chryslers. Granted, I have not been anywhere near the interior of the new Malibu, so that may have changed. I really don't like the new GM corporate grille either...though, I'm not really digging the new Ford corporate grille either (Focus and Escape).
Generalizations like this are idiotic. Reliability must be looked at on a model by model basis. Gross oversimplifications of an entire brand based on 10 year old, anecdotal evidence is beyond asinine.
This thread will turn out well...
Let the misinformation flow freely, like diarrhea.
I kinda of feel like we've been promised "The New GM" more than a few times in the past ten years, but we still got cars like the Cobalt.
Even the NACOTY 2008 Malibu has ugly rough plastic inside and just ditched its 4 speed auto.
And then there's the chrome wheels GM still puts on cars. They need to stop.
GM sometimes seems to mix up chrome for styling. Tons of buyers like it though, so you can't seem to blame them too much. Hell, look how many cars have tacky chrome window trim, fender trim, door trim, etc. Why they think it looks good is beyond me.
Quote from: MrH on May 14, 2012, 05:28:59 PM
GM sometimes seems to mix up chrome for styling. Tons of buyers like it though, so you can't seem to blame them too much. Hell, look how many cars have tacky chrome window trim, fender trim, door trim, etc. Why they think it looks good is beyond me.
It would be nice if it didn't peel off their wheels, though.
GM has had made major strides the last ~5 years; Malibu, Camaro, Equinox, and the Cruze are gigantic leaps forward from their predecessors and have overall been successes both in sales and in elevating the brand. Cadillac is doing far better than competitor domestic brands even though it's primarily riding on only two good models (CTS and SRX). The upcoming Impala, ATS, and Corvette look to further the trend.
The Cruze is GM's best car right now. It's well built, has great interior materials, comfortable, and gets excellent gas mileage. The new Malibu is almost identical in interior dimensions, so why get the significantly more expensive and less fuel efficient Malibu?
Ford seems to be style over substance, though. The Fiesta is still rather tight inside, and the powertrain isn't as advanced as other makes (until the 1.0T comes to the US, though). Focus is also tight inside, and dynamics aren't as good as it used to be. Taurus's space efficiency is very poor, and it's a fat cow. Fusion is unproven, as is the new Escape.
Ford is definitely going for a sportier, high-style edge, whereas GM is going for a blander, more mainstream model. Both have their missteps, but they both make competent products.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 14, 2012, 05:27:04 PM
I kinda of feel like we've been promised "The New GM" more than a few times in the past ten years, but we still got cars like the Cobalt.
Even the NACOTY 2008 Malibu has ugly rough plastic inside and just ditched its 4 speed auto.
And then there's the chrome wheels GM still puts on cars. They need to stop.
Yeah, but now their products are directly comparable to other makes, beating them in some regards.
Quote from: S204STi on May 14, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
Let the misinformation flow freely, like diarrhea.
+1. Never understood the recent hate, but Honda's lack of improvement and overall sterilization gets a pass.
Pft. Ford's small cars have been usually better than its domestic counterparts for about a decade now. Cheap plastics aside, the first-gen Focus was a better car than its domestic contemporaries for most of its life, till that half-assed refresh. I'd still take the current model over anything small from GM or Chrysler, and a lot of imports too.
Quote from: S204STi on May 14, 2012, 10:17:04 PM
Pft. Ford's small cars have been usually better than its domestic counterparts for about a decade now. Cheap plastics aside, the first-gen Focus was a better car than its domestic contemporaries for most of its life, till that half-assed refresh. I'd still take the current model over anything small from GM or Chrysler, and a lot of imports too.
Yeah, I have to agree there.
Quote from: S204STi on May 14, 2012, 10:17:04 PM
Pft. Ford's small cars have been usually better than its domestic counterparts for about a decade now. Cheap plastics aside, the first-gen Focus was a better car than its domestic contemporaries for most of its life, till that half-assed refresh. I'd still take the current model over anything small from GM or Chrysler, and a lot of imports too.
The Focus actually has more attractive plastics than most new cars. It has a nice grain pattern on the dash, soft door panels, attractive finishes, etc.
The cheapness shows through in the poor corrosion resistance.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 14, 2012, 10:20:50 PM
The Focus actually has more attractive plastics than most new cars. It has a nice grain pattern on the dash, soft door panels, attractive finishes, etc.
Did we own the same car?
Quote from: 2o6 on May 14, 2012, 06:23:29 PM
Yeah, but now their products are directly comparable to other makes, beating them in some regards.
The Cruze is the only one that's directly comparable.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 10:21:52 PM
The Cruze is the only one that's directly comparable.
....What?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 14, 2012, 10:23:21 PM
Nope.
Unless something changed from MY 2000 to MY 2002, I don't agree at all.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 14, 2012, 10:22:41 PM
....What?
GM still doesn't really know how to build an interior. The best interior they have is the Cruze.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 10:25:48 PM
GM still doesn't really know how to build an interior. The best interior they have is the Cruze.
What does that have to do with making a car comparable to the competition?
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 10:25:48 PM
GM still doesn't really know how to build an interior. The best interior they have is the Cruze.
They know how to metalize the trim around gauges and air vents. Silver paint makes it look expensive too.
....so is this a rag on GM thread? It's not like all the other automakers are doing THAT much better.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 14, 2012, 10:35:44 PM
....so is this a rag on GM thread? It's not like all the other automakers are doing THAT much better.
This is my thread. I am the arbiter.
blah blah blah snide snide snide
Quote from: MrH on May 14, 2012, 04:58:53 PM
Agreed.
Generalizations like this are idiotic. Reliability must be looked at on a model by model basis. Gross oversimplifications of an entire brand based on 10 year old, anecdotal evidence is beyond asinine.
Between my wife and I, we have owned five GM vehicles. When I met my wife, she had a Saturn that was only 4 years old and was literally falling apart. I had a 2000 Sunfire that when it was just 6 months old had an electrical failure while I was driving at 60 mph...twice. I had a GMC truck that was great. I loved the truck. Of the 5, we had two that were pretty trouble free. Otherwise they were disasters. One thing after another.
My parents' have had another three, two of which they still have, and still have problems with. The Trailblazer that my parents own has been so problematic (following the catastrophe that was known as the Pontiac Montana), they have sworn off GM vehicles. My dad can't wait to get rid of the Trailblazer. He refers to it as "that fucking thing in the driveway". The Pontiac Montana was worse. They only gave the Trailblazer a shot because the only car dealer in their town is a GM dealer. Their Cobalt SS/SC feels like it's had a hard life and is aging really fast. They baby the thing, whereas my 4 years older Focus feels relatively new in comparison.
In comparison, in the time my wife and I have been together we have owned 4 Fords, and I have had to do wheel bearings on the Explorer and an alternator on the Focus. That's it. I've also had a Dodge that was absolutely trouble free the entire time I had it. Forgive me if I don't trust GM's reliability, but I have reason not to.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 14, 2012, 10:27:01 PM
What does that have to do with making a car comparable to the competition?
Well, when a car isn't even close to being as good as the competition, then it isn't really comparable.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 11:36:28 PM
Well, when a car isn't even close to being as good as the competition, then it isn't really comparable.
Yet again; What?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 14, 2012, 05:27:04 PM
I kinda of feel like we've been promised "The New GM" more than a few times in the past ten years, but we still got cars like the Cobalt.
I remember a C/D preview of the Cobalt where GM was boasting about how they reverse-engineered the Jetta and supposedly spent a fortune replicating some of its suspension components.
It was the new GM in that it was a car that could have been quite good if their efforts had been more consistent instead of focusing on a couple of attributes of the car and hoping that would elevate the rest.
It dawned on me today that Cadillac is a bit vulnerable at the moment; it has only one sedan in its lineup (CTS & variants); the XTS won't be out until next month.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Between my wife and I, we have owned five GM vehicles. When I met my wife, she had a Saturn that was only 4 years old and was literally falling apart. I had a 2000 Sunfire that when it was just 6 months old had an electrical failure while I was driving at 60 mph...twice. I had a GMC truck that was great. I loved the truck. Of the 5, we had two that were pretty trouble free. Otherwise they were disasters. One thing after another.
My parents' have had another three, two of which they still have, and still have problems with. The Trailblazer that my parents own has been so problematic (following the catastrophe that was known as the Pontiac Montana), they have sworn off GM vehicles. My dad can't wait to get rid of the Trailblazer. He refers to it as "that fucking thing in the driveway". The Pontiac Montana was worse. They only gave the Trailblazer a shot because the only car dealer in their town is a GM dealer. Their Cobalt SS/SC feels like it's had a hard life and is aging really fast. They baby the thing, whereas my 4 years older Focus feels relatively new in comparison.
In comparison, in the time my wife and I have been together we have owned 4 Fords, and I have had to do wheel bearings on the Explorer and an alternator on the Focus. That's it. I've also had a Dodge that was absolutely trouble free the entire time I had it. Forgive me if I don't trust GM's reliability, but I have reason not to.
Blah blah blah, more outdated anecdotal evidence. My comment still stands.
Quote from: MrH on May 15, 2012, 08:11:55 AM
Blah blah blah, more outdated anecdotal evidence. My comment still stands.
I have reason not to trust GM's reliability. That's my point.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 14, 2012, 03:36:14 PM
I think they're on the rite track. The expensive flagships are as good if not better than the Germans and the mainstremers are very competitive. I'm hoping next year the C7 will be the icing on the cake!
What expensive flagships are as good as the Germans?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27430.msg1720902#msg1720902 date=1337091802
What expensive flagships are as good as the Germans?
He already said he was talking about the CTS-V and the Z06/ZR1.
The current Focus interior is decent, albeit a bit busy. Same goes for the Cruze. The Fusion interior is pretty damn nice, though.
If shopping for a mainstream midsize car, I think I'd go for the Fusion once the '13 model comes out. It's just plain good looking, offers a nice interior, and I can't knock Ford's reliability. Truthfully, I would roll the dice on almost any modern car. When they do the reliability surveys, the difference between the best and worst mass-produced brands isn't that much. Modern cars are pretty damn reliable across the board.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 15, 2012, 09:29:10 AM
He already said he was talking about the CTS-V and the Z06/ZR1.
Oh, I thought he was joking. The CTS-V isn't a flagship, and the ZR1 is an amazing machine, but as good as a GT3, GT3 RS, or R8?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27430.msg1720941#msg1720941 date=1337098573
Oh, I thought he was joking. The CTS-V isn't a flagship, and the ZR1 is an amazing machine, but as good as a GT3, GT3 RS, or R8?
It's as fast or faster than all of those, but it's certainly not as good. There's more to these cars than just speed. You have to live with them every day. The RS is most likely a little too hardcore though.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 14, 2012, 10:20:50 PM
The Focus actually has more attractive plastics than most new cars. It has a nice grain pattern on the dash, soft door panels, attractive finishes, etc.
The cheapness shows through in the poor corrosion resistance.
Really? It's been years and years since I've seen a car from any manufacturer with rust through, except for some vehicles in commercial service or harsh environments.
But I don't frequent the snow/salt belt either.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 15, 2012, 10:01:05 AM
If shopping for a mainstream midsize car, I think I'd go for the Fusion once the '13 model comes out. It's just plain good looking, offers a nice interior, and I can't knock Ford's reliability.
I think I'd want to see what the next version of the Mazda 6 looks like before making that decision. But I agree the 13 Fusion looks to be a hell of a nice car.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Hint: It hasn't. The 2008-2012 Malibu's interior was nicer, I thought.
wut
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2010/06/27/16/18/2011_chevrolet_malibu-pic-4611650162895422395.jpeg)
vs.
(http://acarisnotarefrigerator.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2013_chevrolet_malibu_interior_3.jpg)
Now I checked out the interior of the new Malibu a few weekends ago, and the materials did leave a bit to be desired. Compared to the Buick Regal, the fit and finish also wasn't quite there (spent time in both cars over the same weekend. Granted they were both development vehicles, but they were both sell-able VINs).
But to say that the old Malibu's interior is better than the new one is absurd. That old interior looks like it belongs in a car from 5-10 years ago (which the outgoing Malibu is obviously). Had a brand new one as a rental a while back, and I couldn't believe that car was still being sold in this decade.
I prefer the styling of the [revious Malibu's interior over the new one. As for materials, I couldn't say except that the nice contrasting colour on the old one was hard cheap plastic.
They have definitely stepped up their game quite a bit and I think they are on the right path. Their new models are definitely class competitive, with some being top picks. However, I am a bit wary of the Malibu, though I haven't seen it in person. In pictures, it just doesn't look good enough, and it seems to be getting mediocre reviews.
But the biggest impression the new Malibu left in me was how composed it was on Michigan's less than average highways. Soft ride as expected but not floaty
Quote from: SVT_Power on May 15, 2012, 12:25:09 PM
But the biggest impression the new Malibu left in me was how composed it was on Michigan's less than average highways. Soft ride as expected but not floaty
Suspension tuning is not very difficult....
A lot of companies seem to miss that memo on a regular basis...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2012, 12:59:37 PM
Suspension tuning is not very difficult....
Yet again; What?
Quote from: 2o6 on May 15, 2012, 01:55:01 PM
Yet again; What?
For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately
If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2012, 02:00:31 PM
For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately
If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.
Then why do so many get it wrong?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2012, 02:00:31 PM
For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately
If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.
I dont want t sound like MrH, but you can't possibly be saying that.
Otherwise automotive mules and testing would be irrelevant.
Quote from: SVT_Power on May 15, 2012, 11:11:09 AM
wut
vs.
Now I checked out the interior of the new Malibu a few weekends ago, and the materials did leave a bit to be desired. Compared to the Buick Regal, the fit and finish also wasn't quite there (spent time in both cars over the same weekend. Granted they were both development vehicles, but they were both sell-able VINs).
But to say that the old Malibu's interior is better than the new one is absurd. That old interior looks like it belongs in a car from 5-10 years ago (which the outgoing Malibu is obviously). Had a brand new one as a rental a while back, and I couldn't believe that car was still being sold in this decade.
The interior of the old one has better materials. The new one looks better, but the old one IS better.
Quote from: CJ on May 14, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Hint: It hasn't. The 2008-2012 Malibu's interior was nicer, I thought.
Really?
It always looked and felt cheap to me. The center stack too, looked tacked on with the corporate HVAC and radio controls - they just didn't flow with everything else.
The new Malibu, inside and out, OTOH, looks really nice.
Quote from: CJ on May 15, 2012, 02:40:15 PM
The interior of the old one has better materials. The new one looks better, but the old one IS better.
I don't know, bro. The old materials didn't feel particularly upscale nor did they fit together all that well. They even look cheaper than what you get in the new car.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 15, 2012, 02:03:41 PM
I dont want t sound like MrH, but you can't possibly be saying that.
Otherwise automotive mules and testing would be irrelevant.
Yup. Suspension design is engineering, which takes an enormous amount of time to do right. One also has to remember that the chassis itself is a suspension member, which adds to the complexity of the task.
Quote from: Raza on May 15, 2012, 10:16:13 AM
Oh, I thought he was joking. The CTS-V isn't a flagship, and the ZR1 is an amazing machine, but as good as a GT3, GT3 RS, or R8?
How can you say the CTS-V is not a flagship? It's the best performing and most expensive vehicle in Cadillacs line up! And the ZR1 IS as good (the only downfall is the interior) as all of the vehicles you listed while being cheaper at the same time......
Quote from: Submariner on May 15, 2012, 03:06:42 PM
I don't know, bro. The old materials didn't feel particularly upscale nor did they fit together all that well. They even look cheaper than what you get in the new car.
I've been in both. The old one's better, somehow.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 15, 2012, 10:21:03 AM
It's as fast or faster than all of those, but it's certainly not as good. There's more to these cars than just speed. You have to live with them every day. The RS is most likely a little too hardcore though.
The R8 is the only one that I would say is a better DD than the Vette. And plenty of Auto Mags have said the Corvette is great as a DD. Most of the guys on the Vette forums that moved up from the Z06 said they prefer the ZR1 as a DD!
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2012, 03:06:52 PM
Yup. Suspension design is engineering, which takes an enormous amount of time to do right. One also has to remember that the chassis itself is a suspension member, which adds to the complexity of the task.
Then you have to throw in what the clientele wants, and roads of different markets, tires, engine variants, and a lot more stuff.
Nah man, just throw some variables in matlab and bam you have a competent suspension design. Sporty is always right and obviously those huge car manufacturers don't know what they're doing.
:facepalm:
Quote from: thecarnut on May 15, 2012, 04:39:09 PM
Nah man, just throw some variables in matlab and bam you have a competent suspension design. Sporty is always right and obviously those huge car manufacturers don't know what they're doing.
:facepalm:
The sarcasm is strong with this one
GMness? Do you mean awesomeness?
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on May 15, 2012, 03:33:37 PM
How can you say the CTS-V is not a flagship? It's the best performing and most expensive vehicle in Cadillacs line up!
It's not a flagship in the same vein as the Merc S-class and BMW 7, which is the flagship that Cadillac needs in order for them to tell the rest of the luxury world, "I have arrived" (or rather, "I'm back")
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2012, 02:00:31 PM
For a normal car its not hard at all. Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately
If you start with a shit chassis theres nothing you can do. But w/a decent chassis (shell, stiffness wise), for something in this class its really not difficult.
:wtf:
You can't be serious. It's posts like these, I'm convinced there's no way you're an engineer man. Don't mean to be insulting, but COME ON!
Quote from: 2o6 on May 15, 2012, 02:03:41 PM
I dont want t sound like MrH, but you can't possibly be saying that.
Otherwise automotive mules and testing would be irrelevant.
Nothing wrong with trying to sound right. :lol:
It took me a month and two other people to get the suspension tuning on one of my Aviva's for Racer. And that's a VIDEO GAME.
It took me a few hours to tune the suspension on my Civic and start winning STS class autocross. That's not fair, though, cuz driver skill...
Quote from: MrH on May 15, 2012, 09:03:12 PM
:wtf:
You can't be serious. It's posts like these, I'm convinced there's no way you're an engineer man. Don't mean to be insulting, but COME ON!
Sounds like someone has never seen an automotive suspension book. I've read Carroll Smith's books (which are watered down for non engineers) and there's a lot going on there.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 15, 2012, 09:10:00 PM
It took me a few hours to tune the suspension on my Civic and start winning STS class autocross. That's not fair, though, cuz driver skill...
You didn't even move pivot points.
In other news, I just learned that MacPherson struts turn.
I don't like the new Malibu in pictures, but everytime I see one IRL I'm like Oh that looked really nice! Especially in black.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 15, 2012, 09:11:47 PM
Sounds like someone has never seen an automotive suspension book. I've read Carroll Smith's books (which are watered down for non engineers) and there's a lot going on there.
I've read really technical, enginerdy stuff on suspensions, and it's so unbelievably dumbed down in those books. Real life suspensions are crazy complex and difficult to nail down properly.
Quote from: MrH on May 15, 2012, 09:18:00 PM
I've read really technical, enginerdy stuff on suspensions, and it's so unbelievably dumbed down in those books. Real life suspensions are crazy complex and difficult to nail down properly.
Well, that's why they pay you guys more than me. :lol:
I've been meaning to read (or try to read) Vehicle dynamics theory and applications and Race car vehicle dynamics. Got both on pdf, just never seem to get around to it.
One of the hardest aspects to suspension design is properly modeling the chassis - MatLab ain't going to come close to cutting it - will need something like an uber-powerful ANSYS workstation + experience. (Then of course there's the dynamic modeling of the entire system - chassis + individual suspension elements + wheels + tires all in the context of nearly infinite combination of positions, movements, etc. And then you're onto optimization of that ginormous system. Jesus! Makes my head 'SPIN!)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 15, 2012, 09:12:06 PM
You didn't even move pivot points.
You can't do that in STS
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2012, 09:46:01 PM
One of the hardest aspects to suspension design is properly modeling the chassis - MatLab ain't going to come close to cutting it - will need something like an uber-powerful ANSYS workstation + experience. (Then of course there's the dynamic modeling of the entire system - chassis + individual suspension elements + wheels + tires all in the context of nearly infinite combination of positions, movements, etc. And then you're onto optimization of that ginormous system. Jesus! Makes my head 'SPIN!)
Even then, you still need to build the damn thing and test in as many conditions are you can get to pull real world data. Compare that to your simulation, tweak, etc.
But seriously, they over think it. This is all you gotta do:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2012, 02:00:31 PM
Make the springs somewhat soft, keep the low speed damping high to remove floatiness, tune mid + high speed damping appropriately
:wtf: I don't think anyone knows what that's actually supposed to mean. Just a bunch of vague, relative terms thrown around to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 15, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
Exactly.
Civics are perfect, anyway. All it really needed was more than 70 HP.
Quote from: MrH on May 15, 2012, 09:58:15 PM
Even then, you still need to build the damn thing and test in as many conditions are you can get to pull real world data. Compare that to your simulation, tweak, etc.
But seriously, they over think it. This is all you gotta do:
:wtf: I don't think anyone knows what that's actually supposed to mean. Just a bunch of vague, relative terms thrown around to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about.
Yup.
All simulations are wrong, some are useful.
Quote from: MrH on May 15, 2012, 09:58:15 PM
:wtf: I don't think anyone knows what that's actually supposed to mean. Just a bunch of vague, relative terms thrown around to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about.
I have put together a lot of street setups on mainstream cars and this is what has worked for me :huh:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 17, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
I have put together a lot of street setups on mainstream cars and this is what has worked for me :huh:
:lol:
It just gets better. Slammed maximas on ebay coilovers don't "work" for OEMs.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 17, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
I have put together a lot of street setups on mainstream cars and this is what has worked for me :huh:
Have you taken them on a track?
Quote from: MrH on May 17, 2012, 09:02:52 PM
:lol:
It just gets better. Slammed maximas on ebay coilovers don't "work" for OEMs.
They weren't Ebay coilovers
And not all of my setups were slammed... the best one was maybe 1-1.5" lower than stock, with springs not much stiffer than stock, but significantly better damping
Maybe for 10/10ths autocross you need MATLAB and all that shit but for a family car on the street? Cmon
Quote from: 2o6 on May 17, 2012, 09:03:33 PM
Have you taken them on a track?
What would going to a track tell me that real streets wouldn't? No I haven't taken them on a track.