One reason I don't get excited about cars anymore is that it seems like manufacturers have given up on taking risk and are going for meaningless niche or very cautious surface level "evolution"
I mean look at this list of cars:
1987 BMW M3
1983 Camry
1986 Taurus
1989 LS400
1997 Corvette
2002 WRX
1989 NSX
2004 Prius
1983(?) Caravan
Etc...
These cars completely changed the automotive landscape, either in their respective segments or across the board. Some cars like the 1999 911 with the new watercooled engine represented important culture shifts within a company
So I guess aside from the 2004 Prius, which I count because it took the Prius from a cool but very niche creature to a legitimate and brilliant hybrid, what do you guys think were some of the "game changers" of the last decade, and is the hail mary game changer a thing of the past?
The 2003 350Z was pretty significant. It definitely upped the ante in its segment. I'd say the Toyobaru twins (surprise, surprise) are gamechangers today. Back in the day, the 1999 RX300 could also be said to be a gamechanger.
EDIT: The E30 M3 was a homologation special, how did it change the automotive landscape? It was a great car, but I don't know about total gamechanger- it didn't have that kind of widespread appeal. C5 Corvette? I also disagree with the '83 Camry, I'd say the '88+ or the '92+ (I'd be more inclined to go with the '92+) Camry was the true gamechanger. The '83 was hardly significant.
Also, the 2003 V6 Altima started a horsepower war in the family sedan segment. So did the 2003 G35. 2003 was one hell of a year for Nissan.
The Briz/Friz is a game changer. First and only of it's type (lightweight, emphasis on feel+feedback) in the last 10 years, in which crash safety and profitability has changed quite a bit.
It won't sell much, but IMO the Model S is a game changer
Yeah, I'd say the BRZ/FRS and Model S are both big game changers.
The Volt too. I think the new A-class coming to the US will rank up there too. There's a ton of "game changers" in recent years... :huh:
Datsun 240Z.
Ford Explorer, and then Subaru Outback.
I'm not personally a big fan, but I'd consider the 1998-99 Volkswagens (Beetle, Jetta, Passat) to be game changers. Those cars sold the public on the idea of a premium mainstream car. And even if they weren't better built than a '92 Camry or '94 Accord, VW's marketing team convinced people that they were a step up from other run-of-the-mill family cars.
Other game-changing cars I'd include:
1989 Miata
1989 Maxima
1990 300ZX TT
1990 Explorer
1996 RAV4
1998 RX300
1998 Navigator
2000 Lincoln LS
2005 Mustang
Thinking about those last 3, it seems that Ford pioneers an idea, but GM popularizes it (Escalade, CTS, Camaro)
How is BRS a gamechanger? It was a big risk, but its basically a hardtop Miata... which will be 25 in 2 years. A good and welcome addition but not a gamechanger IMO
Sent from handheld Minority Report console
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 01:13:59 PM
How is BRS a gamechanger? It was a big risk, but its basically a hardtop Miata... which will be 25 in 2 years. A good and welcome addition but not a gamechanger IMO
Sent from handheld Minority Report console
I can see it going either way, yeah, it pretty much is a hard top Miata with back seats, but how many other hard top Miata with back seats are there? 0... So they filled a black hole, in which something that hadn't existed within current government regulations, but now there's something there.
Quote from: CALL_911 on December 29, 2012, 12:31:41 PM
The 2003 350Z was pretty significant. It definitely upped the ante in its segment. I'd say the Toyobaru twins (surprise, surprise) are gamechangers today. Back in the day, the 1999 RX300 could also be said to be a gamechanger.
EDIT: The E30 M3 was a homologation special, how did it change the automotive landscape? It was a great car, but I don't know about total gamechanger- it didn't have that kind of widespread appeal. C5 Corvette? I also disagree with the '83 Camry, I'd say the '88+ or the '92+ (I'd be more inclined to go with the '92+) Camry was the true gamechanger. The '83 was hardly significant.
E30 wasn't a changer in its day but I think its philosophy is appreciated now. C5 legitimized the brand aa legit world class sports car. 83 Camry was a revelation and huge success. The rest were good but not paradigm shifters
Sent from handheld Minority Report console
It's a better car to drive. It's out Miata-ed the miata, while being cheaper (when comparably equipped) and more practical. The fact that the miata has been the trophy of cheap, fun to drive thrills for 25 years, and someone overthrew it like this, that's huge.
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 29, 2012, 01:12:45 PM
I'm not personally a big fan, but I'd consider the 1998-99 Volkswagens (Beetle, Jetta, Passat) to be game changers. Those cars sold the public on the idea of a premium mainstream car. And even if they weren't better built than a '92 Camry or '94 Accord, VW's marketing team convinced people that they were a step up from other run-of-the-mill family cars.
Other game-changing cars I'd include:
1989 Miata
1989 Maxima
1990 300ZX TT
1990 Explorer
1996 RAV4
1998 RX300
1998 Navigator
2000 Lincoln LS
2005 Mustang
Thinking about those last 3, it seems that Ford pioneers an idea, but GM popularizes it (Escalade, CTS, Camaro)
Wow, I agree on every thing you just said. Great post.
+1
Also, interesting take on GM perfecting a lot of Ford's ideas. You could argue the Mustang is equally as successful as the Camaro. Immediately begs the question: Is the same thing going to happen to the Ford MyTouch? After using the CUE system, it might take a little time, but it's well on its way.
Interesting topic for a thread.
I'd add several cars to the list.
The original VW Golf brought us the compact hatch in full force. The Nissan GT-R has reset the price/performance ratio for it's class. The Merc ML/BMW X5 brought the luxury players into the SUV segment to huge success.
I don't think the original M3 was a game changer, but the M5 was. At its launch it demonstrated what a sports sedan could and woul beat sports cars if built correctly.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 01:22:12 PM
It's a better car to drive. It's out Miata-ed the miata, while being cheaper (when comparably equipped) and more practical. The fact that the miata has been the trophy of cheap, fun to drive thrills for 25 years, and someone overthrew it like this, that's huge.
I doubt they will sell as well, though. The convertible market is a unique beast, and the Miata still lays claim to not only being one of the most fun to drive cars at its price point, but being pretty much the only engaging, fun to drive convertible under $30K (and one of only 3 or 4 drop-tops available at under $30K). There have always been fun to drive, sporty cars offered at a similar, or lower, price point with more practicality throughout the entirety of the Miata's life, but no other convertible has been able to rival the Miata's overall package of fun to drive convertible with some semblance of practicality at a low price. The few that have tried failed after only a couple of years.
Quote from: MX793 on December 29, 2012, 01:38:10 PM
I doubt they will sell as well, though. The convertible market is a unique beast, and the Miata still lays claim to not only being one of the most fun to drive cars at its price point, but being pretty much the only engaging, fun to drive convertible under $30K (and one of only 3 or 4 drop-tops available at under $30K). There have always been fun to drive, sporty cars offered at a similar, or lower, price point with more practicality throughout the entirety of the Miata's life, but no other convertible has been able to rival the Miata's overall package of fun to drive convertible with some semblance of practicality at a low price. The few that have tried failed after only a couple of years.
But there's a BRZ/FRS convertible in the making...I think that poses a serious threat to the death grip the Miata has on the convertible market. I do agree though, the convertible world is a weird place. There's always been fun to drive, more practical the cars. But none really dethroned the Miata in terms of nimbleness, enjoyment, or feedback. This is the first one that really tops it for the price. It does everything better than the current miata besides dropping the top, and that's in the works.
As for sales, you're underestimating the Toyobaru twins. Currently, Mazda is going to be making somewhere between 15k-20k units/year until the new Miata debuts. Pretty terrible. When the new joint venture with Alfa produces a new miata and some alfa rendition, sales are projected to be 40k-50k/year combined.
BRZ/FRS/86 sales are going to be in the 70k-80k range, and might even creep past that with the following generation. These are world wide production numbers btw.
I'm gonna say the Nissan FM platform and specifically, the 2003 350Z and 2003 G35.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 29, 2012, 01:54:47 PM
I'm gonna say the Nissan FM platform and specifically, the 2003 350Z and 2003 G35.
This is a good one. Really put the Germans on edge and forced the whole segment to step its game up in the performance dept. Also was a hail mary that brought Nissan back from the brink. Folks who don't believe me should look at Infiniti's 2002 lineup. 3 rebadges and a flagship on its way out.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 01:22:12 PM
It's a better car to drive. It's out Miata-ed the miata, while being cheaper (when comparably equipped) and more practical. The fact that the miata has been the trophy of cheap, fun to drive thrills for 25 years, and someone overthrew it like this, that's huge.
Eh fair enough.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 01:50:37 PM
But there's a BRZ/FRS convertible in the making...I think that poses a serious threat to the death grip the Miata has on the convertible market. I do agree though, the convertible world is a weird place. There's always been fun to drive, more practical the cars. But none really dethroned the Miata in terms of nimbleness, enjoyment, or feedback. This is the first one that really tops it for the price. It does everything better than the current miata besides dropping the top, and that's in the works.
As for sales, you're underestimating the Toyobaru twins. Currently, Mazda is going to be making somewhere between 15k-20k units/year until the new Miata debuts. Pretty terrible. When the new joint venture with Alfa produces a new miata and some alfa rendition, sales are projected to be 40k-50k/year combined.
BRZ/FRS/86 sales are going to be in the 70k-80k range, and might even creep past that with the following generation. These are world wide production numbers btw.
The Toyobaru is in its first year as a highly anticipated car. I would not consider first year sales to be representative of a typical sales year. We'll see how well it's doing 4-5 years in after all of the "I gotta have it" people have snatched theirs up in the first two to three years. Just look at the S197 ('05+) Mustang. They sold over 160K units in the first two years, 135K units in the 3rd year, 91K in the 4th year and 66K in the 5th. Sales picked up some after the '10 refresh, but they're still less than half what the car sold in its first couple of years. The NC MX-5 is now in its 7th model year. It's not the latest thing anymore. The NC has also not been nearly as popular as the NB was (the economic climate has not helped here), and the NB did not sell as well as the NA.
These are numbers pulled from an analytics company I use for work. They are usually pretty accurate with predicting these things and take the new model anticipation into account. But in 4-5 years, there will be an updated BRZ/FRS/86 to keep the train rolling. I don't think they'll have trouble keeping the demand up on these.
I think the declining sales of the Miata says a lot actually. The really long product cycles are killing them. If Toyota/Subaru stay on a traditional 5 year product cycle, Mazda is not going to be able to keep up.
How about the SVT Raptor?
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
These are numbers pulled from an analytics company I use for work. They are usually pretty accurate with predicting these things and take the new model anticipation into account. But in 4-5 years, there will be an updated BRZ/FRS/86 to keep the train rolling. I don't think they'll have trouble keeping the demand up on these.
I think the declining sales of the Miata says a lot actually. The really long product cycles are killing them. If Toyota/Subaru stay on a traditional 5 year product cycle, Mazda is not going to be able to keep up.
Perhaps significantly, Subaru is now on a 4-year cycle...
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 01:22:48 PM
Wow, I agree on every thing you just said. Great post.
+1
Also, interesting take on GM perfecting a lot of Ford's ideas. You could argue the Mustang is equally as successful as the Camaro. Immediately begs the question: Is the same thing going to happen to the Ford MyTouch? After using the CUE system, it might take a little time, but it's well on its way.
Thanks! Good to know I can still type up a gem among my other random meaningless posts :ohyeah:
The thing I take issue with on CUE and MyTouch is that they're not much of an improvement over the standard "buttons on the dash" setup we've been used to from decades past. Yeah, you can give the MyTouch a voice command saying "PLAY RADIO DISNEY", but that's not any easier than just pressing your programmed preset button for Radio Disney*. The thing that cracks me up more is the haptic feedback on the CUE. A button-less panel that simulates the feel of pressing a button. Really? :nutty:
* No, I don't really listen to Radio Disney.
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 29, 2012, 03:28:21 PM
Thanks! Good to know I can still type up a gem among my other random meaningless posts :ohyeah:
The thing I take issue with on CUE and MyTouch is that they're not much of an improvement over the standard "buttons on the dash" setup we've been used to from decades past. Yeah, you can give the MyTouch a voice command saying "PLAY RADIO DISNEY", but that's not any easier than just pressing your programmed preset button for Radio Disney*. The thing that cracks me up more is the haptic feedback on the CUE. A button-less panel that simulates the feel of pressing a button. Really? :nutty:
* No, I don't really listen to Radio Disney.
Well, I guess my only response to that is: Didn't everyone have the same exact response to touch screen cell phones at first? Tons of people thought the lack of buttons was silly for awhile. Now it's tough to find one with a physical keyboard.
Cars are harder to implement this kind of thing in, but I see the possibilities for it. Replace a ton of buttons with a face that can morph into large, haptic touch buttons depending on the need.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
Well, I guess my only response to that is: Didn't everyone have the same exact response to touch screen cell phones at first? Tons of people thought the lack of buttons was silly for awhile. Now it's tough to find one with a physical keyboard.
Cars are harder to implement this kind of thing in, but I see the possibilities for it. Replace a ton of buttons with a face that can morph into large, haptic touch buttons depending on the need.
I'm not sold on the touch screen stuff. While driving I don't want to have to look at a screen to press a button. All the buttons on my dash can be used without looking, and that's the only way I like it.
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 03:33:00 PM
I'm not sold on the touch screen stuff. While driving I don't want to have to look at a screen to press a button. All the buttons on my dash can be used without looking, and that's the only way I like it.
People said the same about cell phones :huh:
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:36:36 PM
People said the same about cell phones :huh:
Um, that's not the same thing at all. :wtf:
When using buttons in a car, I'm not going to take my eyes off the road to press them. With a phone, I can focus 100% on the phone and where I'm pressing.
'00 Focus - showed automakers how to build a legitimately good small car that punched above it's weight; started the trend IMO towards an improved attitude to smaller cars
'04 Scion xB; ignore the obnoxiously boxy styling, and it's actually just a sensible subcompact with great economy; showed Americans that subcompacts needen't be penalty boxes.
'01 Elantra - possibly the first Korean car that someone legitimately wanted to buy
'11 Sonata - the first Korean midsizer that was legitimately better than the competition; even if you don't like the styling, it feels much higher quality and more expensive than GM, Ford, Honda and even Toyota on many fronts
'96 RAV4 and '97 CR-V - pioneered the Compact FWD CUV as we know it. I wonder if things would be different if Nissan brought over the Rasheen and X-Trail instead of trying to get the Xterra to do something it can't.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
Well, I guess my only response to that is: Didn't everyone have the same exact response to touch screen cell phones at first? Tons of people thought the lack of buttons was silly for awhile. Now it's tough to find one with a physical keyboard.
Cars are harder to implement this kind of thing in, but I see the possibilities for it. Replace a ton of buttons with a face that can morph into large, haptic touch buttons depending on the need.
There aren't too many situations in which operating a cell phone w/o looking at it is necessary/convenient... and most (if not all) cell phones still have button for situations that do (volume control + sleep/power/reset for example)
I think a touch screen interface is OK for non-critical functions. I will probably get a double DIN HU in my next car for navigation for example. But in that realm, in which customers are far more scrutinizing + less tolerant of crap, even a good touch screen unit will be flanked with sight free knobs and buttons. Similarly there is no need for touch screen HVAC, where 2-3 knobs and a small display would suffice. Its not like cars are hurting for center console real estate. This is def one of the sillier + more pointless automotive ideas. Americans are terrible enough drivers.
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 03:37:41 PM
Um, that's not the same thing at all. :wtf:
When using buttons in a car, I'm not going to take my eyes off the road to press them. With a phone, I can focus 100% on the phone and where I'm pressing.
The argument of "I want to be able to text while driving or in class without having to look at my phone" is the same argument you're making. A well designed touchscreen will allow you do the same without looking once you get used to it.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
Well, I guess my only response to that is: Didn't everyone have the same exact response to touch screen cell phones at first? Tons of people thought the lack of buttons was silly for awhile. Now it's tough to find one with a physical keyboard.
Cars are harder to implement this kind of thing in, but I see the possibilities for it. Replace a ton of buttons with a face that can morph into large, haptic touch buttons depending on the need.
I can see the possibility for it as well, but I don't think cars are suited to this interface as well as phones. I still don't really like dialing numbers on a button-less screen as much, but the much greater flexibility for the UI's of phone apps is more than worth it. I'm not sure the same potential exists with cars.
With cars, I also like being able to memorize the physical location of buttons, and I don't have as much patience for navigating through menus on an iDrive type of thing in a moving car than I do with a smart phone while I'm sitting on the toilet.
We're still a few generations away from these type of driver interfaces being good enough to supplant the traditional buttons on the dash, I'd say. I've only played around for a few minutes with the systems in the Caddy ATS and 2013 Fusion, and I'd probably give the edge to CUE for the time being.
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 03:37:41 PM
Um, that's not the same thing at all. :wtf:
When using buttons in a car, I'm not going to take my eyes off the road to press them. With a phone, I can focus 100% on the phone and where I'm pressing.
Ha thanks for condensing my post. +1. There is nothing to be gained by making basic car functions haptic. Again cell phones still have volume and power buttons. And cell phones freeze less than CUE
Why is the A-class a game changer?
'13 Chevy Spark
Maybe it's too early to tell, but sales are pretty strong for such a small car. It's showing that maybe the USA is ready for more offerings in the segment from other automakers. The 500 and Mini are more 'premium' offerings that get over on nostalgia. The Spark has none of those.
What about having physical buttons that can be reprogrammed? You can have some sort small screen on the button that changes depending on its function. Would give you the customization of a touch screen and the tactile feedback + ability to use without looking that an old-fashioned system provides.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
These are numbers pulled from an analytics company I use for work. They are usually pretty accurate with predicting these things and take the new model anticipation into account. But in 4-5 years, there will be an updated BRZ/FRS/86 to keep the train rolling. I don't think they'll have trouble keeping the demand up on these.
I think the declining sales of the Miata says a lot actually. The really long product cycles are killing them. If Toyota/Subaru stay on a traditional 5 year product cycle, Mazda is not going to be able to keep up.
That's a big if on the 5 year cycle. There is no company out there that is on a standard 5-year cycle for relatively low volume, niche market car like the FBRRZ-S. The Nissan Silvia line is about the only car I can think of of this type to be on a <6 year redesign cycle, and that car died out a decade ago. Some of the FWD sport compacts tend to get redesigns on a more standard ~5 year cycle, but that's because their platforms are shared with high volume models (e.g. Integra and Civic) so the platform development costs get spread out.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:44:18 PM
The argument of "I want to be able to text while driving or in class without having to look at my phone" is the same argument you're making. A well designed touchscreen will allow you do the same without looking once you get used to it.
Maybe I haven't used a well-designed touchscreen yet. Every one that I've used so far has been shit. I don't understand how putting a touchscreen with changing buttons would be easier to use than fixed buttons and knobs but OK.
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 29, 2012, 03:44:29 PM
I can see the possibility for it as well, but I don't think cars are suited to this interface as well as phones. I still don't really like dialing numbers on a button-less screen as much, but the much greater flexibility for the UI's of phone apps is more than worth it. I'm not sure the same potential exists with cars.
With cars, I also like being able to memorize the physical location of buttons, and I don't have as much patience for navigating through menus on an iDrive type of thing in a moving car than I do with a smart phone while I'm sitting on the toilet.
We're still a few generations away from these type of driver interfaces being good enough to supplant the traditional buttons on the dash, I'd say. I've only played around for a few minutes with the systems in the Caddy ATS and 2013 Fusion, and I'd probably give the edge to CUE for the time being.
Yeah, that's the thing. You'd have to have a set of locations for functions that you'd memorize. For example, when you're using climate control, fan speed is always in a certain location. It's large, and easily done without looking. During radio use, that same area is volume. Something like that.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 03:45:10 PM
Ha thanks for condensing my post. +1. There is nothing to be gained by making basic car functions haptic. Again cell phones still have volume and power buttons. And cell phones freeze less than CUE
You've got so much experience with CUE that you know how often it freezes? When did you get an ATS? It's still in its infancy. Patience. Android frooze a ton at first too.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 29, 2012, 03:45:44 PM
Why is the A-class a game changer?
I think it will be very important in bringing luxury to smaller vehicles. We've had cars for awhile like a Focus with a ton of add on features, but haven't really broken into the luxury small car world much. A luxury brand with luxury features in a small size people will be willing to pay for.
Quote from: hotrodalex on December 29, 2012, 03:49:43 PM
What about having physical buttons that can be reprogrammed? You can have some sort small screen on the button that changes depending on its function. Would give you the customization of a touch screen and the tactile feedback + ability to use without looking that an old-fashioned system provides.
Now you're onto something. I like this idea too. The AC controls / driving mode controls in the lower half of the Juke are a lot like this...VERY interesting. Relatively inexpensive but cool way of using those controls for two purposes. I'm hoping this becomes more popular.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 03:45:10 PM
Ha thanks for condensing my post. +1. There is nothing to be gained by making basic car functions haptic. Again cell phones still have volume and power buttons. And cell phones freeze less than CUE
Yup, the most important buttons are still physical. Even on devices such as phones and music players I find actual buttons far more useful. It's why I don't use my phone as a music player and why I have an iPod with the click wheel and another player for the gym. I want to be able to change music without looking at where I'm pressing. Trying to press buttons on a flat glass screen without looking is a total crapshoot, even if the button locations don't change.
I need to be able to feel the button before I press it and that itself is a huge, huge advantage to physical buttons over a touchscreen.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:55:38 PM
I think it will be very important in bringing luxury to smaller vehicles. We've had cars for awhile like a Focus with a ton of add on features, but haven't really broken into the luxury small car world much. A luxury brand with luxury features in a small size people will be willing to pay for.
I'm not convinced. At least from pictures, I find it to be very ugly. Why would the A-class succeed where the A3 failed? Why A-class and not Verano and ILX?
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 03:57:07 PM
Yup, the most important buttons are still physical. Even on devices such as phones and music players I find actual buttons far more useful. It's why I don't use my phone as a music player and why I have an iPod with the click wheel and another player for the gym. I want to be able to change music without looking at where I'm pressing. Trying to press buttons on a flat glass screen without looking is a total crapshoot, even if the button locations don't change.
I need to be able to feel the button before I press it and that itself is a huge, huge advantage to physical buttons over a touchscreen.
Not to mention that if you simply brush a real button when trying to reach the button/knob/dial you're actually trying to hit, generally nothing happens because you didn't hit it with enough pressure to activate it, but with a touch screen, there is no real pressure sensitivity. Simply brushing the wrong "button" because you hit a bump in the road while reaching for another button could hit that button. Probably not a huge deal in most cases (oops, I hit radio preset 7 instead of 8), but it could get annoying if it happened to be the display mode button and now you have to switch back to the previous mode to actually carry out what you were trying to do.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 29, 2012, 03:58:21 PM
I'm not convinced. At least from pictures, I find it to be very ugly. Why would the A-class succeed where the A3 failed? Why A-class and not Verano and ILX?
A3 is much further from true luxury than the A-class is in my mind. I thought the A-class looks a bit awkward in pictures, but much better in person. Pretty stunning car really.
Verano and ILX doesn't have the true luxury brand attached to it. In my mind, Buick is much closer to a mainstream brand than a luxury brand.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 29, 2012, 03:58:21 PM
I'm not convinced. At least from pictures, I find it to be very ugly. Why would the A-class succeed where the A3 failed? Why A-class and not Verano and ILX?
A3 = GTI, Verano = Cruze and ILX = Civic, but A-class has no lesser version here.
That's my guess.
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 03:57:07 PM
Yup, the most important buttons are still physical. Even on devices such as phones and music players I find actual buttons far more useful. It's why I don't use my phone as a music player and why I have an iPod with the click wheel and another player for the gym. I want to be able to change music without looking at where I'm pressing. Trying to press buttons on a flat glass screen without looking is a total crapshoot, even if the button locations don't change.
I need to be able to feel the button before I press it and that itself is a huge, huge advantage to physical buttons over a touchscreen.
Yes, but you're the minority. :huh: The adoption of touch screen phones and the death of dedicated mp3 players support this.
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 04:01:35 PM
A3 = GTI, Verano = Cruze and ILX = Civic, but A-class has no lesser version here.
That's my guess.
Isn't the A-class supposed to be leveraged against the Sentra (with the Nissan/Renault/MB tie up).
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 04:01:14 PM
A3 is much further from true luxury than the A-class is in my mind. I thought the A-class looks a bit awkward in pictures, but much better in person. Pretty stunning car really.
Verano and ILX doesn't have the true luxury brand attached to it. In my mind, Buick is much closer to a mainstream brand than a luxury brand.
I dunno, I put the A3 and A-class on the same plane in my mind (As with the A4, C-class and 3-series), and the ILX and Verano hit wayy harder on the value front.
A3's feel very cheap to me and look very dated. The new one coming out looks even worse I think.
A-class looks and feels like a much more upscale product.
What about the Lexus CT?
Quote from: 2o6 on December 29, 2012, 04:08:28 PM
What about the Lexus CT?
Cheap-o and really cramped. Interesting counterpoint though. I think the A-class represents a better packaged CT, with the additional cash being thrown towards luxury instead of the hybrid power train that Lexus did.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 04:10:19 PM
Cheap-o and really cramped. Interesting counterpoint though. I think the A-class represents a better packaged CT, with the additional cash being thrown towards luxury instead of the hybrid power train that Lexus did.
....isn't the A-class also cramped?
1990 Miata
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 04:03:07 PM
Yes, but you're the minority. :huh: The adoption of touch screen phones and the death of dedicated mp3 players support this.
There are still dedicated mp3 players... :confused:
Quote from: 2o6 on December 29, 2012, 04:11:29 PM
....isn't the A-class also cramped?
Just checked out a CT last week. I haven't been in the A-class in awhile, but I remember it being pretty roomy. It'd be hard to be worse than the CT in that regard.
Quote from: thecarnut on December 29, 2012, 04:29:05 PM
There are still dedicated mp3 players... :confused:
Yeah, just saying the sales of mp3 players is down considerably. It's a dying market.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:55:38 PM
You've got so much experience with CUE that you know how often it freezes? When did you get an ATS? It's still in its infancy. Patience. Android frooze a ton at first too.
When did
you get an ATS? You prob have no more experience with it than I do (playing with it at a dealership), and yet somehow you're an expert. And which is it? I don't know how much it freezes, but I should be patient with it now, because it does freeze a lot but is in its infancy. Whose posts are rife with throwing shit till it sticks and goofy contradictions again? :rolleyes:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
When did you get an ATS? You prob have no more experience with it than I do (playing with it at a dealership), and yet somehow you're an expert. And which is it? I don't know how much it freezes, but I should be patient with it now, because it does freeze a lot but is in its infancy. Whose posts are rife with throwing shit till it sticks and goofy contradictions again? :rolleyes:
I'm not the one making claims about extended use with it, you are :huh: Big difference.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 05:44:31 PM
I'm not the one making claims about extended use with it, you are :huh: Big difference.
When did I make claims about extended use with it? I'm going off of reviews from people who had extensive use with it. The system is an answer to a question nobody asked, executed poorly to add insult to confusion. How much you like the idea or how much you dislike me won't change that.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
When did I make claims about extended use with it? I'm going off of reviews from people who had extensive use with it. The system is an answer to a question nobody asked, executed poorly to add insult to confusion. How much you like the idea or how much you dislike me won't change that.
Has nothing to do with my personal opinion, and everything to do with the direction of the market. Look where that's going and tell me if it's an answer to a question nobody asked.
With the crappy reviews MyTouch and CUE are/have been getting, I'm wondering what direction the market will go in, in the next go 'round.
Some game-changers I'm thinking of from the last decade:
2003 Honda Pilot: The no-compromises crossover that killed the truck-based midsize SUV.
2004 Toyota Prius: It moved hybrids from oddities to mainstream.
2005 Ford Mustang: Re-established the mainstream performance 2+2.
2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS: Made sedans look like coupes.
2007 Honda Fit: The subcompact that really made ordinary subcompacts desirable.
2010 Ford Fiesta: The subcompact that made subcompacts okay as premium cars.
2013 Tesla Model S: The desirable electric car.
Toyota Prius
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 05:55:38 PM
Has nothing to do with my personal opinion, and everything to do with the direction of the market. Look where that's going and tell me if it's an answer to a question nobody asked.
Market is headed towards the integration of devices, not haptic interfaces. That none of the Japanese OEMs have offered touch screen replacement for HVAC controls, but are offering shit like Honda
link, says it all.
Quote from: ifcar on December 29, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Some game-changers I'm thinking of from the last decade:
2003 Honda Pilot: The no-compromises crossover that killed the truck-based midsize SUV.
2004 Toyota Prius: It moved hybrids from oddities to mainstream.
2005 Ford Mustang: Re-established the mainstream performance 2+2.
2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS: Made sedans look like coupes.
2007 Honda Fit: The subcompact that really made ordinary subcompacts desirable.
2010 Ford Fiesta: The subcompact that made subcompacts okay as premium cars.
2013 Tesla Model S: The desirable electric car.
Pilot? Why not the Highlander, which came out 2 years earlier?
Agree on Prius.
Mustang success prob did give Hyundai the confidence to do the Genesis coupe. I think the 350Z was more successful in this regard though.
CLS is a good one.
Fit is another good one. Def a step up from the likes of the Aspire and old Accent. I don't know if the Fiesta is legit. If any subcompact made the case for the premium subcompact it was the Mini. I wouldn't call the Fiesta premium.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Market is headed towards the integration of devices, not haptic interfaces. That none of the Japanese OEMs have offered touch screen replacement for HVAC controls, but are offering shit like Hondalink, says it all.Pilot? Why not the Highlander, which came out 2 years earlier?
Agree on Prius.
Mustang success prob did give Hyundai the confidence to do the Genesis coupe. I think the 350Z was more successful in this regard though.
CLS is a good one.
Fit is another good one. Def a step up from the likes of the Aspire and old Accent. I don't know if the Fiesta is legit. If any subcompact made the case for the premium subcompact it was the Mini. I wouldn't call the Fiesta premium.
I don't think the Fit or Fiesta (although good cars) were as influential in that segment as the xB and Mini were. The Fit drove nicely, but the Toyota twins matched them on comfort and quality.
And sales of the Fiesta have generally been mediocre.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Pilot? Why not the Highlander, which came out 2 years earlier?
I was giving Honda credit for the third row, which became
the feature to have. (Buick was technically first among mainstream crossovers, but the Rendezvous didn't change any games for it.)
Quote
I don't know if the Fiesta is legit. If any subcompact made the case for the premium subcompact it was the Mini. I wouldn't call the Fiesta premium.
The Mini was really a niche car, building on the success of the New Beetle. Whereas Ford was essentially saying "I see your Aveo and Rio and raise you a Fiesta" -- just a very different type of vehicle for a mainstream segment, and one that led the way to most competitors moving upscale.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 29, 2012, 07:36:11 PM
I don't think the Fit or Fiesta (although good cars) were as influential in that segment as the xB and Mini were. The Fit drove nicely, but the Toyota twins matched them on comfort and quality.
The xB didn't attract attention to the class the way the Fit did. It was an oddity; the Fit was mainstream.
Quote
And sales of the Fiesta have generally been mediocre.
They dropped only after so many competitors introduced a Fiesta-like car.
Quote from: ifcar on December 29, 2012, 08:01:05 PM
I was giving Honda credit for the third row, which became the feature to have. (Buick was technically first among mainstream crossovers, but the Rendezvous didn't change any games for it.)
The Mini was really a niche car, building on the success of the New Beetle. Whereas Ford was essentially saying "I see your Aveo and Rio and raise you a Fiesta" -- just a very different type of vehicle for a mainstream segment, and one that led the way to most competitors moving upscale.
But it isn't selling all that well, and IMO it's not that upscale. All other competitors had better offering in the wings (and were introduced right after the Fiesta came out). It's not like the Fiesta sat on the market for quite some time in a unique place and everyone emulated it. Arguably, the Fiesta is an also-ran in the segment.
The Mini has such more of cult following, and given the fact that it was as popular as it was (especially in small car timid) USA, the Mini is more of an upscale small car than the Fiesta.
While Mini sales might not be super high, everyone knows what a Mini is and it's definitely had an impact on the image of small cars. Might be a "niche" but it's a very well-known niche.
Quote from: hotrodalex on December 29, 2012, 08:16:14 PM
While Mini sales might not be super high, everyone knows what a Mini is and it's definitely had an impact on the image of small cars. Might be a "niche" but it's a very well-known niche.
It wasn't that low of sales. Quick research shows that 2002 Minis were 24K yearly. xB's (not counting 2003, it was only available in California) - 47K. Honda Fit (introduction) - 27K. The Yaris is on the same plane as the Fit, and upon introduction in 2007, it sold 70K units.
I think the Mini paved more for the acceptance for small cars than the Fit and especially Fiesta did.
Yah... Mini would not have been able to create niches within niches had it not been for its success. Plus without the Mini there would be no 500. I think the New Beetle did kind of pave the way for the Mini, but that's a shakier connection than the Mini ---> 500.
In a way the Mini set off the wave of current subcompacts.
The Mini pushed the price ceiling for small cars sky high. Who would drop $35k on a compact? An awful lot of people, as Mini has proven...
Renault Espace/Chrysler Minivan - have these been mentioned?
Quote from: Laconian on December 29, 2012, 08:59:10 PM
The Mini pushed the price ceiling for small cars sky high. Who would drop $35k on a compact? An awful lot of people, as Mini has proven...
Renault Espace/Chrysler Minivan - have these been mentioned?
The Chrysler vans were.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 08:33:16 PM
Yah... Mini would not have been able to create niches within niches had it not been for its success. Plus without the Mini there would be no 500. I think the New Beetle did kind of pave the way for the Mini, but that's a shakier connection than the Mini ---> 500.
In a way the Mini set off the wave of current subcompacts.
Yeah, the Beetle was not that successful IMO in terms of transforming the marketplace compared with MINI.
'83 Camry? O_o
Most people scarcely even remember there was a Camry going that far back. It wasn't until the late '80s or early '90s that the Camry broke into the top 10 in annual US sales, and it took until 1997 for it to actually take top spot. I'd argue the Camry didn't really change the game in any significant way, it was merely a finely honed take on an old concept. You can make the argument that that in itself is game-changing, in the same way that the Miata was merely a finely honed version of the traditional small sports car, but in the Camry's case the Honda Accord did the same thing and did it first (and arguably better). If the Camry's concept was a game-changer in any way then the representative example of that should instead be the '82 Accord, the first time a 'Japanese' car was made in North America, or the 1990 Accord, the first time a 'foreign' car was the most popular in the United States.
In the same vein I would say the 1980 GM X-body cars were a game-changer: the Citation was the first front-drive car to ever top the annual US sales charts; a rear-drive car has scarcely held that position ever since. It was the first truly popular transverse-engine, front-drive, mid-size car. Every mainstream mid-size car in North America since then has been a riff on that basic idea.
Quote from: Laconian on December 29, 2012, 08:59:10 PM
Renault Espace/Chrysler Minivan - have these been mentioned?
Yea I mentioned the Caravan in the first post. Mentioned them in another thread too; people disagreed lol.
When MINIs came (back) out they were a fresh idea. Granted, VW had that segment on lock with the high trim GTIs but w/e. Now MINIs are 3300lb I don't know whats. But they make money which is the name of the game.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Yea I mentioned the Caravan in the first post. Mentioned them in another thread too; people disagreed lol.
When MINIs came (back) out they were a fresh idea. Granted, VW had that segment on lock with the high trim GTIs but w/e. Now MINIs are 3300lb I don't know whats. But they make money which is the name of the game.
No they don't....
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 29, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Yea I mentioned the Caravan in the first post. Mentioned them in another thread too; people disagreed lol.
When MINIs came (back) out they were a fresh idea. Granted, VW had that segment on lock with the high trim GTIs but w/e. Now MINIs are 3300lb I don't know whats. But they make money which is the name of the game.
fux u talkin bout
Yeah, the AWD Countryman S weighs 3,200 lbs. The Cooper S weighs like 2700 lbs.
A little hyperbole never hurt nobody.
Nobody mentioned the Chrysler 300C yet. Introduced for the '95 model year, it brought back the big RWD American sedan, but with a modern platform, killer looks, and performance unheard of for a big American car.
Quote from: Rockraven on December 30, 2012, 01:17:50 PM
Nobody mentioned the Chrysler 300C yet. Introduced for the '95 model year, it brought back the big RWD American sedan, but with a modern platform, killer looks, and performance unheard of for a big American car.
Yet Chrysler is still the only one making big RWD mainstream sedans. It didn' t change anything.
Yeah, it didn't exactly spark a renaissance for sedans.
Okay, how about the New Beetle? It influenced the return of the Mini and 500.
Quote from: Rockraven on December 30, 2012, 02:50:11 PM
Okay, how about the New Beetle? It influenced the return of the Mini and 500.
Yeah, but it soldiered on for far too long unchanged.
I think it is game changing because it sparked the retro craze of the early to mid aughts.
Quote from: Rockraven on December 30, 2012, 01:17:50 PM
Nobody mentioned the Chrysler 300C yet. Introduced for the '95 model year, it brought back the big RWD American sedan, but with a modern platform, killer looks, and performance unheard of for a big American car.
'05? And yea that is a good one.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 30, 2012, 01:50:06 PM
Yet Chrysler is still the only one making big RWD mainstream sedans. It didn' t change anything.
I don't think Chrysler would be here today w/o the 300. Industry wide influence is one measure of impact, but a company's trajectory is another.
Ummmm. What trajectory? They were given away to Fiat for FREE.
Quote from: Laconian on December 30, 2012, 03:57:49 PM
Ummmm. What trajectory? They were given away to Fiat for FREE.
Lol touche. Well, maybe they wouldn't even have made it that far. They were having a good run for a while.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 30, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
I don't think Chrysler would be here today w/o the 300. Industry wide influence is one measure of impact, but a company's trajectory is another.
I disagree. If it's a game changer then it must change the game. It didn't. The 1991 Ford Explorer was a game changer. The Chrysler minivans were game changers. The 1994 Dodge Ram was a game changer. The 1964 Mustang was a game changer. The 300C was an important car for Chrysler but it didn't change anyone else's game even a little bit.
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2012, 03:36:36 PM
People said the same about cell phones :huh:
And I maintain that you shouldn't be using a phone as the driver of a moving car. Driving my brother's S4 today, with its dizzying array of electronics, was a keen reminder of why all these features in newer cars can be a bad thing.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 30, 2012, 04:29:29 PM
I disagree. If it's a game changer then it must change the game. It didn't. The 1991 Ford Explorer was a game changer. The Chrysler minivans were game changers. The 1994 Dodge Ram was a game changer. The 1964 Mustang was a game changer. The 300C was an important car for Chrysler but it didn't change anyone else's game even a little bit.
One could argue that it forced other full-size sedans to emphasize style over practicality, as automakers saw the success of the 300 compared to the Five Hundred.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 30, 2012, 04:29:29 PM
The 1991 Ford Explorer was a game changer.
Said it before and I'll say it again: didn't change shit.
It absolutely did. It wasn't the first, but if it had not been built and had not taken the market by storm the way it did, the SUV craze would not have happened...or at least not for several more years. SUVs until then were off road trucks. The Explorer made them mainstream and a livable and comfortable daily driver.
Quote from: 93JC on December 30, 2012, 11:28:58 PM
Said it before and I'll say it again: didn't change shit.
It wasn't the first SUV, but it was the first midsize SUV of the modern era. Previously you had full sizers (K5 Blazer, SJ Grand Wagoneer, Bronco) and compact (Cherokee, Bronco II, S10), but the Explorer kickstarted the midsize SUV segment. By the mid-90s, the Explorer was
the mainstream SUV, much as the Taurus was
the midsize sedan. It was the one that struck a cord with the masses and really kicked off the SUV-as-a-family-car-replacement craze. Jeep did not offer a midsize SUV until after the Explorer came out (when they offered the Grand Cherokee for '93). Chevy bumped the size of the S-10 Blazer up to midsize in the mid 90s as a response to the Explorer. The Explorer was the bowl of porridge that was "just right". Right-sized for a family of 4, civilized enough to be driven around daily, rugged enough for light truck duty.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 30, 2012, 11:37:35 PM
It absolutely did. It wasn't the first, but if it had not been built and had not taken the market by storm the way it did, the SUV craze would not have happened...or at least not for several more years. SUVs until then were off road trucks. The Explorer made them mainstream and a livable and comfortable daily driver.
Absolutely. The Explorer started the trend of consumers looking at SUVs as family vehicles.
The RX300 did it with the car-based SUV.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on December 31, 2012, 01:07:30 PM
The RX300 did it with the car-based SUV.
Nah, that would be the RAV-4.
The Explorer was not the first mid-size SUV. 4Runner, Trooper, Montero were all out years before the Explorer, not to mention some of the Land Rovers and the G-wagon and the Land Cruiser.
The Explorer, for some reason, was the one that seems to have kicked off the '90s SUV craze, though.
Surely it was the Eddie Bauer edition that got people all worked up. :lol:
I think when this Explorer dies, I'm gonna get one of those with the V8 and leather. :lol:
Im kind of confused as to why we are talking about cars from before 2002... I was talking about game changers of the last decade
But its all good.
Quote from: Rupert on December 31, 2012, 03:24:08 PM
The Explorer was not the first mid-size SUV. 4Runner, Trooper, Montero were all out years before the Explorer, not to mention some of the Land Rovers and the G-wagon and the Land Cruiser.
The Explorer, for some reason, was the one that seems to have kicked off the '90s SUV craze, though.
4Runner was technically compact (same size as a Bronco II or Cherokee) until after the Explorer (per Wiki, it didn't go midsize until the early '00s). Trooper grew in size from compact at the same time the Explorer came out. The Discovery of 1989 was the first midsize SUV from Land Rover, and that wasn't offered in the US until '94. The G-wagon wasn't offered in the States until 2002, and it was priced as a high end vehicle (not for mass consumption). There was a LWB version of the mkI Trooper, though I'm not sure it was as large as the Explorer overall. And pre-Explorer Land Cruisers were pretty utilitarian. Like I said, the Explorer was the first mainstream midsize SUV for the modern era and one of the first on the US market.
4Runner was based on the same size truck that the Explorer was. I find they have less room on the inside than the Explorer, but the external dimensions are pretty similar. Trooper didn't get much bigger over its life, and was pretty much the same size as the 4Runner, and ditto the early Montero. Range Rover was also in the same size category and was introduced to the U.S. in 1989 IIRC, though it was more expensive.
You didn't specify mainstream or first on the U.S. market, just midsize and modern era. Even still, other than the G-wagon, most of the rigs I mentioned were pretty mainstream and present on the U.S. market from the mid-'80s. Like I said, the Explorer wasn't the first mainstream midsize SUV, but it was the one that started the '90s SUV craze.
Montero, 4 Runner and I'll throw in Pathfinder as it was the same deal were not mainstream... if any of them were they would have been the ones to capitalize on the SUV craze
Even after the Explorer caught on, and those models got rounded out a bit, none of em came close as far as sales go. On paper they are all 6 cylinder BOF SUVs but for whatever reason the Exploder was America's gateway drug to SUVs
Mazda Navajo was before the explorer! And it sucked just as bad!!!!
Quote from: Onslaught on January 02, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
Mazda Navajo was before the explorer! And it sucked just as bad!!!!
Weren't they the same vehicle?
Quote from: Onslaught on January 02, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
Mazda Navajo was before the explorer! And it sucked just as bad!!!!
Navajo was after and was the same truck.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 02, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Montero, 4 Runner and I'll throw in Pathfinder as it was the same deal were not mainstream... if any of them were they would have been the ones to capitalize on the SUV craze
Even after the Explorer caught on, and those models got rounded out a bit, none of em came close as far as sales go. On paper they are all 6 cylinder BOF SUVs but for whatever reason the Exploder was America's gateway drug to SUVs
My parents bought a 1991 Explorer to replace the family sedan. The Explorer was far and away the most comfortable SUV on the market. Ride quality, ride height, interior appointments, and it also looked classy.
Domestic cars may have been crap in the 90s but they still knew how to make trucks. Still do.
The '91 Explore was indeed a HUGE game changer - probably the biggest of the '90s.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 02, 2013, 03:11:10 PM
Navajo was after and was the same truck.
You sure about that? I know it was the same thing (a POS) but I thought it came out first. But you could only get it in a 2 door and when the 4 door Ford came out the Navajo sales went down the tubes.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 02, 2013, 07:30:07 PM
You sure about that? I know it was the same thing (a POS) but I thought it came out first. But you could only get it in a 2 door and when the 4 door Ford came out the Navajo sales went down the tubes.
Both came out in '91.
Quote from: MX793 on January 02, 2013, 07:43:53 PM
Both came out in '91.
For some reason I remember our Mazda dealer getting theirs in way before our Ford did. But that was long ago and I didn't like either of them.
2003 CTS and 2003 Infinti G. Both cars from manufacturers people never really considered. Both rocked the segment.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 02, 2013, 07:51:50 PM
For some reason I remember our Mazda dealer getting theirs in way before our Ford did. But that was long ago and I didn't like either of them.
Local Ford dealership may have needed/wanted to clean some left-over Bronco IIs off the lot or something before they could get their allotment of Explorers. Mazda didn't have an SUV before the Navajo, so they may have been more eager to get vehicles to the dealers. The Mazda was a rebadge and was built in the same plant as the Ford version, so I doubt one was released appreciably before the other.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 02, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Montero, 4 Runner and I'll throw in Pathfinder as it was the same deal were not mainstream... if any of them were they would have been the ones to capitalize on the SUV craze
Even after the Explorer caught on, and those models got rounded out a bit, none of em came close as far as sales go. On paper they are all 6 cylinder BOF SUVs but for whatever reason the Exploder was America's gateway drug to SUVs
4Runner and Pathfinder were definitely mainstream (I forgot about the Pathfinder). Trooper and Montero somewhat less so, but they were still pretty popular, particularly the Trooper. Land Rovers/Cruisers not as mainstream.
Last time: Yes, Explorer was the Big Daddy, the one that we can credit for the SUV thing 20 years ago, but its success was not because it was the absolute first mainstream midsize SUV in North America. Maybe it was marketing, maybe it was that it was an American make, maybe it was just better on-road than the rest, or, of course, some combination.
Quote from: Rupert on January 03, 2013, 01:54:38 AM
4Runner and Pathfinder were definitely mainstream (I forgot about the Pathfinder). Trooper and Montero somewhat less so, but they were still pretty popular, particularly the Trooper. Land Rovers/Cruisers not as mainstream.
Last time: Yes, Explorer was the Big Daddy, the one that we can credit for the SUV thing 20 years ago, but it's success was not because it was the absolute first mainstream midsize SUV in North America. Maybe it was marketing, maybe it was that it was an American make, maybe it was just better on-road than the rest, or, of course, some combination.
I can tell you why my parents bought one as soon as they came out. It had the biggest and most accessible back doors (4Runner, Pathfinder, and Trooper were jokes in comparison), the ride was the most comfortable, you didn't have to climb up into it, it had the rear hatch with the separate glass, and it was the classiest looking of the bunch.
The competition was generally cramped, had higher step-in height, and either crude (Cherokee, S-10 Blazer) or expensive (4Runner, Pathfinder). The Explorer was in effect a stylish replacement for the minivan - roomy, relatively fined, fairly easy to get in/out of, and didn't cost a ton.
Im not sure what the frbrzzzzz does that the rx8 didnt do 9 years ago.
I dont think i've seen it mentioned, but the 2005 Mustang really stirred the pot and gave the old american ponycar image some respect again.
Quote from: r0tor on January 04, 2013, 03:05:19 PM
Im not sure what the frbrzzzzz does that the rx8 didnt do 9 years ago.
I dont think i've seen it mentioned, but the 2005 Mustang really stirred the pot and gave the old american ponycar image some respect again.
Not burn oil, be reliable, not get horrible gas mileage... :lol:
Quote from: Raza on January 04, 2013, 03:06:08 PM
Not burn oil, be reliable, not get horrible gas mileage... :lol:
:lol: +1
It's also better to drive, lighter, and looks better.
Quote from: r0tor on January 04, 2013, 03:05:19 PM
Im not sure what the frbrzzzzz does that the rx8 didnt do 9 years ago.
It's not a sedan... ;)
QuoteI dont think i've seen it mentioned, but the 2005 Mustang really stirred the pot and gave the old american ponycar image some respect again.
It was mentioned in the opening post. Without it, the Camaro and Challenger would have stayed dead. The Camaro, in turn, forced Ford to develop the 5.0L V8, the Track Package, Boss 302, and the 662 hp GT500. Those cars then forced GM to build the 1LE and the ZL1. Those cars will force the next Mustang to be absolutely world class.
EDIT: I'm actually worried about the next Mustang. I'm afraid it's going to become too polished. Pony cars are supposed to wild rides and I'm afraid Ford will give it far too much polish in order to have magazines declare it the winner when compared with the Camaro. I like it having a wild side while still being able to handle well.
No, hardly, and no
Clarify.
Quote from: Raza on January 04, 2013, 03:06:08 PM
Not burn oil, be reliable, not get horrible gas mileage... :lol:
Ditto. Rotard apologists can claim whatever they want, but the rotary engine is inherently flawed.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 04, 2013, 07:52:11 PM
Clarify.
Ford (and the market) doesn't really care about auto magazine comparisons. Ford cares about sales. Pony cars aren't intentionally "wild" rides (or the opposite of "polished"). It just worked out that way in favoring performance and style over refinement at a given price point. The market isn't going to want a car that is intentionally not polished.
Ford's target should be (and probably is) something along the lines of the V8 S5.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 04, 2013, 10:10:46 PM
Ditto. Rotard apologists can claim whatever they want, but the rotary engine is inherently flawed.
It's a novelty, but little more than that to me at this point.
Quote from: MrH on January 04, 2013, 03:07:02 PM
:lol: +1
It's also better to drive, lighter, and looks better.
I'm not so sure about that one.
I REALLY like the BRZ. But I'd never trade my 8 for one in a million years.
Have you driven a BRZ? RX-8 is a little quicker, but the BRZ is a bit more focused. Steering is a little lighter, but I think turn in is a bit crisper. Just a tad smaller and more nimble.
I really need to drive an FR-S/BRZ. The RX-8 stands as probably the best driving experience of any car I've driven. Steering was spot on, the car felt light yet stiff, suspension was tight but not punishing, shifter was great... And the engine, despite its lack of grunt, was part of the experience. Unique and interesting engine note and it was soooo smooth. I was running at 4000+ RPM and had no idea that the engine was spinning more than 3 grand until I glanced at the tach.
Whoa, RX-8s are cheap. Lots of ATs, but most of them in Boise are 2004-6 and $9-12k.
Quote from: Rupert on January 06, 2013, 02:23:06 AM
Whoa, RX-8s are cheap. Lots of ATs, but most of them in Boise are 2004-6 and $9-12k.
Do it. You need something to work on when you're not working on the Porsche or Fiat
:lol:
That would be a sell the Porsche and Fiat to get the money, and then I wouldn't have the Porsche.
Quote from: MX793 on January 05, 2013, 11:54:24 PM
I really need to drive an FR-S/BRZ. The RX-8 stands as probably the best driving experience of any car I've driven. Steering was spot on, the car felt light yet stiff, suspension was tight but not punishing, shifter was great... And the engine, despite its lack of grunt, was part of the experience. Unique and interesting engine note and it was soooo smooth. I was running at 4000+ RPM and had no idea that the engine was spinning more than 3 grand until I glanced at the tach.
Sounds a bit too tame to do much for me. Doesn't get my juices flowing unless everything is vibrating so much that the rearview mirror is just a blur; and that's at idle. Then when you stomp on the gas there's such a cacophony of noise between the barking of the exhaust and screeching of rubber and the giant sucking sound of air and gas being fed through the carburetor throats that the rest of the world just tunes out; and then your hanging on for dear life.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 06, 2013, 07:27:07 AM
Sounds a bit too tame to do much for me. Doesn't get my juices flowing unless everything is vibrating so much that the rearview mirror is just a blur; and that's at idle. Then when you stomp on the gas there's such a cacophony of noise between the barking of the exhaust and screeching of rubber and the giant sucking sound of air and gas being fed through the carburetor throats that the rest of the world just tunes out; and then your hanging on for dear life.
I'd say the motor is more akin to a small displacement I6 in character. It's a different sort of exciting. A high RPM howler, but not as course at full song as your typical high-revving I4. And there's very little vibration in the vehicle from the engine.
Quote from: MrH on January 05, 2013, 11:33:39 PM
Have you driven a BRZ? RX-8 is a little quicker, but the BRZ is a bit more focused. Steering is a little lighter, but I think turn in is a bit crisper. Just a tad smaller and more nimble.
I'd like to and will someday seeing that it's at the top of the list of cars I want my girlfriend to get. But my car had the press jerking off about it for years. Even at the end of it's life. And the R3 was always beating out cars 5 years younger that cost 3 times as much in handling comparisons.
So while I can't say I've have proof that the BRZ isn't better at handling then the R3, I'd be rather surprised if it was.
And it's not as good looking :devil: :devil:
Compared to the fbrzzzz, the rx8 handles as well, feels as good, has much less road noise, has a better ride, and the rear seats can actually be used as seats and not shelves.
It also cost more and cost more to run and has polarizing looks. So I can see why the BRZ could do better in the end. So I'd rather not turn this into a my car vs your car thing.
Quote from: r0tor on January 06, 2013, 09:07:51 AM
Compared to the fbrzzzz, the rx8 handles as well, feels as good, has much less road noise, has a better ride, and the rear seats can actually be used as seats and not shelves.
Have you driven the BRZ?
A throwdown! Whose ePeen is the biggest?
Quote from: Rupert on January 06, 2013, 02:23:06 AM
Whoa, RX-8s are cheap. Lots of ATs, but most of them in Boise are 2004-6 and $9-12k.
Out here you can get one of that vintage for 8K. Dirt cheap. But I wouldn't touch one with all the reliability issues.
Apparently the 04s and 05s were the worst when it comes to reliability because the ECU was programmed improperly from factory.
Also, I found these quotes on an RX-8 forum:
"the best way for the rx8 to be called "reliable" is if you purchase it with less than 50k miles and still has a chunk of its 8yr 100k mile warranty left.. also you need ~5k for a new engine rebuild in the bank that CANNOT be touched.
Understand that the engine WILL blow and if you are okay with dropping 5k on it then great, enjoy the car. If you are not comfortable with this then i would recommend another car."
"even with the ecu update, the pre09 engine still suffers from lack of oil nozzle and lack of oil pressure. its better than nothing, but not ideal."
"oil needs to be religiously checked every 2 gas fillups (i usually check once a week) and same with coolant needs to be religiously checked, ignoring these can lead to a new engine. "
"spark plugs wires and coils need to be replaced every 30k miles which can get expensive "
Lack of capitalization and punctuation aside, I also found this:
http://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-discussion-3/new-potential-owners-start-here-202454/ (http://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-discussion-3/new-potential-owners-start-here-202454/)
RX-8s are cool and all, but there are many reasons not to buy one. But if you have multiple cars and don't mind an incredibly maintenance intensive car (which it seems you don't), it is a very good driving experience. Although I did see a video where an RX-8 got its ass handed to it around a track by a DC5 ITR. :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on January 06, 2013, 09:07:51 AM
Compared to the fbrzzzz, the rx8 handles as well, feels as good, has much less road noise, has a better ride, and the rear seats can actually be used as seats and not shelves.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 06, 2013, 09:41:00 AM
It also cost more and cost more to run and has polarizing looks. So I can see why the BRZ could do better in the end. So I'd rather not turn this into a my car vs your car thing.
Someone does!
Quote from: MrH on January 06, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
Have you driven the BRZ?
(Seriously though, I'm 100% in the BRZ camp here. I could have bought an RX-8 and didn't, for good reason.)
:lol: Not trying to turn this into an internet wiener contest at all.
Just think it's kind of silly to claim the BRZ doesn't drive better until you experience both :huh:
Quote from: MrH on January 07, 2013, 10:39:27 AM
:lol: Not trying to turn this into an internet wiener contest at all.
Just think it's kind of silly to claim the BRZ doesn't drive better until you experience both :huh:
I'm not trying to be an ass about it. How much seat time have you had in an 8? And have you been in a series II yet? Because they're much better then the 04-08.
I think I've driven an RX-8 5-6 times? Probably half of them were in the series II. Maybe 2.5 hours total of pushing around back roads trying to get a good feel for it? Something like that.
Ok, I personally don't think the RX-8 was a game changer so I don't see a need for it in this thread. I'll just address these and be done with it.
"Apparently the 04s and 05s were the worst when it comes to reliability because the ECU was programmed improperly from factory."
Yes, it seems they had a flash every other week. Mazda should've done better on that.
"the best way for the rx8 to be called "reliable" is if you purchase it with less than 50k miles and still has a chunk of its 8yr 100k mile warranty left.. also you need ~5k for a new engine rebuild in the bank that CANNOT be touched.
Understand that the engine WILL blow and if you are okay with dropping 5k on it then great, enjoy the car. If you are not comfortable with this then i would recommend another car."
I'm not so sure about that one. I know a few guys with 8's that have the original motor and well over 100K on the clock. I know a guy with a 12A RX-7 that has over 200K on the original motor. So I don't keep $5K in the bank for a new motor myself. Just because some dumb ass said that won't make it true.
"even with the ecu update, the pre09 engine still suffers from lack of oil nozzle and lack of oil pressure. its better than nothing, but not ideal." It is true the original 8 only had 2 oil nozzles per housing rather then the normal 3. I have no idea why Mazda did that.
"oil needs to be religiously checked every 2 gas fillups (i usually check once a week) and same with coolant needs to be religiously checked, ignoring these can lead to a new engine. " False. I did that the first few months because I had no idea how much to do it.
Now I look at it once a month and add less the half a quart when I do. I've almost got it down to an art about how much to poor in after a month. I only look to make sure.
"spark plugs wires and coils need to be replaced every 30k miles which can get expensive "
The original coils in the 8 did suck ass from everything I've seen on the internet. And most people did change them at around 24-30K. Mazda did change the coils however and from what I can tell they're fine now. I'm not much on changing parts on cars because I think the OEM stuff is about the best for normal driving. However I will put BHR coils on my car when I feel it's time to replace them. I've seen nothing but good things about them. But my stock coils have over 43K on them and run fine.
As for plugs and wires, I change them at every 24K. But then again I've done that with all the cars I've had regardless of engine.
I'm not saying that the RX-8 hasn't got some problems. Mazda wouldn't have extended the engine warranty on the things if they hadn't had a reason. But I'd be careful of trusting everything you read on the internet. I own an RX-8 and don't even go to that site you listed because that place is full of idiots. On one had you've got the guys who can find no fault in the car and it could blow up and kill their kids and they wouldn't get mad at it. And on the other hand you've got the people who I'm almost sure make up shit to bitch about.
Agreed. RX8club is awful.
Don't know the site, I just Googled "RX-8 reliability".
But yeah, I think we can all agree that the RX-8 didn't change the game for anyone.
It changed the game in my heart :wub:
I convinced two people to buy new Mazda 6's in one week. New Mazda3 comes out in August. Hopefully they all hit big enough to keep my dreams of the 2017 RX-7 alive.
Quote from: MrH on January 08, 2013, 02:26:11 PM
It changed the game in my heart :wub:
I convinced two people to buy new Mazda 6's in one week. New Mazda3 comes out in August. Hopefully they all hit big enough to keep my dreams of the 2017 RX-7 alive.
I convinced three of my closest friends to look at Volkswagens and they loved them. All three bought a VW, going from a Toyota, Volvo, and a Nissan, all three couldn't be happier (interestingly enough, the one with the Maxima was about to buy the new Camry, but then he and his wife drove the new Passat and loved it so much they made a deal basically right on the spot; if the B7 Passat still drove like the B6, they would probably have gone with the Camry). It's easier to increase allegiance to a brand that's awesome, instead of some bastard child brand that's probably going to fold or end up under Chinese ownership within the next half hour. :lol: :lol:
Quote from: MrH on January 08, 2013, 02:26:11 PM
It changed the game in my heart :wub:
I convinced two people to buy new Mazda 6's in one week. New Mazda3 comes out in August. Hopefully they all hit big enough to keep my dreams of the 2017 RX-7 alive.
Keep that going please. I'll need another RX one day too.
Rotaries are finnicky, but the sole reason I got into cars, my major in college, my current job, everything. I have to own one someday, but I want it new and with two seats. I'm holding out hope.
Quote from: MrH on January 08, 2013, 02:58:35 PM
Rotaries are finnicky, but the sole reason I got into cars, my major in college, my current job, everything. I have to own one someday, but I want it new and with two seats. I'm holding out hope.
Hold out hope, just don't hold your breath. You'll pass out before you die, and then you just look silly.
Quote from: MrH on January 08, 2013, 02:58:35 PM
Rotaries are finnicky, but the sole reason I got into cars, my major in college, my current job, everything. I have to own one someday, but I want it new and with two seats. I'm holding out hope.
If things go right, I'll end up with a new 2 seater with a rotary. FFR hot rod with either a turbo 13b or a 16x if the new RX-7 comes out.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 08, 2013, 03:34:02 PM
If things go right, I'll end up with a new 2 seater with a rotary. FFR hot rod with either a turbo 13b or a 16x if the new RX-7 comes out.
You're already planning out a second project when you have one that you can barely work on? :devil:
Quote from: MrH on January 08, 2013, 02:58:35 PM
Rotaries are finnicky, but the sole reason I got into cars, my major in college, my current job, everything. I have to own one someday, but I want it new and with two seats. I'm holding out hope.
Unless something happens bad in my life I hope to have a rotary RX-8, MX-5 and R1 or R2 RX-7. And then the "new" one if it ever happens.
Even if the new one's a hybrid?
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 08, 2013, 05:09:34 PM
Even if the new one's a hybrid?
I'm not as anti hybrid as most here.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 08, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
I'm not as anti hybrid as most here.
RX-9 is a FWD four door kammback hybrid with a CVT, no doubt. Think Honda Insight with suicide doors.
Quote from: Raza on January 08, 2013, 05:46:26 PM
RX-9 is a FWD four door kammback hybrid with a CVT, no doubt. Think Honda Insight with suicide doors.
Well I'll always have the FD.
To be honest, I'm really thinking about all my sports cars being older ones from now on. I like the fact that I can work on them without a laptop and they don't have computers doing all the work for me.
I'll just drive a new truck or something as my DD so I can use it to get parts to keep my old cars going and tow them to the track.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 08, 2013, 04:16:02 PM
You're already planning out a second project when you have one that you can barely work on? :devil:
Once the body work and paint is done, I have a whole list of things to finish off the car for the most part. Shouldn't take too long either.
Next project will come once I graduate and have a job and a place with a garage.
Only know comparo between the two... and matches up with my experience
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/11/mountain-state-review-2013-scion-fr-s-vs-2006-mazda-rx-8/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/11/mountain-state-review-2013-scion-fr-s-vs-2006-mazda-rx-8/)
Quote from: MrH on January 08, 2013, 02:26:11 PM
It changed the game in my heart :wub:
I convinced two people to buy new Mazda 6's in one week. New Mazda3 comes out in August. Hopefully they all hit big enough to keep my dreams of the 2017 RX-7 alive.
http://www.mazdausamedia.com/2013-01-03-MAZDA-ACHIEVES-BEST-YEAR-OF-SALES-SINCE-2007-BEST-DECEMBER-SINCE-1994 (http://www.mazdausamedia.com/2013-01-03-MAZDA-ACHIEVES-BEST-YEAR-OF-SALES-SINCE-2007-BEST-DECEMBER-SINCE-1994)
Keep hope alive. It's all I've got.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 10, 2013, 07:52:04 PM
http://www.mazdausamedia.com/2013-01-03-MAZDA-ACHIEVES-BEST-YEAR-OF-SALES-SINCE-2007-BEST-DECEMBER-SINCE-1994 (http://www.mazdausamedia.com/2013-01-03-MAZDA-ACHIEVES-BEST-YEAR-OF-SALES-SINCE-2007-BEST-DECEMBER-SINCE-1994)
Keep hope alive. It's all I've got.
Sales will increase dramatically again with the fresh Mazda6. That was a great sales performance with just the leftover current model .
Quote from: r0tor on January 10, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
Only know comparo between the two... and matches up with my experience
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/11/mountain-state-review-2013-scion-fr-s-vs-2006-mazda-rx-8/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/11/mountain-state-review-2013-scion-fr-s-vs-2006-mazda-rx-8/)
Your experience....of not driving the BRZ/FR-S? :confused: Hard to say it matches your experience when you haven't driven one of the two cars being compared.
Completely disagree with that review. To say the twins are closer in character to a Z or Camaro than the RX-8 is beyond ridiculous.
I've really got to write another blog post. TTAC writing is a sin.
Also, if the Ferberizer really is more like a 370Z or Camaro, it's a shame (though like you said, it probably isn't).
I did like the driver seat in the brz -shrug-
I like the looks of the RX-8 more but other than that I can't really comment on either car.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 11, 2013, 11:03:22 AM
I like the looks of the RX-8 more but other than that I can't really comment on either car.
I've driven an RX-8. It's a great car. Fantastically practical for its size, agile, quick--but that engine is a major turn-off when it comes to the ownership experience.
Quote from: Raza on January 11, 2013, 08:28:43 AM
I've really got to write another blog post. TTAC writing is a sin.
Also, if the Ferberizer really is more like a 370Z or Camaro, it's a shame (though like you said, it probably isn't).
The Zs and Camaros are fast bath tubs basically. Complete bruiser of a vehicle. BRZ is a stiff little scalpel in comparison.
Quote from: MrH on January 11, 2013, 11:13:52 AM
The Zs and Camaros are fast bath tubs basically. Complete bruiser of a vehicle. BRZ is a stiff little scalpel in comparison.
I imagine it would be. The Ferberizer is like 1000 pounds lighter than a Camaro.
Quote from: MrH on January 11, 2013, 11:13:52 AM
The Zs and Camaros are fast bath tubs basically. Complete bruiser of a vehicle. BRZ is a stiff little scalpel in comparison.
He didn't say it handled like a Camaro or Z. Here is what he said:
"In character, it's much closer to a 370Z or even a Camaro than to the Mazda. It does feel considerably smaller and lighter than those cars, but its throaty engine roar, tight suspension, heavy controls, and limited visibility place it in their genus."
Basically, some of the qualitative, touch-and-feel aspects of the car (control weight, visibility, dark cabin, engine note, stiffer suspension) was more like those larger cars than the RX. I do recall the RX having an airier cabin (bigger windows) than the FR-S I sat in. But the FR-S's sight lines are not nearly as bad as the Camaro's. More like the Mustang's, maybe a shade better.
But I disagree with a lot of that. I don't find the controls heavy at all. My miata had a heavier steering feel. And limited visibility? For a coupe, it's one of the easiest to see out for sure. It's much much closer to an RX-8 than a Camaro or 370Z.
Same with the suspension actually. There's a sound induction tube, but I wouldn't call the call "throaty" necessarily. Seems like the author drove a completely different car honestly :confused:
Quote from: MrH on January 11, 2013, 11:43:12 AM
But I disagree with a lot of that. I don't find the controls heavy at all. My miata had a heavier steering feel. And limited visibility? For a coupe, it's one of the easiest to see out for sure. It's much much closer to an RX-8 than a Camaro or 370Z.
Same with the suspension actually. There's a sound induction tube, but I wouldn't call the call "throaty" necessarily. Seems like the author drove a completely different car honestly :confused:
For a coupe, I thought the visibility seemed pretty good. But the RX has sedan-like visibility (which is impressive considering how low it is). I wasn't able to drive the FR-S, so I have no comparison on the other stuff.
Also bear in mind that the FR-S has different suspension tuning from the BRZ. The Scion is supposedly stiffer. Power steering may be tuned to be a little higher-effort as well.
Quote from: Raza on January 11, 2013, 11:06:16 AM
I've driven an RX-8. It's a great car. Fantastically practical for its size, agile, quick--but that engine is a major turn-off when it comes to the ownership experience.
My parents told me to test drive an RX-8 while I was looking for Miatas. Unfortunately, all the RX-8's had 60k+ miles on them. I didn't even bother test driving the RX-8's because I knew I didn't want a car with such shit gas mileage and an engine that could explode at any time since I didn't know how the previous owner(s) maintained it.
In hindsight, I probably should've at least given it a try.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 11, 2013, 11:54:21 AM
My parents told me to test drive an RX-8 while I was looking for Miatas. Unfortunately, all the RX-8's had 60k+ miles on them. I didn't even bother test driving the RX-8's because I knew I didn't want a car with such shit gas mileage and an engine that could explode at any time since I didn't know how the previous owner(s) maintained it.
In hindsight, I probably should've at least given it a try.
I honestly can't think of a better car that I'd never want to own.
Quote from: Raza on January 11, 2013, 12:11:37 PM
I honestly can't think of a better car that I'd never want to own.
It was definitely very polarizing for me as well. Loved the driving experience the most of any of the cars I test drove, but the combination of poor fuel economy, reported engine issues, and tiny trunk (and no folding rear seats) ultimately pushed me away.
Quote from: Raza on January 11, 2013, 12:11:37 PM
I honestly can't think of a better car that I'd never want to own.
Some days I sit around and think "What if I actually got an RX-8?" It'd definitely be amazing to be able to take a couple of friends along as well, and have more room and a sweet rotary engine, but I think it worked out for the best.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 11, 2013, 12:21:04 PM
Some days I sit around and think "What if I actually got an RX-8?" It'd definitely be amazing to be able to take a couple of friends along as well, and have more room and a sweet rotary engine, but I think it worked out for the best.
More often than not, I find it amazing that I can't take friends with me. :lol:
Quote from: Raza on January 11, 2013, 12:32:03 PM
More often than not, I find it amazing that I can't take friends with me. :lol:
:lol: +1
I never DD! I'm the drunkest one at the bars, and someone has to drive my ass home. It's great.
I was close to buying an RX-8 twice... I was in negotiations for one of the last new R3 RX-8s in the country, and it just barely sold out from under me.