I haven't done a dealership drive in awhile. I have been content with my car, and I usually break the monotony with driving a flip car so I have variety in what I drive. but sometimes when I'm in a bad mood, I take a test drive on stuff that's not mine so I can cheer up.
(http://[url=http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/2DEA24CD-D05A-4B9C-9C55-50C8BEAB5CEC.jpg.html%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/2DEA24CD-D05A-4B9C-9C55-50C8BEAB5CEC.jpg)[/URL][/img]
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/F0C74F91-3E0B-4951-9FA4-6BF909294642.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/F0C74F91-3E0B-4951-9FA4-6BF909294642.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/C1B7865A-905E-4F95-88EF-CEAE123011B1.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/C1B7865A-905E-4F95-88EF-CEAE123011B1.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/2DEA24CD-D05A-4B9C-9C55-50C8BEAB5CEC.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/2DEA24CD-D05A-4B9C-9C55-50C8BEAB5CEC.jpg.html)
Mustang (2.3T, 6AT)
+ wow this car feels Japanese or European. Steering and handling are excellent, and since they got rid of the solid axle of the old cars, it handles super good
+ interior quality is good
+ I like the 2.3 turbo four
+ there's a lot of incentives on this model. I could get a lot of car for a not lot of $$$
- the 2.3T is so unamerican in its character I can see why people would be turned off. This feels like what I'd imagine to be a Nissan 240SX If it were made today
- it's huge and that rear seat is sooooo tiny, tinier then the old car
- the controls feel far away
- visibility could be better
ND
+ it's really quick so whoever says that 155 HP isn't enough can suck my dick
+ excellent shifter clutch relationship
+ divine handling
+ good interior
+ Mazda infotainment touchscreen works really well
- it's expensive (30k!!!)
- in the old days, the Miata really did have a huge edge on drivability, cost, and sportiness over the pony cars Camaro and Mustang...not so much these days
- the mustang I drove had better steering
- it's loud (because of the cabrio top)
- it's stiff (to be expected tho?)
- base infotainment looks like a clock radio on the dashboard
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/6BCCA58C-3A35-4D4E-9E1B-289D0DF910BE.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/6BCCA58C-3A35-4D4E-9E1B-289D0DF910BE.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/AE02D1A7-4F80-4B03-A39A-12A6F207F9A9.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/AE02D1A7-4F80-4B03-A39A-12A6F207F9A9.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/0DF50ADF-7D09-4F85-B112-07EEFFA0DCE0.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/0DF50ADF-7D09-4F85-B112-07EEFFA0DCE0.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/82F5343C-8BBF-4AA3-B387-0E8D2645C6FA.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/82F5343C-8BBF-4AA3-B387-0E8D2645C6FA.jpg.html)
autotragic :lockedup: :pee: :mrcool: :partyon: :popcorn: :orly:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 23, 2016, 04:24:55 PM
autotragic :lockedup: :pee: :mrcool: :partyon: :popcorn: :orly:
There were no manuals at all on the lot
Old Miatas cost about the same as V8 pony cars I think. Build quality was similar as well. I think it's an even trade that comes down to priorities. For my money the Miata looks more exciting. Fits my commute better too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 23, 2016, 05:08:54 PM
Old Miatas cost about the same as V8 pony cars I think. Build quality was similar as well. I think it's an even trade that comes down to priorities. For my money the Miata looks more exciting. Fits my commute better too.
If the Miata were only a hard top and had two extra doors and seats
Quote from: 2o6 on December 23, 2016, 05:16:30 PM
If the Miata were only a hard top and had two extra doors and seats
Yeah, I know. Everything like that is FWD.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 23, 2016, 05:16:30 PM
If the Miata were only a hard top and had two extra doors and seats
:lol:
Quote from: 2o6 on December 23, 2016, 05:16:30 PM
If the Miata were only a hard top and had two extra doors and seats
:lol:
Jesus, I think they need more buttons on that Mustang's steering wheel.
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 25, 2016, 10:41:37 AM
Jesus, I think they need more buttons on that Mustang's steering wheel.
Imagine what it would be like if it didn't have an airbag. :pee:
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 25, 2016, 10:41:37 AM
Jesus, I think they need more buttons on that Mustang's steering wheel.
Reminds me of those late 80s Pontiacs.......
Long term I'll bet that MX-5 costs way less to keep on the road than the big poseur muscle car.
Is that the same motor they're putting in the Fusions now?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on December 25, 2016, 02:41:11 PM
Long term I'll bet that MX-5 costs way less to keep on the road than the big poseur muscle car.
Is that the same motor they're putting in the Fusions now?
:confused: no, Ford and Mazda broke ways a long time ago. It's all Mazda designs now.
Kevin, what did you think of the Miata? Was it magical? Big disappointment? Better or worse than the mustang?
Quote from: MrH on December 25, 2016, 02:46:21 PM
:confused: no, Ford and Mazda broke ways a long time ago. It's all Mazda designs now.
Kevin, what did you think of the Miata? Was it magical? Big disappointment? Better or worse than the mustang?
It was incredibly fun to drive, but not my style. Very fun toy, and different animal than the Mustang. Super sharp.
But I don't really like small convertibles, and back in the day the Miata was signifcantly more in tune with the road compared to a Muscle car. These muscle cars really aren't so much of a compromise anymore. The Mustang was a lot "less worse" than the Miata than you'd think.
Kinda sucks that the Mustang steering is better than the Miata's
Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 25, 2016, 04:21:55 PM
Kinda sucks that the Mustang steering is better than the Miata's
Both are very good.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 25, 2016, 04:22:57 PM
Both are very good.
Nothing like a Versa S, I imagine. How can you drive straight without a dead spot on center to let you know where straight is? Duh.
Interesting that you felt the Mustang's steering was better than the Miata's. I've been pleasantly surprised by the Mustang's steering. Much better than the last generation and there is actually some feedback coming through the wheel. Not as good as the 1st gen Mazda3 I had, or the NA and NB Miatas I've driven, though.
Quote from: MrH on December 25, 2016, 02:46:21 PM
:confused: no, Ford and Mazda broke ways a long time ago. It's all Mazda designs now.
I meant is the rustang motor the same as Fusion.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on December 29, 2016, 08:06:28 PM
I meant is the rustang motor the same as Fusion.
No. Fusion uses either the 1.5 or 2.0 turbo 4s (or the 2.7 turbo V6). 2.3 is used in the Mustang, Focus RS, Explorer, and Lincoln MKC.
Quote from: MX793 on December 29, 2016, 08:55:17 PM
No. Fusion uses either the 1.5 or 2.0 turbo 4s (or the 2.7 turbo V6). 2.3 is used in the Mustang, Focus RS, Explorer, and Lincoln MKC.
I imagine its only a mater of time until the 2.7 finds its way in the Mustang.
Quote from: Xer0 on December 29, 2016, 09:00:11 PM
I imagine its only a mater of time until the 2.7 finds its way in the Mustang.
Not sure if it will. I personally would have preferred it to the 2.3, the two make pretty similar power in production tune and I'd wager the 2.7 is heavier. Also, the 2.3 was selected to appeal to export markets where smaller displacements are favored.
Quote from: MX793 on December 30, 2016, 07:37:50 AM
Not sure if it will. I personally would have preferred it to the 2.3, the two make pretty similar power in production tune and I'd wager the 2.7 is heavier. Also, the 2.3 was selected to appeal to export markets where smaller displacements are favored.
Small displacement, eh. What is wrong with a sub-3-liter vee-eight? Even with pooprods, it would be awesome.
Quote from: MX793 on December 30, 2016, 07:37:50 AM
Not sure if it will. I personally would have preferred it to the 2.3, the two make pretty similar power in production tune and I'd wager the 2.7 is heavier. Also, the 2.3 was selected to appeal to export markets where smaller displacements are favored.
I'm surprised they didn't go all the way down to the 2.0L. That's the magic number for most overseas markets
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 30, 2016, 12:27:54 PM
I'm surprised they didn't go all the way down to the 2.0L. That's the magic number for most overseas markets
Yeah. Especially for the Euro market.
Not like the extra 300ccs would have made it good
Quote from: MX793 on December 29, 2016, 08:55:17 PM
No. Fusion uses either the 1.5 or 2.0 turbo 4s (or the 2.7 turbo V6). 2.3 is used in the Mustang, Focus RS, Explorer, and Lincoln MKC.
I guess I haven't really paid attention to anything recently, that really boggles my "3.0L V6 is a regular sedan motor/3.3L is SUV/minivan territory/ larger is for sportscars" mindset.
So tiny!!!
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on December 30, 2016, 07:59:20 PM
I guess I haven't really paid attention to anything recently, that really boggles my "3.0L V6 is a regular sedan motor/3.3L is SUV/minivan territory/ larger is for sportscars" mindset.
So tiny!!!
At least for now, you can basically add about a liter to the turbo displacement to get the previous equivalent naturally aspirated motor. 1.4-1.6Ts replaced 2.4-2.5L I4s. 2.0-2.5Ts replaced 3.0-3.5L V6s.
I still think that even with a turbo you need at least 3ccs for every 4lbs of curb weight. So a 4,000lb car should have a 3L turbo, not a 2L. Ideally I'd love 1:1. Obviously OEMs have a lot more insight than I do but I'd imagine once you essentially eliminate pumping losses with boost the effect of displacement on fuel economy is a lot less pronounced.
The 2.0T Edge AWD (~4300 lbs) I had as a rental last winter pulled with about the same authority as a 3-ish liter NA V6. Wouldn't call it fast, but I never felt it was underpowered.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 31, 2016, 07:17:47 AM
I still think that even with a turbo you need at least 3ccs for every 4lbs of curb weight. So a 4,000lb car should have a 3L turbo, not a 2L. Ideally I'd love 1:1. Obviously OEMs have a lot more insight than I do but I'd imagine once you essentially eliminate pumping losses with boost the effect of displacement on fuel economy is a lot less pronounced.
:wtf:
Of all weird sporty criteria I've heard, this is one of the strangest.
Whats weird about it? A 2L moving 2 tons is a recipe for disaster. Needs at least 3L. A ~3300lb family car should probably have something closer to a 2.5L turbo, not a 2.0. Etc. Displacement helps.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 31, 2016, 05:21:20 PM
Whats weird about it? A 2L moving 2 tons is a recipe for disaster. Needs at least 3L. A ~3300lb family car should probably have something closer to a 2.5L turbo, not a 2.0. Etc. Displacement helps.
:wtf:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 31, 2016, 05:21:20 PM
Whats weird about it? A 2L moving 2 tons is a recipe for disaster. Needs at least 3L. A ~3300lb family car should probably have something closer to a 2.5L turbo, not a 2.0. Etc. Displacement helps.
A blown 2 liter is effectively larger than 2 liters. How is a 240 hp/ 270 lb-ft 2.0T pulling a 4000 lbs vehicle worse than the 185 hp/184 lb-ft 2.7L NA 4-banger that serves as the base engine in the 2-ton Toyota Highlander? Or the 160 hp variant in the 4500 lbs Tacoma? How is it any more disastrous than the <2.5L, <180 hp/180 lb-ft NA 4-bangers that have served as the base engine in 3000+ lbs midsize family sedans for decades?
Back in the '60s, GM had this idea that weight and displacement should be connected like that. Hence the 350 could only go into cars that weighed 3500 lbs or more, and only the big Caddies got 429s and 472s.
GM figured out that was short sighted and obsolete by the mid '70s.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 31, 2016, 09:39:53 PM
Back in the '60s, GM had this idea that weight and displacement should be connected like that. Hence the 350 could only go into cars that weighed 3500 lbs or more, and only the big Caddies got 429s and 472s.
GM figured out that was short sighted and obsolete by the mid '70s.
For GM, it was a safety concern and not making cars dangerously powerful. With most of their engines making similar specific output, it was effectively a self-imposed power/weight cap.
Quote from: MX793 on January 01, 2017, 06:00:36 AM
With most of their engines making similar specific output, it was effectively a self-imposed power/weight cap.
Except for some of the engines that were supposedly underrated.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 01, 2017, 08:25:03 AM
Except for some of the engines that were supposedly underrated.
With the technology of the time (2-valve, pushrod, carburetor), you weren't going to get more than 1.3 gross hp per cubic inch and still be streetable. It was still ultimately an effort to cap power/weight.
Quote from: MX793 on January 01, 2017, 06:00:36 AM
For GM, it was a safety concern and not making cars dangerously powerful. With most of their engines making similar specific output, it was effectively a self-imposed power/weight cap.
Yep, and when they realized that was no longer relevant, they ditched it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 31, 2016, 09:39:53 PM
Back in the '60s, GM had this idea that weight and displacement should be connected like that. Hence the 350 could only go into cars that weighed 3500 lbs or more, and only the big Caddies got 429s and 472s.
GM figured out that was short sighted and obsolete by the mid '70s.
Quote from: MX793 on January 01, 2017, 06:00:36 AM
For GM, it was a safety concern and not making cars dangerously powerful. With most of their engines making similar specific output, it was effectively a self-imposed power/weight cap.
In general, post WWII up until the early '60s it was extreme market segmentation - want more power need to get the more expensive make, with each make having its own engines (i.e., you'd never see a Caddy 429 in an Impala). By the time the mid '60s rolled around that started to go out the door with say the GTO, L79 Chevy II/Nova and big block Chevelle/Malibu (which at that time was deemed a "senior compact"). By the time the 350 rolled around in '67 it all went out the door with the Camaro - the stronger/strongest engines were available up and down the model line - from the Nova to the Impala.
I am going to buy and build a Nova 396 on Forza tonight in honor of this thread.