the anti-sportscar thread

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:21 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

RodneyWright wrote:

ok, so what about the Caddy ATS. Supposed to be the cat's meow and competition for 3 series....

http://www.cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html

I like the ATS, but I'm afraid of airbags blowing up if I pull a turn at .8gs

.

That part about recent GM products is simply insane. I assume they just say "it's working as designed", and it becomes the owner's problem to enjoy?

I've never looked at the ATS before, but it looks pretty nice on their site -- seeing that it has a mechanical LSD is surprising.

You know it's funny about the airbag issue. In looking at the commercials as they wheel that car through the twisties, I'm surprised you can see the driver and no airbag, unless they just unplugged it....

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:06 pm

buick grand national gnx

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

RickyBeam wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

I get why fuel economy is important ... What I don't get is why people let it weigh so heavily on their micro level requirements.

Because it's something we see weekly. You see it everytime you fill the tank. An 80$ fillup vs. a 40$ one is very noticeable. For the record, I went from a Lexus ES330 @ 27mpg (on a good day) using premium to an HS250h @ 36+ (much higher if I don't "drive angry") using "cheap gas". (diff: ~100gal per year)

So, $350/year savings? Well then, now we're talkin! I'd definitely sell my soul for $350/year, who in their right mind wouldn't?!

For the record, $XX amount for tank fill up is not a metric that actually tells you anything about fuel economy of a vehicle, sure there is some correlation in general, but its simply tells you how big the fuel tank is, not how fuel efficient the vehicle is.

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:22 pm

It also tells me how many days I'll need to stop after work to get gas. Being as I hate stopping for gas it becomes a valuable metric.

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:40 pm

the wrx is fun,but it is a thirsty thing

RickyBeam · **Posted:** Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:30 pm

Les Davis wrote:

So, $350/year savings?

More like 500$ (difference in the grades)

Nobody in the US uses rational metrics. Based on TCO, it's rarely cost effective to buy an "efficient" car. (not for gas anyway) But no one looks at that. We look at the $$$ at the pump every time it's filled up.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

RickyBeam wrote:

Les Davis wrote:

So, $350/year savings?

More like 500$ (difference in the grades)

Nobody in the US uses rational metrics. Based on TCO, it's rarely cost effective to buy an "efficient" car. (not for gas anyway) But no one looks at that. We look at the $$$ at the pump every time it's filled up.

Nobody? I think I get your point. "The masses" may not use rational metrics, but as car guys we've got a job to do to educate anyone best we can to make effective decisions.

I snicker a bit every time I see someone driving a non-conventionally powered car, and at the same time I thank them for being early adopters at a loss so the rest of us can benefit from the technology advance they are funding. I drive gas powered cars today (since I don't drive a lot of miles and the $$ doesn't make sense), but I did write a check for $35k to install geothermal HVAC in my house a few years ago. Because the numbers worked (only with gov't intervention, I need to mention).

I apologize in advance if someone has some TCO calcs which can justify buying anything other than a 2-5 year old gas powered car or truck over damn near anything else new or used (for a normal person who doesn't work on cars). Maybe it exists, I'd love to see it, but I never have.

JohnByers · **Posted:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:40 am

Hell I sold my '01 DD Buick that got ~22mpg's and my '91 F150 that got ~12mpg's and replaced it with one vehicle that did what both could do. A unicorn '04 GMC Sierra 1500 SLE ext cab 4x2 4.8 (with 55K) that gets ~15mpg. I dropped insurance and maintenance cost one one whole vehicle. I'm going to loose ~7 mpg's compared to the Buick but I don't have to shuffle vehicles around depending on what I need for work, etc. and the added bonus I can tow NCR's timing and scoring trailer or the RX8 to events if needed.

Everyone's opinion on what is important will always be different

Edit: and luckily my round trip commute is only 25 miles.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

This thread reminds me of the multiple instances I have seen of McDonald's restaurants being torn down so that they could build more energy efficient McDonald's in their place.

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:24 am

We like our old ford diesel. 22 mpg weighing 6k lbs. we hook it up and go for miles when we camp or rally cross, so it adds up. It can carry almost anything we throw in her, seats six, and can pull like a mule. Yeah diesel costs more, but it burns less of it, so really its a wash. Dad was a diesel tech in the navy, so he can fix her when she breaks, which is not often even a old ford. Later models of hte diesel we got, have a intercooled turbo diesel, oooooooooh, they have as much hp as a small block and way more torque. We wanna put a lsd rear end on ours, a intercooler, not for more power, just so it does not burn up in the mountains. We dont put regular miles on it, just every now and then we go and go. On the highway, diesels love highway, so our rig is at home at 65 mph. Which is about top whack on our rig, but so what. At 3 tons that is as fast as you wanna go anyway.

besides, diesel won lemans again.

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:42 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fteI0wDi1EQ

if it ever comes to the usa, the x550dM would be a wonderful addition to any family, a triple turbo six cyl diesel. 740 newton metres of torque, online calculator comes to over 500 ft lbs, 381 hp. i would love to see that in america.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:28 pm

Thanks for the advice! Added some choices to the first post based on some suggestions... I think some of the discussion has gotten off-target and overly focused on fuel economy---not a big deal, but from my OP it's not the #1 Priority to Rule Them All. Anyone have any experience with ergonomics/interior/sound system of those cars (or other good candidates in that price range)--good or bad? I hear the BMW iDrive has gotten better. I was in a Ford with their new Sync/myTouch product. I have to say that Sync is, to put it mildly, pitiful. My friend is driving around in his $45k Explorer, repeating himself ad nauseum to get the NAV system to recognize the address he wants. It got so comical he was completely distracted by it, checking the center dash screen to verify that the system had gotten it wrong...But when I attempted (in the passenger seat) to key in the address manually, I couldn't b/c the NAV system is apparently locked down while the vehicle is in motion in order to prevent--wait for it--- distracted driving :stick:

It actually is so bad there's a class action suit against Ford over it. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100896791

THAT right there is the crap I don't want in a car. Any other brands act as badly? Any great products out there? Seems to me that buying a used car with a fantastically awful OE NAV/Sync/infotainment system would further exaggerate the depreciation curve--has anyone noticed that?

clinehall · **Posted:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:12 pm

Sorry Steve, another tangent. Somebody explain paying a grand for an in dash nav system that is not as good at a 150buck Garmin at Sams Club. I haven't ever had the in dash nav so maybe I'm missing something,

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:33 pm

Not that tangential, and I agree 100%. It seems like the OE systems are designed to be so byzantine, integrated and clunky that not only do they suck, but to me (a) I would avoid buying a car that had a bad OE NAV system and (b) if I had to buy one, I would pay less for a car that had it because (c) it can't be replaced as it is fully integrated with the car's main computer/ECU systems.

Google Maps on a wireless phone FTW.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:25 am

clinehall wrote:

Sorry Steve, another tangent. Somebody explain paying a grand for an in dash nav system that is not as good at a 150buck Garmin at Sams Club. I haven't ever had the in dash nav so maybe I'm missing something,

I fully agree with that to an extent. In the 2011 M3, the nav is actually almost decent. It takes a voice instruction very accurately btw, but the thing I like about it is that I can plan a route on Google maps on a computer and then send that to the car. An example is driving up to NCAAR I wanted to take an off-Interstate route, so I planned it out on Google maps, sent it to the car, and then it was ready for me that morning.

It does have nice integration with the audio system too in that it smoothly lowers the volume, when you have it give voice commands, leaving it playing lightly in background, then smoothly ramps back up. Nothing new here, but it's nicely done. It's also very fast at taking a manual input through the control knob. BTW, it does allow full interaction when the car is in motion, lol. Perhaps I'm just a bit influenced by how much faster/improved/etc iDrive is in it compared to iDrive in our 2006 E90 though...

THSCC Forums

the anti-sportscar thread

Who is online