Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on March 14, 2007, 10:48:46 am
-
this is what i drove around last night.
you can say what you like, but this is CLASS.
(someone try to tell me the year, make, and model ;) )
we drove right next to a maserati for a few minutes in downtown san diego (Gaslight district - the tourist area), and i kid you not, this car turned more heads than the maserati. a LOT more heads.
plus it's got 3 carburetors, and it can M-O-V-E.
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car1.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car2.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car3.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car4.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car5.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car6.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car7.jpg)
(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/car8.jpg)
this has always been my dreamcar, by the way. after i buy the CTS-V this summer, i'm going to get this next...
-
Not that I wish to pick holes, but I can bet driving a reliant robin next to a maserati would result in that car turning a lot more heads, too.....
ach, I'm a cynic. Good on you for finding your dream car, but I doubt I'll ever see the attraction myself (unless you turn it into Ecto-1) :). Nice bunny, though :D
-
I personally like the family 1956 Cadillac De Ville 4-door in black. That car is larger than my uncle's SUV and would beat it in a race, despite being over 50 years old. That car would turn many more heads then the nice Caddy; its fully restored, ours is fully original.
-
Not that I wish to pick holes, but I can bet driving a reliant robin next to a maserati would result in that car turning a lot more heads, too...
Especially if said Reliant Robin had eight tons of thrust... ;7
-
Some months ago there was a gathering of American cars in a small airport 40 km from here. Lot of cool Cadys...
-
(unless you turn it into Ecto-1) :).
Second!
-
*wants DeLorean mk 2*
-
And that, as they say, is "pimpin'". To the max.
-
Tug tug. Ugly yank tanks.
-
that is truly awesome :pimp:
-
what is it ? coupe de ville or something ? Not really a fan though I quite like cheap 80s Muscle Motors.
got any on techie info (ie engine size, output etc) ?
I should point out I'm always surprised how little power American's can extract from such huge engines. 25bhp per litre ? Only if your lucky.
-
it's an Eldorado Biarritz, and is worth over $100k
who the hell cares about "engine size, output, etc"... this is not. a. race. car. it will beat any 60s mustang, but it's not a race car.
what the hell is up with kids these days. they see a car, and "OMG. how fast can it 0-60?!!/1/oeoneoneoneon".
give me a break.
and please don't pull the "surprised how little power americans can extract from such huge engines......"... saleen s7s are pushing 750HP in a 7 liter engine. one of my best friend has a 605HP 6 liter engine in a Cadillac CTS-V.
one thing you need to learn, kid, is that the whole world doesn't all revolve around horsepower. put a charger up against some fuc king civic, and see who wins. it's not all about who can win a race either. some people like to cruise in luxury and comfort too...
[/rant]
-
I personally like the family 1956 Cadillac De Ville 4-door in black. That car is larger than my uncle's SUV and would beat it in a race, despite being over 50 years old. That car would turn many more heads then the nice Caddy; its fully restored, ours is fully original.
oh this is fully original too. 17,xxx miles.
but yeah. wow. a 56 cadillac? i'd kill for a car like that! i still think the 59 is a lot more flashy than the 56 (shoot... flashier than any cadillac year. lol) but i'd still take the 56 cadillac in a heartbeat :D
-
it's an Eldorado Biarritz, and is worth over $100k
who the hell cares about "engine size, output, etc"... this is not. a. race. car. it will beat any 60s mustang, but it's not a race car.
what the hell is up with kids these days. they see a car, and "OMG. how fast can it 0-60?!!/1/oeoneoneoneon".
give me a break.
and please don't pull the "surprised how little power americans can extract from such huge engines......"... saleen s7s are pushing 750HP in a 7 liter engine. one of my best friend has a 605HP 6 liter engine in a Cadillac CTS-V.
one thing you need to learn, kid, is that the whole world doesn't all revolve around horsepower. put a charger up against some fuc king civic, and see who wins. it's not all about who can win a race either. some people like to cruise in luxury and comfort too...
[/rant]
Who said anything about speed ? :wtf:
I was asking from an engineering POV. Things like how many gears (I'm guessing 3), does it have independant suspension, things like that ?
The specific out put thing, I was looking at a 70s Dodge Dart which made 150bhp from 5.x. In the same magazine was a late 60s Jaguar S-type that had 200 from 3.6. Granted the 70s was a torrid time for Yank performance cars.
Having said that, the Dodge had huge vented brake discs and 4 pot calipers. For a 70s motor that's amazing (good).
Probably needs them. 'bet it weighs best part of 2 tonnes.
-
it's an Eldorado Biarritz, and is worth over $100k
who the hell cares about "engine size, output, etc"... this is not. a. race. car. it will beat any 60s mustang, but it's not a race car.
what the hell is up with kids these days. they see a car, and "OMG. how fast can it 0-60?!!/1/oeoneoneoneon".
give me a break.
and please don't pull the "surprised how little power americans can extract from such huge engines......"... saleen s7s are pushing 750HP in a 7 liter engine. one of my best friend has a 605HP 6 liter engine in a Cadillac CTS-V.
one thing you need to learn, kid, is that the whole world doesn't all revolve around horsepower. put a charger up against some fuc king civic, and see who wins. it's not all about who can win a race either. some people like to cruise in luxury and comfort too...
[/rant]
Wow.
You didn't look 65 in that photo.
-
Tug tug. Ugly yank tanks.
Oh give me a break! "Ugly yank tanks", you're talking about a very classy 1950s car. They're a tank by modern-day standards, but they're stylish back then and they look alot better then golf-carts from today. Trust me; my "ugly yank tank" (or what will become mine) is alot nicer of a car then a modern-day "golf-cart".
I personally like the family 1956 Cadillac De Ville 4-door in black. That car is larger than my uncle's SUV and would beat it in a race, despite being over 50 years old. That car would turn many more heads then the nice Caddy; its fully restored, ours is fully original.
oh this is fully original too. 17,xxx miles.
but yeah. wow. a 56 cadillac? i'd kill for a car like that! i still think the 59 is a lot more flashy than the 56 (shoot... flashier than any cadillac year. lol) but i'd still take the 56 cadillac in a heartbeat :D
Yep, a '56 cadillac de ville. It has about 100,000 miles and is still in pretty good condition. It was purchased around '58 (2nd hand) by my now-deceased Great Uncle. It has been in the family for nearly 50 years, and since then it has been up in Upstate NY.
1956 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, Second Generation, full-size luxury car
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Cadillac_De_Ville_1958.jpg)
(Pretty much the above car, though looks a bit better)
Four-door hard top, black exterior
White/black leather interior (good condition, except driver-spot has cracked leather)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Cadillac-deVille-58.jpg)
(Similar to the above car, though has 4-doors and no bar between front and rear seats)
Completely original condition
Foot-controlled AM radio
Registered "Historical" car
It was stored in the basement garage of our Queens, NYC home.
Well, enough boasting about the car; its in good condition overall. It was owned and regularly driven by my Great Uncle. It was purchased by my Grossvati (Grandfather), owned and regularly driven after that. For about the last 20 years, however, it has been kept without being regularly driven, though well-maintained. It took a trip up to Upstate NY in the late '90s, and since has been under the care of my Uncle. I'll inherit the Caddy eventually. We generally use the Caddy as a show-car. Instead of hiring a limo, we drive the Caddy. It works a lot better, costs much less, and is much for fancy then some generic limo.
We also have a 1986 Buick Grand National. Its a nice '80s muscle car, though not in as good of condition as the much-older Caddy. I would like to have that car when I'm in my twenties as well, though only time will tell. I really hope my uncle doesn't sell that car; I would happily restore the car's exterior as the interior is in great condition. It has a chipped, dull paint job due to its place of residence; outside under a car cover. The car is basically the same as a '86 Buick Regal (which we have as well), though has a better turbo-charged engine and much more class.
-
Wow.
You didn't look 65 in that photo.
... i didn't quite get that. can you explain please?
-
and nice car bob-san. gotta love the '56 ;)
-
I'd like to see that Buick Bob-San. Only one I can think of was in Forza on x-box.
the Opel Manta Club invaded America Day at Capesthorne Hall last year:
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/Yank01.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/Yank00.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/Yank02.jpg)
- I really like these. Don't really know why.
and the Mantas (while I'm at it):
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/Yank03.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/mine.jpg)
the red one is mine though it's off the road pending a complete restoration and some crazy modifying (hopefully anyway).
-
Oh give me a break! "Ugly yank tanks", you're talking about a very classy 1950s car. They're a tank by modern-day standards, but they're stylish back then and they look alot better then golf-carts from today. Trust me; my "ugly yank tank" (or what will become mine) is alot nicer of a car then a modern-day "golf-cart".
Yes, because the 50s were the height of fashion.......
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Motor_Corporation
On the bottom there's a chart with links to other companies...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Jaguar_Mark_IX.jpg/800px-Jaguar_Mark_IX.jpg)
Looks like a tank to me..
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Motor_Corporation
On the bottom there's a chart with links to other companies...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Jaguar_Mark_IX.jpg/800px-Jaguar_Mark_IX.jpg)
Looks like a tank to me..
What, exactly, is your point?
-
Someone mentioned earlier that the American cars looked like tanks... well, back then, they (almost) all did.
-
Someone mentioned earlier that the American cars looked like tanks... well, back then, they (almost) all did.
Not many people idolise 1950s Austins, though.
-
i don't think they looked like tanks
with Honda elements, and Hummer H2s, i think we have the "tank" category pretty well populated...
aldo, still waiting on you to explain lol
-
Explain what?
-
look further up. i quoted you and asked you to explain
-
Ah.
The phrase "what the hell is up with kids these days" sounds a lot like my dad. :)
-
oooh :p
well yeah, my bad, i'm not old, only 21 :) but i just wanted to poke fun at him :)
-
I'd like to see that Buick Bob-San. Only one I can think of was in Forza on x-box.
Again, I don't have a camera handy (it doesnt help that im 12 miles away either).
1986 Buick Grand National
(http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/buick-grandnational/images/buick-grandnational-1986a.jpg)
Comments: 1986 saw significant changes to the Grand National that would make it truly one of the best American performance cars of the mid-1980s. Buick added an air-to-air intercooler, adjusted the turbo, modified the upper and lower intake manifolds, and redesigned the exhaust system. All of these changes added up to a boost in power to 235 bhp and 330 lb-ft. Other changes included a revised front air dam with an opening in the center to allow cool air to reach the Intercooler duct and a revised grille with fine vertical bars.
But for the first time, there was another Grand National, the LeSabre Grand National. Only 117 were built to qualify the body for NASCAR competition. All LeSabre Grand Nationals were black (although white was also planned), and came with a sport suspension, 3.8 liter S.F.I V-6 leather warapped steering wheel, 15 inch alloy wheels with Goodyear Eagle GT tires and rear quarter window close-outs. The "Grand National" emblems on the front quarters were just like regular GN emblems, except that the Power Six logo was all red instead of two-tone red and yellow.
Production: Grand National: 5,512. LeSabre Grand National: 117.
Engines: 3.8L V6 Turbo 235 bhp @ 4000 rpm, 330 ft-lb @ 2400 rpm.
Performance: 0-60 in 5 seconds.
PRetty much that, not as nice looking now.
EDIT: just something to add (so i dont doublepost).
I firmly believe that the best luxury cars came from the 1950s and the best muscle cars came from the 1980s. That isn't just because there's a '86 Grand National and a '56 Caddy Sedan De Ville in the family... 50s style and 80s power. Maybe 2016 will be a good year for a car... :D
-
"Yank Tank" on Urbandictionary:
yank tank
Noun.
1. British slang for a large and unweildy American car, usually an SUV. Examples include the Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon and the Cadillac Escalade.
2. Ugly clumsy American car
3. British slang used to describe large, ugly, poorly-manufactured american cars. In europe american cars are seen as a kind of joke for people with small penises.
It doesn't mean it looks like a tank. just that it looks like crap. Look at what the brits and the Euros were doing in the fifties:
The BMW 507 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:507.JPG)
The MGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MGA_1600.jpg)
The Mercedes 300SL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1955_Mercedes-Benz_300SL_Gullwing_Coupe_34.jpg)
The Aston Martin DB Mark III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aston_Martin_DB_2%2C_1958%2C_Fotoformat.jpg)
Now those were classy, good looking cars. The American cars of the fifties and sixties were gaudy, ugly looking things, like the above one.
-
ugh. no, those were 2 door sports cars. this was a luxury car. big big difference. you can't argue whether the 50s cadillacs were classy... it's a fact that they were
there's a reason people still say "that's the 'cadillac' of pools", etc. they don't say "that's the aston martin of houses"
game. set. match.
-
also i agree about 80s being the muscle car years.
shoot, even Cadillac joined the game, putting 500 cubic inch engines (the biggest serial production V8 in the world to ever be put in a car... held the guiness book of records till a year or two ago), pumping out 400 HP, in some of their cars.
-
there's a reason people still say "that's the 'cadillac' of pools", etc. they don't say "that's the aston martin of houses"
Admittedly, that's because they'd call it the Rolls Royce of houses ;)
-
ugh. no, those were 2 door sports cars. this was a luxury car. big big difference. you can't argue whether the 50s cadillacs were classy... it's a fact that they were
there's a reason people still say "that's the 'cadillac' of pools", etc. they don't say "that's the aston martin of houses"
game. set. match.
It's utterly irrelevant what they were in terms of their classification as cars - I'm not talking about the performance (where I strongly suspect the Euros had the advantage especially if you're interested in things other than pure HP output) or anything - I'm simply talking about the general trends of styling and the overall looks of the things being produced in Europe vs. the US. The Yanks were making big, square, ugly looking things with stupid rocketship tailfins and silly chroming everywhere, while the euros and brits were building more understated, curvy things with less flash and more pure style.
As for the belief that they were classy, well:
class·y
–adjective, class·i·er, class·i·est. Informal.
of high class, rank, or grade; stylish; admirably smart; elegant.
I don't see anything that could be called elegant in those big, gaudy boxes. So that pretty much throws your ridiculous "fact" out the window.
Also, for what it's worth, I've never heard the phrase "the cadillac" of anything. It's a phrase I very, very strongly suspect is limited entirely to North America, which makes it worse than useless in a discussion about design issues sourced on a worldwide scale.[/color
-
I've never heard the term 'cadillac of' being used outside of the US (except in an ironic way) either.
-
ugh. no, those were 2 door sports cars. this was a luxury car. big big difference. you can't argue whether the 50s cadillacs were classy... it's a fact that they were
there's a reason people still say "that's the 'cadillac' of pools", etc. they don't say "that's the aston martin of houses"
game. set. match.
It's utterly irrelevant what they were in terms of their classification as cars - I'm not talking about the performance (where I strongly suspect the Euros had the advantage especially if you're interested in things other than pure HP output) or anything - I'm simply talking about the general trends of styling and the overall looks of the things being produced in Europe vs. the US. The Yanks were making big, square, ugly looking things with stupid rocketship tailfins and silly chroming everywhere, while the euros and brits were building more understated, curvy things with less flash and more pure style.
As for the belief that they were classy, well:
class·y
–adjective, class·i·er, class·i·est. Informal.
of high class, rank, or grade; stylish; admirably smart; elegant.
I don't see anything that could be called elegant in those big, gaudy boxes. So that pretty much throws your ridiculous "fact" out the window.
Also, for what it's worth, I've never heard the phrase "the cadillac" of anything. It's a phrase I very, very strongly suspect is limited entirely to North America, which makes it worse than useless in a discussion about design issues sourced on a worldwide scale.[/color
to each his own i guess.... some guy said he'd rather have a new impala over a 59 cadillac. so.... lol.... i guess some people will never be able to truly appreciate cars. and by appreciate i mean own them, drive them, etc. not just fantasize over pictures of cars (old or new) online.
and i'd heard "the cadillac of....*whatever*" in south africa too. so i don't think it's just north america, although it may have originated there
-
"Yank Tank" on Urbandictionary:
yank tank
Noun.
1. British slang for a large and unweildy American car, usually an SUV. Examples include the Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon and the Cadillac Escalade.
2. Ugly clumsy American car
3. British slang used to describe large, ugly, poorly-manufactured american cars. In europe american cars are seen as a kind of joke for people with small penises.
It doesn't mean it looks like a tank. just that it looks like crap. Look at what the brits and the Euros were doing in the fifties:
The BMW 507 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:507.JPG)
The MGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MGA_1600.jpg)
The Mercedes 300SL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1955_Mercedes-Benz_300SL_Gullwing_Coupe_34.jpg)
The Aston Martin DB Mark III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aston_Martin_DB_2%2C_1958%2C_Fotoformat.jpg)
Now those were classy, good looking cars. The American cars of the fifties and sixties were gaudy, ugly looking things, like the above one.
Hmm... the reason you didn't post any luxury cars to compare, I guess, is that the Europeans didn't make them yet in the 1950s? If not, try and come up with a few examples... make 'em your favorite ones; just don't compare apples and oranges. ;)
-
"Yank Tank" on Urbandictionary:
yank tank
Noun.
1. British slang for a large and unweildy American car, usually an SUV. Examples include the Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon and the Cadillac Escalade.
2. Ugly clumsy American car
3. British slang used to describe large, ugly, poorly-manufactured american cars. In europe american cars are seen as a kind of joke for people with small penises.
It doesn't mean it looks like a tank. just that it looks like crap. Look at what the brits and the Euros were doing in the fifties:
The BMW 507 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:507.JPG)
The MGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MGA_1600.jpg)
The Mercedes 300SL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1955_Mercedes-Benz_300SL_Gullwing_Coupe_34.jpg)
The Aston Martin DB Mark III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aston_Martin_DB_2%2C_1958%2C_Fotoformat.jpg)
Now those were classy, good looking cars. The American cars of the fifties and sixties were gaudy, ugly looking things, like the above one.
Hmm... the reason you didn't post any luxury cars to compare, I guess, is that the Europeans didn't make them yet in the 1950s? If not, try and come up with a few examples... make 'em your favorite ones; just don't compare apples and oranges. ;)
Are you kidding? Europe invented the luxury car - Mercedes, Alfa Romeo, Rolls Royce, Bentley (for example http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Bentley_r_cont.jpg). What the US did was come up with the concept of an arguably cruder, lower performance vehicle that was -crucially - cheaper and more mass-affordable; something which funneled back into europe in much the same was as Asian & European hatchbacks will gradually funnel into the US market.
-
I do not like that car in the least. That car reminds me too much of a over-shined tank.
There's something to be said about a Cadillac that I just can't say about any of those cars. The Cadillac Sedan de Ville was a "Full-Sized Luxury Car". You really can't compare a luxury car to a roadster coupe (Mercedes 300SL, MGA 1600, BMW 507) or a sports car (Aston Martin DB2/4). It is apples to oranges. The Cadillac style we are arguing over are the 1950s full-size luxury cars. At least try to meet one of those criteria when you match some European model to a Cadillac; please... choose a full-size car or a luxury car (from about +/- 2 years model year). That'll keep this fair. Perhaps Cadillac is out-classed in Europe. It is still an American icon for style, luxury, and class.
EDIT: Bad formatting...
-
I strongly prefer Cadillac-like cars to Mercedes-like luxury cars and sportcars... but if somebody gave me a Lamborghini as a birthday present I wouldn't certainly refuse it... :D
-
but if somebody gave me a Lamborghini as a birthday present I wouldn't certainly refuse it... :D
I think we can all agree on that point... they're all nice cars. If it runs (and doesnt cost $10,000 to repair), I wouldn't mind getting a car for free.
Still, I will be inheriting the '56 Caddy and probably buying the '86 Grand National off my Uncle (hopefully he doesn't get rid of it any time soon).
-
I do not like that car in the least. That car reminds me too much of a over-shined tank.
There's something to be said about a Cadillac that I just can't say about any of those cars. The Cadillac Sedan de Ville was a "Full-Sized Luxury Car". You really can't compare a luxury car to a roadster coupe (Mercedes 300SL, MGA 1600, BMW 507) or a sports car (Aston Martin DB2/4). It is apples to oranges. The Cadillac style we are arguing over are the 1950s full-size luxury cars. At least try to meet one of those criteria when you match some European model to a Cadillac; please... choose a full-size car or a luxury car (from about +/- 2 years model year). That'll keep this fair. Perhaps Cadillac is out-classed in Europe. It is still an American icon for style, luxury, and class.
EDIT: Bad formatting...
THose cars didn't necessarily exist in europe, you realise (someone who actually cares can check this out, I suppose) ; these were full size luxury cars, they simply had both comfort and[i/] high performance. What you have to bear in mind is that the Cadillac was imitating these types of cars (at least in its initial concept), but at a lower price and hence performance range.
-
Are you kidding? Europe invented the luxury car - Mercedes, Alfa Romeo, Rolls Royce, Bentley (for example http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Bentley_r_cont.jpg). What the US did was come up with the concept of an arguably cruder, lower performance vehicle that was -crucially - cheaper and more mass-affordable; something which funneled back into europe in much the same was as Asian & European hatchbacks will gradually funnel into the US market.
he wasn't saying they didn't. he was saying if that's the case, why didn't BlackWolf post up some luxury cars to compete against, you guessed it, a LUXURY CAR. instead he posted pictures of sports cars.
-
THose cars didn't necessarily exist in europe, you realise (someone who actually cares can check this out, I suppose) ; these were full size luxury cars, they simply had both comfort and[i/] high performance. What you have to bear in mind is that the Cadillac was imitating these types of cars (at least in its initial concept), but at a lower price and hence performance range.
... the cadillac was imitating the "concept" of a luxury car?
... no one can argue that the cadillac's styling was completely original. COMPLETELY. try to find a 50s, 60s, or 70s cadillac that looks like any other car. European or American.
-
and at that, i'm going to post some pictures of some of the body styles, years, and models of late 50s and early 60s cadillacs. don't tell me these cars 'imitated' anyone else. they were as original and unique in their styling as you can get.
note the lines of the 60 cadlilac. long, and sleek. nothing european here. yet they still had 350HP engines.
(http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/1960/60eldoconv2.jpg)
(http://www.mcsmk8.com/60-CAD/CAR-03.JPG)
(http://www.mcsmk8.com/60-CAD/CAR-06.JPG)
(http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1950/1958/cdv58a.jpg)
(http://www.webcom.com/reynen/57_r_frt.jpg)
(don't know if you can tell, but i'm a big fan of 59 and 60 cadillacs)
You can say what you want, but in America, Cadillac always has, and still is, the symbol of luxury and class. And they usually aren't slow either. i forget if i said it in this thread, but Cadillac put the biggest production V8 in the world into 6 years worth of cars, with 400HP bone stock in 1970. that held the guiness book of records till a year or two ago. the 59 cadillac can take on any 60s stock mustang, minus performer mustangs mind you
-
Are you kidding? Europe invented the luxury car - Mercedes, Alfa Romeo, Rolls Royce, Bentley (for example http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Bentley_r_cont.jpg). What the US did was come up with the concept of an arguably cruder, lower performance vehicle that was -crucially - cheaper and more mass-affordable; something which funneled back into europe in much the same was as Asian & European hatchbacks will gradually funnel into the US market.
he wasn't saying they didn't. he was saying if that's the case, why didn't BlackWolf post up some luxury cars to compete against, you guessed it, a LUXURY CAR. instead he posted pictures of sports cars.
Those were luxury cars. Understand that the concept changed a bit in crossing the atlantic.
THose cars didn't necessarily exist in europe, you realise (someone who actually cares can check this out, I suppose) ; these were full size luxury cars, they simply had both comfort and[i/] high performance. What you have to bear in mind is that the Cadillac was imitating these types of cars (at least in its initial concept), but at a lower price and hence performance range.
... the cadillac was imitating the "concept" of a luxury car?
... no one can argue that the cadillac's styling was completely original. COMPLETELY. try to find a 50s, 60s, or 70s cadillac that looks like any other car. European or American.
The styling may be original, but the styling isn't the concept. I mean, a lot of people (myself included) find the cadillac horribly ugly, and a lot of other people find it a thing of beauty. The same applies to most 50s cars from the states and indeed elsewhere, and obviously it's pretty much impossible to have a debate over whose personal preference is best (not that that ever stopped us trying :D). If you want to, you can say the cadillac was 'reinventing' the european concept of a luxury car for the mass market in the US; at the same time I'd suggest defining exactly what you mean by 'luxury car' for the sake of clarity. :)
-
Cadillac invented the tail-fin style. Cadillac had a great part in style; others could style a car so it look and is expensive, Cadillac found great success in styling a car so it looks expensive though available to the masses. The style they invented is an American icon for class, the same status it had in the lates 40s to early 60s it carries with it, even today! Anyone who owns a car (especially a Cadillac) from that period is very lucky; I can only hope that all those cars still in good condition will be saved for years to come; it would be a shame to loose such great style and class to time.
-
For the record, my personal opinion is that a cadillac is about as good looking as a bulldog with a skelped arse.
:)
-
then your opinion, sir, differs from 95% of America's population :)
-
then your opinion, sir, differs from 95% of America's population :)
Heh, that's true for about 95% of my opinions. Albeit is that 95% anything other than a guess?
-
well go ahead and ask anyone in america if they find Cadillacs to be a standard of class and luxury in cars.
i just asked all 8 people in the room here with me, and didn't get a "no"
-
Don't you give me no Buick
Or the Foreign Cars absurd
If there's a God up in heaven
He drives a Silver Thunderbird ;)
-
well go ahead and ask anyone in america if they find Cadillacs to be a standard of class and luxury in cars.
i just asked all 8 people in the room here with me, and didn't get a "no"
Hold on a secamobile, though, what sort of standard? ;)
-
well go ahead and ask anyone in america if they find Cadillacs to be a standard of class and luxury in cars.
i just asked all 8 people in the room here with me, and didn't get a "no"
well that's cool and eveything but only Americans like American cars. Save for the oddball value ofcourse.
Nowhere else in the world can you get a boggo Taxi saloon car with a 4.6V8.
-
Am I the only one who thinks this thread is hilarious?
You both are wrong. Those ain't no cars. This is the essence of a car:
http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/popup.dsp?id=448
I'm quite sure you have no idea how badass that thing is.
When you hopped in you wished that you survive the trip. When you were travelling in it, you wished that you would survive the trip. And when you finally got out of it you were happy that you survived the trip. Alternatively you wished that the car would not have survived the trip and would have saved you from a lot of trouble as you would have a legitimate reason to be late from meeting place where the big boss gives you your next assignment (usually ****).
Lets see what car means from Encyclopedia Mikannica:
Car - lat. Engineus Quadcyclius
A device meant for transportation of people (usually of their own free will) that has internal engine which provides power for the translational movement and, usually four wheels of which at least two use this aforementioned power. The earliest developments of car started in the 1890, and during last 120 years it has gone through many evolutions and generations. For this reason, it might be difficult to recognise the original form of the current observable species. The most primitive forms of car can, luckily, still be observed inside Russia. It has been assumed that this is because of the rapid migrational habits of this species, it also seems to avoid cold areas. There is a theory circulating that the species met in Russia are specialised to survive in cold climate and the evolutionary process has led them to their current form.
It has been a constant argument to define what is the difference between Lada [lat. Succius automobilius - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sb78jSc4PI&mode=related&search= for reference ] and a car, as they both seem to fulfil this definition. The opponents of this theory claim that it is possible to go too deep into the essence of a car, and therefore Lada is not considered to belong to the faction of cars. There seems to be empirical evidence that in order for a new species to be defined as a car, it has to fulfil requirements mentioned in the earlier chapter, but it also has to be able to virtually extend the ego of the owner of a car, usually from the crotch.
In the wild life, if one looks carefully enough, one might spot a species called Automobilius Stupidus Populatius , easily recognisable from its over extending spoilers and overwide tires. This species can also be recognised by sound, when moving it usually makes "thump thump thump" sounding noise, which can be heard miles away in good weather conditions.
Besides aforementioned species, cars are classified as:
Automobilius Americanus i.e. American Car. Recognised from its large engine and size, usually has two vertical stabilizers as found in modern aircraft. Contains a lot of chrome and luxus.
Automobilius Europa i.e. European Car. Recognised from its small size and usually over optimized and highly electronized engine. Uses a small amount of fuel but lacks torque.
There are several subspecies in Automobilius Europa. Most notable of them being:
Automobilius Russius - Like Amerian Car but lacks chrome, size, large engine, vertical stabilizers
and luxus. Makes this up by burning as much fuel as American Car. It was born in the harshest possible
climate and thus survives almost anywhere. After the fall of Soviet Union its immigration speed has
slowed down.
Automobilius Germanius - Like European car but lacks small size.
Automobilius Italianus - Italian Car, like European car, but optimized even a little more. As a result,
it does not work in conditions differing from its birth place.
Automobilius Francius - Like Italian Car, but tolerates different conditions slightly better. Usually
just enough to lead owner in bigger trouble, but not out of it.
There are reported sightings of Automobilius Englius , but these are so rare that it is considered a
dying species.
Automobilius ricecuppius - Asian Car, for some unexplained reason the evolution has created a car which is exactly like European car on the opposite side of the Earth. All the properties of European Car fit to the Asian car, but it costs less money and is described as "best bang for buck" in crude terms. Another notable feature is the lack of difference between Asian cars, one cannot recognise different Asian car species until very close.
- End of definition -
The another thing I would call a car, more specially a truck (again from the Soviet Union). The thing looks quite badass and screams pure functionality.
http://www.petrisimolin.com/Thepalsta/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13994
That is how a truck is supposed to look like and what the truck is supposed to do. To go where no man has gone before. Also notice its blocky design emphasizing the fact that this thing is meant for manly work and is not supposed to be silky smooth like the current wimpy, girly cars. All its metal surfaces can be repaired in your own garage with a big enough hammer, repair are even easier: bend the plate and it will fit in. You can see enough of smooth curves in woman, don't you agree? A couple of battle scars and bumps will only make that thing look better! Run it through a ditch a couple of times, sunk it halfway in a swamp, or roll it over a couple of times and the paintwork seemingly improves! How many car owners can say the same about their own cars? This thing indeed has some street credibility.
One word: ThunderCougarFalconBird!
Mika
-
The another thing I would call a car, more specially a truck (again from the Soviet Union). The thing looks quite badass and screams pure functionality.
http://www.petrisimolin.com/Thepalsta/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13994
That is how a truck is supposed to look like and what the truck is supposed to do. To go where no man has gone before. Also notice its blocky design emphasizing the fact that this thing is meant for manly work and is not supposed to be silky smooth like the current wimpy, girly cars. All its metal surfaces can be repaired in your own garage with a big enough hammer, repair are even easier: bend the plate and it will fit in. You can see enough of smooth curves in woman, don't you agree? A couple of battle scars and bumps will only make that thing look better! Run it through a ditch a couple of times, sunk it halfway in a swamp, or roll it over a couple of times and the paintwork seemingly improves! How many car owners can say the same about their own cars? This thing indeed has some street credibility.
One word: ThunderCougarFalconBird!
Mika
yeah... at 3 miles per gallon....
without reading your whole post, are you trying to argue that the definition of 'car' among the masses isn't correct? cause i'm missing your point here...
-
Mika's quite correct with his statement IMHO. Cars used by military are by its definition, "real" cars.
If you want a layman's "real" car and by "real" you refer to aesthetically pleasing car, I have yet to see a single such car in this topic. The "classics" in this topic are damn ugly, in fact even most modern cars are more or less ugly. I have seen only a handful good looking cars, but sadly I don't know what cars these were as cars aren't my hobby.
I'd say that street versions of the modern WRC cars are more "real" cars than the "classics" in this topic, but that's just my own preference. Even then most WRC derivatives or the WRC cars themselves aren't exactly the most beautiful things on Earth either. As far as aesthetics go, Lamborghini Murcielago and Gallardo sure look better than any "classic" so far in this topic, but I wouldn't want to own either of them.
-
Automobilius Italianus - Italian Car, like European car, but optimized even a little more. As a result,
it does not work in conditions differing from its birth place any condition.
Corrected. :p
Italian cars (especially if they are FIAT, but I know also people complaining about Alfa Romeo) are very prone to mechanical problems. Most of them are also quite ugly (like the FIAT Stilo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Stilo) and the extremely ugly FIAT Multipla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla)).
-
unfortunately i think that (ugliness) describes most European cars.
Europeans are quick to argue that "European cars > American cars!!111", and they'll post pictures of murcielagos, ferraris, and other sleek, finely tuned and easy-to-look-at sports cars, but yet when you travel to Europe, 99% of the population drives these ugly, box-like, cars
-
Most of Europe is far more class-centric than it likes to admit though. ;)
-
unfortunately i think that (ugliness) describes most European cars.
Europeans are quick to argue that "European cars > American cars!!111", and they'll post pictures of murcielagos, ferraris, and other sleek, finely tuned and easy-to-look-at sports cars, but yet when you travel to Europe, 99% of the population drives these ugly, box-like, cars
To be honest, that's an acquired thing; in general I find 'normal' european cars far nicer than US cars, with the obvious caveat that 90% of stuff is now identical (and to the Japanese model).
-
i don't. i find them probably more practical, as far as gas mileage and all that go, but they're cramped, with no 'luxury' that i'm used to (leather seats, zoned A/C, etc.). i found 90% of the ones i sat in to be uncomfortable, and TOTALLY didn't conform to the "European cars >>>>> American cars"... at all. maybe in terms of gas mileage, but nothing else.
-
i don't. i find them probably more practical, as far as gas mileage and all that go, but they're cramped, with no 'luxury' that i'm used to (leather seats, zoned A/C, etc.). i found 90% of the ones i sat in to be uncomfortable, and TOTALLY didn't conform to the "European cars >>>>> American cars"... at all. maybe in terms of gas mileage, but nothing else.
I know you don't, the point I'm trying to make is that it's a purely personal aesthetic choice, once influenced by the place/s we grow up in and the culture that surrounds us. Personally, I can't think of a single US car I'd really want (I mean, with the caveat of competing against same-price models) versus a similar european or japanese car; but we're dealing with differences as fundamental as automatic versus manual gearboxes in many cases, or differences in design philosophy. My car might be a £3000 french hatchback, but I doubt I'd find a, say, $5000 US car I'd prefer over it, because both regions seem to have different priorities.
Which really isn't so much a point as stating the obvious :D.
-
I have to confess that this thread is getting more hilarious and hilarious each time I look at here.
To answer the question what was the point, I hate it so much when the language is used in a way which doesn't portray the truth. When someone writes "real car" with capital letters in to the topic then I expect to read about real cars. Instead when I found out that I have been lured here under false advertising I need to vent away. And I might also have something to say about the topic also, but has never been the point in internet discussions.
CAUTION! Any car tuning fans here would be well advised to skip the following rant.
[Rant begins:]
Lets discuss about the mileage of those 1950s cars, total of 17.000 miles was offered. 50 years time would lead to a running average of 544 km / year, a staggering amount by most. Come to think of it, 17000 miles for 50 years means roughly 1.5 kms / day. I mean, it takes me three month to drive as much with a bicycle, regardless of the weather. During my (almost) five years of studying, I netted some 12.000 km, and because I have had it three years before studies started it might turn out that my bicycle has more miles than these cars, some of those kilometers in conditions I strongly expect those cars could not withstand. I could insert the picture of the cleaned and waxed bicycle (did that last time probably 3 years ago) here but that probably woudn't reinforce the case any further.
Now, my bicycle is unmotorized after all and doesn't provide that much shelter or luxury stuff, so it is a bad comparasion. But we could talk about the reasons behind why these cars have so little miles behind them, despite their age. One could think that it is because most of them would have been owned by families who don't drive much, but given the amount of them having low amount of miles and still circulating around this seems unprobable. The most logical conclusion is that they are so bad to drive that they cannot be used in driving long distances and were thus avoided like plague. A classical example of buying something expensive, useless and lacking real value.
[Rant ends]
Now to answer the question what are I consider real cars (having been used for transportation, that is):
http://www.automotive.com/features/90/auto-news/23360/index.html
4 million km, 40 years old Volvo. Not a single false start and the engine has not been replaced. More pictures of the same thing can be found from here:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/020312-5.htm
A bus that lasted for 1 million kms:
http://www.volvo.com/bus/uk/en-gb/newsmedia/pressreleases/2003/Elcock+Reisen+million+km.htm
For those who think I only post Volvos:
http://jalopnik.com/cars/retro/million+mile-milwaukee-saab-219475.php
For those who think I only post cars manufactured by the neighbors:
http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=57861
Holden, 1.4 Million kms.
VW Golf that went over 1 million (in Deutsch):
http://www.pagenstecher.de/topic102013,1-Million-km-Golf-I-D.html
For those who think I only pick European cars:
http://chevy200k.com/gallery/detail.php?id=4aaeb328
And there are multiple more. None of these cost tons of money when they were bought. None of them can really be described as luxurious, yet they have been certainly used. One would think that the luxurious cars would be preferred over non-luxurious ones because of better driving comfort, but no. I'll ask again, what might be the reason for that?
About the truck I mentioned earlier, there was a document of a special group of people that used these Land Rovers and Jeeps, and tried to go through Russia with those cars. At one point, there was a large river which was too deep and had too strong current to cross with the jeeps. They found out that the locals were using this truck to cross the river. In the end, they managed to convince the driver they should also go over. The jeep was fastened on the truck, and over they went. The trucks hood was almost covered by water, but it did go through it. And it did this multiple times. 6WD seems to suit it well. I'm yet to see any non-military Western truck do the same thing.
Mika
Edit: Grammar mistake
-
I'd say that street versions of the modern WRC cars are more "real" cars than the "classics" in this topic, but that's just my own preference. Even then most WRC derivatives or the WRC cars themselves aren't exactly the most beautiful things on Earth either. As far as aesthetics go, Lamborghini Murcielago and Gallardo sure look better than any "classic" so far in this topic, but I wouldn't want to own either of them.
Meh. Modern WRC is no more than a silhouette formula unlike say, 20 years ago. 4WD is over rated too.
-
To answer the question what was the point, I hate it so much when the language is used in a way which doesn't portray the truth. When someone writes "real car" with capital letters in to the topic then I expect to read about real cars. Instead when I found out that I have been lured here under false advertising I need to vent away. And I might also have something to say about the topic also, but has never been the point in internet discussions.
ok first off, kid, don't start throwing your weight around here. i have owned more cars, worked on more cars, and CURRENTLY own more cars, than you'll probably ever own in your life. when it comes to cars, i'm very VERY V-E-R-Y familiar with them. and on a HANDS ON (<== keywords) level, rather than some kid sitting at a computer doing research online. i've owned everything from a Transam ws6, to a corvette z06, to a volvo s60r, so please... when i say a "real" car, FIRST off, it's not meant to be taken seriously... it's an opinion. and second, i am saying it with plenty (i can assure you) of experience to back it up.
CAUTION! Any car tuning fans here would be well advised to skip the following rant.
car tuning? you're speaking my language now! ...except none of the below has anything to do with tuning cars in my opinion........
*OMITTED THE TWO PARAGRAPHS OF NONSENSE*
now what i think you're TRYING to say is that your bicycle is in better condition after as many, if not more miles. right? ...
let me give you a heads up on car collectors. First of all, it doesn't matter what make, model, or year car... one of the most valuable things collectors look for are miles (or lack thereof). Doesn't matter if we're talking about this 59 cadillac, or your favorite (European obviously) Fiat, or whatever else. Low mileage = collectors dream. So a car with 17,000 miles, doesn't mean that these cars were only driven 17,000 miles or thereabouts... shoot. the second 60 cadillac my dad bought had over 200,000 miles. would it be considered a collectors item? probably not, although at the time there were only three 60 eldorado biarritzes in the world according to the cadillac club of america (in operating, running condition), and his was one of them. still, you see the point. high miles.
Now to answer the question what are I consider real cars (having been used for transportation, that is):
you know, if i take 10 balls, numbered 0 through 9, and randomly throw them on the table. AT SOME POINT, whether it takes 1 throw, or 10 million throws, the balls are going to line up... numerically. that said, of the millions and millions of running cars in the world today, there's bound to be SOME that last hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles. My mom's old dodge had almost half a million miles on it. only routine maintenance, with a handful of things needing replacement in its lifetime, such as a starter, etc.
4 million km, 40 years old Volvo. Not a single false start and the engine has not been replaced. More pictures of the same thing can be found from here:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/020312-5.htm
A bus that lasted for 1 million kms:
http://www.volvo.com/bus/uk/en-gb/newsmedia/pressreleases/2003/Elcock+Reisen+million+km.htm
For those who think I only post Volvos:
http://jalopnik.com/cars/retro/million+mile-milwaukee-saab-219475.php
For those who think I only post cars manufactured by the neighbors:
http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=57861
Holden, 1.4 Million kms.
VW Golf that went over 1 million (in Deutsch):
http://www.pagenstecher.de/topic102013,1-Million-km-Golf-I-D.html
For those who think I only pick European cars:
http://chevy200k.com/gallery/detail.php?id=4aaeb328
And there are multiple more. None of these cost tons of money when they were bought. None of them can really be described as luxurious, yet they have been certainly used. One would think that the luxurious cars would be preferred over non-luxurious ones because of better driving comfort, but no. I'll ask again, what might be the reason for that?
i don't know where you live, but over here, it's "BUT YES", because anyone here would choose a lexus any day of the week over a honda civic. ONLY thing that would make them possibly consider the civic would be gas mileage, but we're DEFINATELY not arguing gas mileage here. we're arguing practicality. luxury vs. non-luxury. and luxury wins, sorry to say, at least here anyway
About the truck I mentioned earlier, there was a document of a special group of people that used these Land Rovers and Jeeps, and tried to go through Russia with those cars. At one point, there was a large river which was too deep and had too strong current to cross with the jeeps. They found out that the locals were using this truck to cross the river. In the end, they managed to convince the driver they should also go over. The jeep was fastened on the truck, and over they went. The trucks hood was almost covered by water, but it did go through it. And it did this multiple times. 6WD seems to suit it well. I'm yet to see any non-military Western truck do the same thing.
and now we're arguing about offroading and driving through mud and rivers?
what. in. the. fu ck. are. you. doing... try to stay on topic. ok? just because this topic says "cars" in the subject line doesn't mean you can go off on tangents about off roading landrovers and driving through rivers where the water's up to the roof :wtf:
*shakes head*
-
sorry, i just saw this and had to point it out, because i literally laughed out loud.
I hate it so much when the language is used in a way which doesn't portray the truth. When someone writes "real car" with capital letters in to the topic then I expect to read about real cars. Instead when I found out that I have been lured here under false advertising
HAHAHAHA
you need a girlfriend man
-
A Lexus?
-
HAHAHAHA
you need a girlfriend man
And the random arbitrary comment of the day goes to... :rolleyes:
What possible mental leap could you have made to go from a comment like "lured here under false advertising" in a non native (I think) speaker to "I have no girlfriend". For that matter, what possible relevance could there be? Is it just you, pretending people care that one tosser on the internet has a girlfriend? Do you think it makes your "points" any more relevant? Or are you just hoping for some kind of reaction, if not from Mika, then from the populace at large? "Ooh, that guy has a girlfriend and rubs it in the face of people on the internet. He must be super cool". Grow up.
Moreover, given that you've spent most of the thread ignoring the issue (But those are teh two door cars!! You can only compare the looks of four door cars to other four door cars or you're cheating!!!) I don't think you're in any position to start dissecting Mika for going off on tangents.
-
So some people don't like the look of European cars? Or claim they lack air-con/climate control and of course, Fiats and Alfa's fall apart. The 80s are calling, and they want their opinions back.
I've dropped a few low-end cars in with this middling bunch here.
European Cars (and I never even bothered with BMW, or the old Fiat Coupe):
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (14).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (15).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (16).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (17).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (18).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (19).jpg)
(Sadly, this was never put into mass production, but the design is real.)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (20).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (21).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (22).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (23).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (24).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (25).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (26).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/cars1 (27).jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/vectra.jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/clio.jpg)
(http://www.intothemaelstrom.co.uk/Cars/Opel-new-Corsa.jpg)
But of course... it's all down to personal preference. I'll just take that XJ and be leaving now...
-
Now for american cars....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Acura_RDX.JPG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Buick_Lucerne.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Cadillac_BLS_front_Holmgrens.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Auto_Show_056.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/06-07_Cadillac_DTS.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/XLR-V.JPG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/2005-Chrysler-PT-Cruiser-convertible.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Chrysler-300C-SRT8.jpg)
^^Note: That is water on the hood^^
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Lexus_GS430.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/06-Lincoln-Zephyr.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/2006-07_Mercury_Milan.jpg)
^^Note: That I assume was taken during winter (rocksalt much?)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Ford500car.JPG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Auto_Show_032.jpg)
Well... all those above are bandwidth hogs!
I only dropped commercially-available cars in here... no concept-cars that I see (perhaps the last one is... idr)
-
The Ford saloons look like ugly versions of the Mondeo that Ford just launched over here. The Chrysler 300C is a Saab 9-5 underneath (although my father would kill me for bad-mouthing it), and the Lexus... is actually not American since Lexus is the luxury brand of Toyota, and likewise Acura is the US brand for Honda.
I did like the PT Cruiser at one time. Then I found out the controls were laid out like clothes in a teenagers bedroom.
I'm not America bashing here, because I think the Caddys are nice. I just don't find the rest that appealing, especially when stacked up against Mercedes, Jag or even some Fiats.
Bollocks, I forgot to put a Pug or two in my earlier post.
-
I find that 'cruiser' thing hideous. The rest strike me as mostly boxy (and uglier) versions of european or japanese cars. vive la difference, I guess :)
-
And the random arbitrary comment of the day goes to... :rolleyes:
What possible mental leap could you have made to go from a comment like "lured here under false advertising" in a non native (I think) speaker to "I have no girlfriend". For that matter, what possible relevance could there be? Is it just you, pretending people care that one tosser on the internet has a girlfriend? Do you think it makes your "points" any more relevant? Or are you just hoping for some kind of reaction, if not from Mika, then from the populace at large? "Ooh, that guy has a girlfriend and rubs it in the face of people on the internet. He must be super cool". Grow up.
Moreover, given that you've spent most of the thread ignoring the issue (But those are teh two door cars!! You can only compare the looks of four door cars to other four door cars or you're cheating!!!) I don't think you're in any position to start dissecting Mika for going off on tangents.
the thing that bugs me, is most of you, and more than likely Mika too, are going to live your lives dreaming of these great European cars that you're defending, but at the end of the day, you're going to still be driving a boxy hatchback. that's the difference. you won't FIND average people driving the cars you're so passionately defending. drive around london and see how many you find. maybe 1%, if that, are these stylish european cars. the rest aren't. the difference is over here the average joe can drive one of the cars i'm defending. cadillacs, lexus, etc. you don't have to be the 1% to drive them.
therefore as ugly and terrible as American cars may be, at least i'm defending something that almost any member of the population can drive. whereas to you it's just cars you dream of driving.
A Lexus?
yes... a Lexus. have you heard of them? driven one? driven IN one?
They're great cars. the height of luxury over here, the biggest competition to Cadillac in the american market. they parallel park themselves even. no hands required.
-
and yes the PT cruiser is ugly as hell. just last week in California i was offered a PT Cruiser convertible to drive, but i turned it down for a 2007 mustang :)
-
I just think the Lexus is hideously ugly and, going by what I've read (caveat - of earlier models), not that great a car compared to its competitors. Granted, I've not been in one (er, I think - racking my brains here), but I don't have to have been in, say, a Jag to prefer it.
Don't knock boxy hatchbacks (especially as they can be a ****load more stylish than many 4-doors)... plus, you'd be surprised how many people would and do pick a 'boxy hatchback' over a larger car such as the americans prefer because the former is nippier, more fun, and more efficient. Such as myself; if I buy a 4 door, it'll be because I have kids to take to the footie, not for driving choice.
EDIT; kind of should point out that what might be termed 'tasteful' 4-doors are still pretty popular and certainly driven by more than 1% of the population.
-
calling people "kid" is bloody annoying too, while we're at it. ::)
I've just picked my latest daily driver. No dounbt you lot will love it heh heh :D
-
calling people "kid" is bloody annoying too, while we're at it. ::)
I've just picked my latest daily driver. No dounbt you lot will love it heh heh :D
Is it some form of Manta, perchance?
-
I just think the Lexus is hideously ugly and, going by what I've read (caveat - of earlier models), not that great a car compared to its competitors. Granted, I've not been in one (er, I think - racking my brains here), but I don't have to have been in, say, a Jag to prefer it.
i don't think they're that ugly. some of them, maybe, but there are a lot of good looking Lexus models, and i'm seeing more and more of them
Don't knock boxy hatchbacks (especially as they can be a ****load more stylish than many 4-doors)...
that's not the point. i have yet to see anyone (in this thread, or any "european vs. american cars" discussion) start posting pictures of an ugly, box-like hatchback. they're fast to post up jaguars, lamborghinis, etc. but you don't see pictures posted of 99% of the cars that are driven
plus, you'd be surprised how many people would and do pick a 'boxy hatchback' over a larger car such as the americans prefer because the former is nippier, more fun, and more efficient. Such as myself; if I buy a 4 door, it'll be because I have kids to take to the footie, not for driving choice.
actually i think people choose the "boxy hatchback" over the sleek, slick EUROPEAN (not american) cars they brag about so much, simply because they can't afford them. or they aren't practical
EDIT; kind of should point out that what might be termed 'tasteful' 4-doors are still pretty popular and certainly driven by more than 1% of the population.
not in my experience. i only saw a handful in the 2 weeks i was in london, spain, and italy
-
i mean don't get me wrong. i'm a big fan of imports and european cars, etc. but to say that American cars suck, is just dumb, and that seems to be the general concensus among NON-AMERICANS (ironic, isn't it?).
i drive a mitsubishi to work every day, because it looks decent on the outside, and it gets good gas mileage, and it's been a hell of a reliable car too
(http://swooh.kicks-ass.org/lorenzo/mirage/pic12.jpg)
i drive this on weekends of when i want a change:
(http://swooh.kicks-ass.org/lorenzo/cadillac/personalcaddy0021.jpg)
and i'm getting ready to buy this.
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_RqxBwwJG0NkAK0qjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=11ss0fsuf/EXP=1174672577/**http%3A//www.deliva.com/cts-v/CTS-V-26.jpg)
so see? i'm not biased ;) i drive american AND foreign cars :p
-
there a few euro-hatches on the previous page but I share you're distaste of the modern hatchback (though for different reasons).
calling people "kid" is bloody annoying too, while we're at it. ::)
I've just picked my latest daily driver. No dounbt you lot will love it heh heh :D
Is it some form of Manta, perchance?
maybe...... ;)
-
the thing that bugs me, is most of you, and more than likely Mika too, are going to live your lives dreaming of these great European cars that you're defending, but at the end of the day, you're going to still be driving a boxy hatchback. that's the difference. you won't FIND average people driving the cars you're so passionately defending. drive around london and see how many you find. maybe 1%, if that, are these stylish european cars. the rest aren't. the difference is over here the average joe can drive one of the cars i'm defending. cadillacs, lexus, etc. you don't have to be the 1% to drive them.
therefore as ugly and terrible as American cars may be, at least i'm defending something that almost any member of the population can drive. whereas to you it's just cars you dream of driving.
And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.
And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:
(http://www.discountnewcars.com.au/carimages/ford_falcon_xr6_turbo_ute_bf.jpg)
It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect :)
-
And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.
and so far, i don't think anyone's posted up a car IN THE SAME CLASS as the cadillac in the first post. that's just my opinion
And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:
(http://www.discountnewcars.com.au/carimages/ford_falcon_xr6_turbo_ute_bf.jpg)
that's a nice looking truck. but talk is cheap; tell me when you actually get it. how old are you by the way?
one thing i'd like to point out about that thing though, as nice as it looks, the fronto end looks like it belongs on a car. maybe that's just because i'm used to seeing trucks having sharp edges, flat 'faces' and grills, as opposed to styled and stretched like a car
EDIT: i just realized. i'm sure the difference between "car" and "truck" as used in America is not as the rest of the world understands it. Over here, a 'truck' is anything with a bed at the back. a "car" is anything that doesn't, but isn't a SUV, etc.. But I know in South Africa, a "truck" was the equivalent here to a semi. an 18 wheeler.
It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect :)
yes it looks nice, but i disagree with the "handlingl better". there aren't many trucks that "handle better" than cars, due mostly to the lack of weight at the rear end. sometimes it's possible to overcome that with AWD or FWD, but you're still risking fishtailing when you have no weight back there. performance is another thing i question... in fact, i'd race my Cadillac CTS-V against your truck/car in the picture, any day of the week and guarantee i'd win :) That's one thing that makes the CTS-V so awesome, and even many European fans love it...... because it doesn't just have the brute force of a 400HP LS2, it can also handle like a European sports car. watch Top Gear's demo of it.
-
I just think the Lexus is hideously ugly and, going by what I've read (caveat - of earlier models), not that great a car compared to its competitors. Granted, I've not been in one (er, I think - racking my brains here), but I don't have to have been in, say, a Jag to prefer it.
i don't think they're that ugly. some of them, maybe, but there are a lot of good looking Lexus models, and i'm seeing more and more of them
Don't knock boxy hatchbacks (especially as they can be a ****load more stylish than many 4-doors)...
that's not the point. i have yet to see anyone (in this thread, or any "european vs. american cars" discussion) start posting pictures of an ugly, box-like hatchback. they're fast to post up jaguars, lamborghinis, etc. but you don't see pictures posted of 99% of the cars that are driven
plus, you'd be surprised how many people would and do pick a 'boxy hatchback' over a larger car such as the americans prefer because the former is nippier, more fun, and more efficient. Such as myself; if I buy a 4 door, it'll be because I have kids to take to the footie, not for driving choice.
actually i think people choose the "boxy hatchback" over the sleek, slick EUROPEAN (not american) cars they brag about so much, simply because they can't afford them. or they aren't practical
EDIT; kind of should point out that what might be termed 'tasteful' 4-doors are still pretty popular and certainly driven by more than 1% of the population.
not in my experience. i only saw a handful in the 2 weeks i was in london, spain, and italy
Aside from the lexus matter-of-taste thing.... I don't know about where you went in Spain or Italy, but London doesn't exactly give a representation of national car buying. Hell, if you look at my street, there's a goodly number of 4-doors, with hatchbacks restricted to being 2nd cars (or, in my case, 2nd and 3rd). If you were in London, I'm amazed you didn't get the impression 4x4s were the dominant species ;) (Actually, I've been to London, although only to the financial district on work, and I can't say I've noticed a majority, let alone overwhelming one, of hatchbacks).
A quick check, indeed, finds that superminis are the best selling class of car - but only take ~30% - in europe.
In any case, there are 2 points here. firstly, I don't think hatchbacks are boxy atall, and I'm not sure where you get that impression (name one boxy non-70s hatchback, please); in general, I'd say they are far nicer than 4 door family-cars such as the ones you're suggesting. Secondly, I don't think there can be any doubt hatchbacks are better for everyday driving, because they are cheaper to buy and run and easier to park. I'd also stick my neck out and say they are more better suited, performance wise, to city driving (smaller, more agile and in some cases faster accelerating - slower, yes, but does that matter in a european city or town?)
I'd just also add that, with regards to the Cadillac, I've never liked that car. It's a very cultural thing, I think, much the same as I'd far rather have an e-type. After all, it's not just which classic car you want, it's which type.
-
Im also not a fan of the "real car" posted in this thread. Quite frankly, if I wanted a classic car It'd either be a Toyota 2000GT or a restored Mustang Convertible (like I used to have [1969], sans restored). Though I must say the classic Jag's were very nice.
-
sorry, i just saw this and had to point it out, because i literally laughed out loud.
Which is exactly why I put it there in the first place. You could have attached "in my opinion" to the title, but you had to make it a universal truth. This actually shows you are extending your own concept of "real car" elsewhere and expecting it to be universal. And I do find that a little offensive! Do not expect to get away from it without someone pointing it out to you. Granted, this was a hard lesson for me in China, I have grown in environment which respects those who play fair and are honest and thus I cannot understand how a society could work without them. Suffice to say, it was a bad thing that I expected this elsewhere. It is hard to admit that even these things what I always thought to be basic pillars of human kind are not so sturdy basis elsewhere. But getting a close call situation makes you think. Currently I'm nursing a broken knuckle.
Show me where I especially constrained the text to American cars. More over, by reading through it again it would seem that I said nothing negative about American cars, did I? I also realised you have not checked out the links I have provided. Then you would know where I am located. But because it seems that my points are getting lost, maybe I should try a different approach?
To make it short, my addition to your equation would be:
Low mileage = collector's dream = garage decoration
Which is even more ironic when you said that the car can M O V E.
But yes, now I understand why people want to cough so much dough for those things, that's the most expensive piece of furniture they will ever buy! Granted, even I would like to have a comfortable, air-conditioned, low mileage sofa!
Seriously, have you ever considered the possibility that these things what you call luxury might not be luxury somewhere else? Or more so, that they might be meaningless elsewhere? This is the another reason why I posted the links to cars which have actually M O V E D. It is the engineering work of those cars that I respect and thought that there would be interested people here in this thread, considering the longevity of those things.
Given that the car is using the power provided by a controlled explosion, even the starting point is interesting and I find many fascinating engineering solutions inside car engines and transmissions. Moreover, I actually think there is a grain of truth behind the cubic inch mania in American cars - which was one of the points in bringing the truck example. It is the torque, not the RPMs, that makes those things work. However, considering the response, it seems we are not going to talk about them. Which is fine for me.
Take so trivial thing as automatic gears for example. Most of the cars sold in USA have automatic transmissions, yet here most of the cars are manual. Since you know cars well and sound like you have driven quite much around (and there are certainly areas which resemble the climate of this Nordic Country in USA), you can probably tell why is it so? Note that the price difference of 3000 € does not explain it in my opinion - luxury is luxury, right? And add there a technical question, I have actually been wondering which one is cheaper to produce, a manual or an automatic and why?
Bob-san, about the car picture where you commented about salt, does that car have spikes in its tires? If the eyes are not deceiving me, it doesn't seem to have them. So are friction tires common there during winter time?
Mika
-
Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?
-
Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?
I can only presume he's confused by the hatch bit.
-
Hatchbacks, or Scion xB's?
My RSX is a hatchback. The xB is a box with wheels.
-
To make it short, my addition to your equation would be:
Low mileage = collector's dream = garage decoration
Which is even more ironic when you said that the car can M O V E.
But yes, now I understand why people want to cough so much dough for those things, that's the most expensive piece of furniture they will ever buy! Granted, even I would like to have a comfortable, air-conditioned, low mileage sofa!
Seriously, have you ever considered the possibility that these things what you call luxury might not be luxury somewhere else? Or more so, that they might be meaningless elsewhere? This is the another reason why I posted the links to cars which have actually M O V E D. It is the engineering work of those cars that I respect and thought that there would be interested people here in this thread, considering the longevity of those things.
Given that the car is using the power provided by a controlled explosion, even the starting point is interesting and I find many fascinating engineering solutions inside car engines and transmissions. Moreover, I actually think there is a grain of truth behind the cubic inch mania in American cars - which was one of the points in bringing the truck example. It is the torque, not the RPMs, that makes those things work. However, considering the response, it seems we are not going to talk about them. Which is fine for me.
Take so trivial thing as automatic gears for example. Most of the cars sold in USA have automatic transmissions, yet here most of the cars are manual. Since you know cars well and sound like you have driven quite much around (and there are certainly areas which resemble the climate of this Nordic Country in USA), you can probably tell why is it so? Note that the price difference of 3000 € does not explain it in my opinion - luxury is luxury, right? And add there a technical question, I have actually been wondering which one is cheaper to produce, a manual or an automatic and why?
Bob-san, about the car picture where you commented about salt, does that car have spikes in its tires? If the eyes are not deceiving me, it doesn't seem to have them. So are friction tires common there during winter time?
Mika
Our '56 Caddy has MOVED alot; its now an expensive sofa with many miles on it.
We use a bit bulkier tires (I jokingly call them square tires) in winter. You see, we have paved streets pretty much everywhere we go, from our drive ways, to our smallest service roads, to everything else. Pretty much everything is paved, plowed, and salted. We generally use chains in the few unpaved areas, and theyre only good for low-speeds.
Its pointless to have spikes on a suburb or city car here.
Its cheaper to make manuals, we use autos because theyre easier to drive; most people would rather have the shifter ignored for the most part; gives em more tiem to be distracted with the radio and climate controls.
-
Quote from Bob-san:
Our '56 Caddy has MOVED alot; its now an expensive sofa with many miles on it.
I think we established a common understanding now.
How much ice do you get yearly? In early or late autumns, depending on the case when the Weather Man says it's snow, we have this devious black ice which cannot be noticed from the car, the only warning is that you know it has been below zero last night and there is a possibility of its existence. It's certain type of ice which has formed just on top of the pavement, thin but sturdy layer and it repeats the roughness of the pavement.
When I just had got the driver's license, I borrowed a car of my friend's father. We did some 100 km and then turned up a ro highway ramp. The bastard was frozen with the black ice, I was doing something like 80 km/h (50 mph) and the ramp was heavily curved. The car had no ABS, so had to do the slowing down manually without losing control. If that would have crashed, it would have been a bad thing (TM).
There is another case of interesting times, this time in Spring when the snow cover starts to melt. The roads are also melting, or the ice on top of it to be specific, in best parts there is almost polished class mirror ice and then some thin layer of water on top of it. During the wild college years, I had this urge to go through one of that with the speed of 140 km/h (87.5 mph). I don't recommend the experience for any one. But that's about all the stupid stuff I have myself done (= me being the driver) in a car. If you don't count the slow-speed crashing with your own trailer, that is... :)
In downtown, the spikes are almost a necessity when the ice gets polished in the crossroads area. But you use chains? They are used in tractors here, but nowhere else. The another type of tire is the friction tire, where the contact friction has been maximized. I have been driving with those a couple of years, they are surprisingly suitable. The only place where the difference can be noticed is the downtown area.
Mika
-
We generally get ice on everything but the roads... they have chemical formulas that are said to melt the ice then evaporate harmlessly...
We get black ice occasionally, the rocksalt generally keeps that low at most places, though it still happens after large storms. Within 2 days of even blizzards we have clear and dry roads. Chains are used on unpaved roads out of civilization (Vermont), cause theyre easily taken off for when you return to civilization (new york).
We start to get ice in fall, but it is rarely a factor; we waste so much money coating the streets with salt. Dont expect ice on any road in a major city, unless you drive right after a storm.
For us, non-issue.
-
And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.
and so far, i don't think anyone's posted up a car IN THE SAME CLASS as the cadillac in the first post. that's just my opinion
And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:
(http://www.discountnewcars.com.au/carimages/ford_falcon_xr6_turbo_ute_bf.jpg)
that's a nice looking truck. but talk is cheap; tell me when you actually get it. how old are you by the way?
one thing i'd like to point out about that thing though, as nice as it looks, the fronto end looks like it belongs on a car. maybe that's just because i'm used to seeing trucks having sharp edges, flat 'faces' and grills, as opposed to styled and stretched like a car
EDIT: i just realized. i'm sure the difference between "car" and "truck" as used in America is not as the rest of the world understands it. Over here, a 'truck' is anything with a bed at the back. a "car" is anything that doesn't, but isn't a SUV, etc.. But I know in South Africa, a "truck" was the equivalent here to a semi. an 18 wheeler.
It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect :)
yes it looks nice, but i disagree with the "handlingl better". there aren't many trucks that "handle better" than cars, due mostly to the lack of weight at the rear end. sometimes it's possible to overcome that with AWD or FWD, but you're still risking fishtailing when you have no weight back there. performance is another thing i question... in fact, i'd race my Cadillac CTS-V against your truck/car in the picture, any day of the week and guarantee i'd win :) That's one thing that makes the CTS-V so awesome, and even many European fans love it...... because it doesn't just have the brute force of a 400HP LS2, it can also handle like a European sports car. watch Top Gear's demo of it.
that isn't serious "truck" in the pratical sense. You'd never see one on a building site. It's more of a funny looking performance car (Ford Falcon ?). I'd guessing it can carry only a small amount of payload, liike the 80s GMC Syclone performance truck ?
In my experience, guessing which car is "fastest" is usually a pointless argument. There's no way in hell I'd let someone drive my car in the manner required to match the offical 0-60 times, for example.
And I doubt you're statement about the Caddy handling like a "european sports car". No full size saloon will handle like a sports car.
-
that isn't serious "truck" in the pratical sense. You'd never see one on a building site. It's more of a funny looking performance car (Ford Falcon ?). I'd guessing it can carry only a small amount of payload, liike the 80s GMC Syclone performance truck ?
yeah well you'd never see a Cadillac Escalade EXT on a construction site, yet they're still called "Trucks" here. anything with a bed is *shrugs*
And I doubt you're statement about the Caddy handling like a "european sports car". No full size saloon will handle like a sports car.
your*
are you talking out of experience? or just pulling that opinion out of your ass...
according to Top Gear, which Brits swear by apparently (and Americans hate, because they generally bash American cars), here are the numbers the cadillac got against other cars on the Nurburgring (<=== the mother of courses)
1 minute, 33 seconds... beating out the S60R, etc. and hey, wait, this is an American SEDAN!!! wow ;) even that Top Gear host couldn't fault the suspension and handling of the CTS-V
reference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yzCRCAG9s&mode=related&search=
-
Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?
yeah, i've seen those, but in London, 99% of the cars i saw looked like this:
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/01/250px-Hatchback.peugeot.2.arp.750pix.jpg)
in my opinion that's ugly as sin, boxy, eyesore, etc. i associate hatchbacks such as this one, with europe and asia. not too fond of them.
Which is even more ironic when you said that the car can M O V E.
Why is it ironic? You take a 60s Ford Shelby, with a handful of miles on it, showroom condition. WE ALL KNOW that thing can M-O-V-E, but how many owners take their classic, multi-million dollar collector cars down to the track? not many. So just because a car's in showroom condition, doesn't mean it's not able to move, or wasn't able to move back when it was a daily-driver at some point. wow - never thought i'd have to explain that to someone.
Seriously, have you ever considered the possibility that these things what you call luxury might not be luxury somewhere else
Yes, but i'm not going to post disclaimers on every thread i post stating that "the content is soley the OPINION of the author", etc. God damn man, this is the internet. if i say something, don't look at it as signed in blood. how many posts in this forum, or any forum in the world are based on fact. hardly any... usually it's the OPINION of the author. good lord
-
Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?
yeah, i've seen those, but in London, 99% of the cars i saw looked like this:
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/01/250px-Hatchback.peugeot.2.arp.750pix.jpg)
in my opinion that's ugly as sin, boxy, eyesore, etc. i associate hatchbacks such as this one, with europe and asia. not too fond of them.
When were you in London - 1985?
-
Wow, old 306. My mate had one of them - the radiator used to piss water.
-
that isn't serious "truck" in the pratical sense. You'd never see one on a building site. It's more of a funny looking performance car (Ford Falcon ?). I'd guessing it can carry only a small amount of payload, liike the 80s GMC Syclone performance truck ?
yeah well you'd never see a Cadillac Escalade EXT on a construction site, yet they're still called "Trucks" here. anything with a bed is *shrugs*
And I doubt you're statement about the Caddy handling like a "european sports car". No full size saloon will handle like a sports car.
your*
are you talking out of experience? or just pulling that opinion out of your ass...
according to Top Gear, which Brits swear by apparently (and Americans hate, because they generally bash American cars), here are the numbers the cadillac got against other cars on the Nurburgring (<=== the mother of courses)
1 minute, 33 seconds... beating out the S60R, etc. and hey, wait, this is an American SEDAN!!! wow ;) even that Top Gear host couldn't fault the suspension and handling of the CTS-V
reference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yzCRCAG9s&mode=related&search=
it's not all about speed, kid.
edit: Nurburgring in 1:33 ? :wtf: obviously not the full size circuit then. Even a Porsche 956 can't break the 4 minute barrier.
edit again: actually, are we talking sports saloons or actual sports cars ?
-
edit again: actually, are we talking sports saloons or actual sports cars ?
how about 4 door sedans that perform like actual sports cars...
EDIT: and i'm wrong, sorry. they designed the car on the Nurburgring, but Top Gear TESTED it on some seperate track i guess... either way i just saw the numbers, and the chart with the other competitors' numbers.
it's not all about speed, kid.
i know it's not... which is why i didn't post 0-60 or 1/4 mile times... i posted handling times on circuits with corners ;)
-
EDIT: and i'm wrong, sorry. they designed the car on the Nurburgring, but Top Gear TESTED it on some seperate track i guess... either way i just saw the numbers, and the chart with the other competitors' numbers.
http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/laptimes/thestig/ (68 - trounced by 'boxy hatchback', namely the VW Golf, I note)
-
0-60 times mean jack ****, especially when companies are gearing their cars to get to 60 fast and be dogs past that.
-
edit again: actually, are we talking sports saloons or actual sports cars ?
how about 4 door sedans that perform like actual sports cars...
EDIT: and i'm wrong, sorry. they designed the car on the Nurburgring, but Top Gear TESTED it on some seperate track i guess... either way i just saw the numbers, and the chart with the other competitors' numbers.
it's not all about speed, kid.
i know it's not... which is why i didn't post 0-60 or 1/4 mile times... i posted handling times on circuits with corners ;)
Alot of modern performance cars are tuned on the 'ring. TBH I like American cars more than most (RWD and V8s, lovely) but I don't really like modern cars (any, not just yanks). Too big, too heavy, too sanatised. Full of bullshi4 "technology".
I was really tempted by a 2.8 v6 '89 Camaro RS last week :D
-
Considering car acceleration, the 0-100 (0-60) is the most important speed range where the acceleration is needed in every day life. However, there is not really much point in making it faster than say, 10 secs and even this is an overkill. Or can some one figure out a situation where 4 sec 0-100 acceleration is needed? Granted, it should be reasonable, there was a saying that going past someone with a Trabant required surprise...
The only application for acceleration above 100 is when going past a large truck. Even there the effectiveness is questionable, as the average passing takes something like 20-25 secs. Most of the drivers I have met are not very eager to go above 140 km/h - unless they are on Autobahn in Germany.
There is another thing about the rock salt, here it corrodes the car hull. This is the reason they don't want to use it too much here. Disclaimer: we might get one meter of snow in a winter here so I suppose we would throw a lot of salt to the road but also to the surroundings of the road.
My personal favorite for a car would be Subaru Impreza. Mainly because I've never driven much with anything else than 4WD. Also it offers the best driving position (I've short legs and long back) and feeling for my tastes. The current look of that car is not good, I favored 1st generation model. But in my cup, the driving feeling (as in feeling the road underneath), 4WD and response to thrust weigh a lot more than looks. I've driven some other types, and there I really noticed that different people want different response from the car. Both Ford and Saab felt like a train, the recent Saab 9-5 Turbo was a little better but still lacked the sensitivity I so much love. But then again, I've seen people not liking Subarus exactly because of the sensitivity.
Now to get back off topic, Stealth ...
Why is it ironic? You take a 60s Ford Shelby, with a handful of miles on it, showroom condition. WE ALL KNOW that thing can M-O-V-E, but how many owners take their classic, multi-million dollar collector cars down to the track? not many. So just because a car's in showroom condition, doesn't mean it's not able to move, or wasn't able to move back when it was a daily-driver at some point. wow - never thought i'd have to explain that to someone.
It seems that my attempts to make a point based on pure sense have failed. On top of that, the "not - in - blood - analysis" of the last sentence in the quote above reveals two possible choices: it is acceptable to add comments which might be interpreted as inflammatory, provoking or mocking in either American culture (nothing wrong in that, after all it is a cultural thing which I can understand ), or, it is simply the habit of this particular individual. Since I've seen something similar in several other web pages, I'm going to assume it is a cultural thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
So, in order to answer the question you posed, I need to make a fact check so that there has been no communicational misunderstandings. And to ease up the answering burden, I will do it in American style which you are more familiar with:
Questionnaire starts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mika's questionnaire of Stealth's Cadillac in Ameringlish for Dummies.
Yo Brotha, according to yah boasts, ur Cadillac was originally built and intended to be
(Please write T as in "True" or F as in "False" inside the brackets, yes INSIDE the brackets):
a. a bigass everyday car [ ]
b. not pricey [ ]
c. luxurious [ ]
d. comfortable [ ]
e. car is meant tah moove [ ]
f. your car can moove, but also M-O-V-E [ ]
Now man, according to ur posts what u have said is that
(Please write T as in "True" or F as in "False" inside the brackets, yes INSIDE the brackets)
a. Ur Cadillac is pricey [ ]
b. Ur Cadillac is a collectah item [ ]
c. Mitsubishi is ur everyday car as in C-A-R [ ]
d. U are a C-A-R collectah [ ]
e. Collectahs want low mileage [ ]
f. Woot luxury means driving comfooort [ ]
g. Nowadays C-A-Rs lack driving comfooort [ ]
h. Americah prefer comfort and luxury [ ]
Questionnaire ends, don't answer below the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was a single reason for me to end up in hell, the above questionnaire would be it.
I just ímagined our English teacher reading that in formal voice.
Yes, I deserve it even more so.
Mika
-
Questionnaire starts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mika's questionnaire of Stealth's Cadillac in Ameringlish for Dummies.
Yo Brotha, according to yah boasts, ur Cadillac was originally built and intended to be
(Please write T as in "True" or F as in "False" inside the brackets, yes INSIDE the brackets):
a. a bigass everyday car [ T ]
b. not pricey [ T/F ] (relatively speaking... Caddy brought luxury to the masses)
c. luxurious [ T ]
d. comfortable [ T ]
e. car is meant tah moove [ T ]
f. your car can moove, but also M-O-V-E [ T ]
Now man, according to ur posts what u have said is that
(Please write T as in "True" or F as in "False" inside the brackets, yes INSIDE the brackets)
a. Ur Cadillac is pricey [ T ] (now it is)
b. Ur Cadillac is a collectah item [ T ] (now it is)
c. Mitsubishi is ur everyday car as in C-A-R [ F ] (i'm usually in a Mercury Sable)
d. U are a C-A-R collectah [ F ] (too poor)
e. Collectahs want low mileage [ T/F ] (depends on rarity and condition)
f. Woot luxury means driving comfooort [ T ]
g. Nowadays C-A-Rs lack driving comfooort [ T/F ] (some do, others don't)
h. Americah prefer comfort and luxury [ T/F ] (more budget-syndrome and the Jones's)
Questionnaire ends, don't answer below the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How's that?
-
OK, the rationale behind goes like this:
The Cadillac corporation originally intended the car to be luxurious but affordable every man's car, which is very commendable and speaks a lot of the company itself.
Unfortunately, the current times have led the car into a very strange situation:
The car is expensive - Which is contrary to the original idea.
The car is a collector item now - Which is contrary to the original idea.
Because the car is a collector item, it will have a lot less kilometers because its value will drop otherwise - Which is contrary to the definition of a car.
Further, because the car is 60s technology, there is lot less spare parts available, what will further limit the achievable kilometers. - This will further decrease the idea of making it a car in the first place. Basically you end up owning a car which never did anything what the car was supposed to do, and, you will not use it any more than the others because of the dent it will make in the resale value.
And even more so, because Americans seem to prefer luxury when budget allows, one would think that this car would be preferred against newer models as this would mean better driving comfort. - And this sounds very strange to me because you use newer car for your daily driving.
For me, this sounds like a mockery of the original "everyman can..." idea of Cadillac. Which is the reason for irony comment.
Edit: added sentence.
Mika
-
What you're seeing that you call "everyman can" is actually what we call The Jones's... or more properly Keeping Up with The Jones's. Its a bit of the suburban American-life syndrome thing... you buy bigger/better to match or beat your neighbors.
The rarity of the car has more effect on price for collectors... they'd rather a rare Caddy with as few miles as they could, though sometimes the option is not there.
-
Actually, there is a slight difference between that what you said and what I meant.
Volkswagen was originally constructed on the idea that "every man can have a car".
In USA, those Cadillacs were constructed on the idea that "every man can have a nice car".
I would call "Keeping up with the Jones's" neighborhood jealousy, this happens also here if the personalities match.
Mika
-
Volkswagen was originally constructed on the idea that "every man can have a car".
Mika
I think Henry Ford came up with the idea of a truly affordable car by paying his workers good money and not charging silly money for the model T.
-
Mike: I'm going to ignore your earlier post with the questionnaire, because you're showing your age and experience (or lack thereof) pretty clearly. so for your sake i'll just ignore it so you can avoid the embarrasment and pretend like it never happened.
I have to, however, comment on this bit:
Unfortunately, the current times have led the car into a very strange situation:
The car is expensive - Which is contrary to the original idea.
The car is a collector item now - Which is contrary to the original idea.
Because the car is a collector item, it will have a lot less kilometers because its value will drop otherwise - Which is contrary to the definition of a car.
Further, because the car is 60s technology, there is lot less spare parts available, what will further limit the achievable kilometers. - This will further decrease the idea of making it a car in the first place. Basically you end up owning a car which never did anything what the car was supposed to do, and, you will not use it any more than the others because of the dent it will make in the resale value.
And even more so, because Americans seem to prefer luxury when budget allows, one would think that this car would be preferred against newer models as this would mean better driving comfort. - And this sounds very strange to me because you use newer car for your daily driving.
i'm going to comment on the two bolded parts.
First... do you think Cadillac designed this car to be a collector's car? Does ANY manufacturer design a car to, 50 years from production, be a collectors car? Of course not! You name any of your favorite cars of the 40s, 50s, or 60s, and i bet there are collectors somewhere in the world that have low-mileage versions of those cars sitting in their air-conditioned showrooms.
I seriously think you don't understand, or just can't comprehend the idea of a "show" or "collectors" car.
Cars. weren't. designed. to be. collectors. items... over time that's what they've become though. For every 1959 cadillac that has low miles, sitting in a showroom, there are 1000 other 59 cadillacs that were driven into the ground. <== key point.
SECOND,
why would an old cadlilac be preferred over a new one? since when did i say that was the ultimate driving comfort? :wtf: ... technology changes, improves, and as such, the features and benefits of newer cars through the years outweigh old ones. Cadillacs nowadays, 50 years later, are able to get better gas mileage, higher performance, DEFINATELY better handling, and are packed with all the luxuries of cars today, such as air-conditioned seats, GPS, etc. etc. etc.
-
Cadillacs nowadays, 50 years later, are able to get better gas mileage, higher performance, DEFINATELY better handling, and are packed with all the luxuries of cars today, such as air-conditioned seats, GPS, etc. etc. etc.
What are air-conditioned seats? I only ever heard of heated seats...
Anyways... you are right about what you said before the quote; (most) cars are designed to be practical for what they're designed to do, and i mean more than just transport people and cargo around. Some cars, plain and simple, will NEVER become a collectors item; think of the most crap-tacular car you see often. That car is probably early 90s. In 50 years, that car will be just the same, expect probably seen EXCLUSIVELY in junkyards, preferably in many pieces.
Anyways... true classics will stay around in rarity, to be admired mostly for one major aspect. 50s are known for class. 80s are known for power. I expect increasing rarity, as I should. Cars die many different ways. A 50s style Cadillac made in the 21st Century is not a 50s Cadillac. Once the year is over, it's over. Done deal.
-
i've seen those air-conditioned seats on the BMW 7 series and Mercedes S550. the seats have little holes all over them that blow (gently) cold air. actually i don't think they're called air-conditioned seats, they're called "air-cooled" seats, or something like that.
-
Oh. Never heard of em... they're probably too expensive for us to get anyways. We only have heated seats in my Uncle's explored because it was the only white Explorer in the area. It was given at a great discount.
-
Listen up, I have no problem to hoist a few (and maybe a few more) with any of the guys here. But I have about had it with personal remarks, regardless how subtle, crude or jokingly they were intended to be. Nothing that I write here is without thinking of consequences.
Back to business:
I think there are cars nowadays which are designed to become collector items, at least partially intentionally. The manufacturing amounts of certain cars are so low that they are basically collector items. Before, no.
I seriously think you don't understand, or just can't comprehend the idea of a "show" or "collectors" car.
Has this not been clear from the beginning? Yes, this is indeed true. I understand easily keeping your own, well-served car in the garage, and driving around time by time. It has personal value. Even I would wish I still had the same car what I bought when I'm 70 - and that would be something to talk about also. But I don't understand what kind of value one could get by buying someone else's old car with a large amount of cash - rather than to buy an expensive car. And even more, what there could possibly be to add by putting that car into hermetically sealed sack - especially if one has never driven with the model? Or just about anything what is collected?
Regardless, cars were meant to move, not remain parked. If they remain parked, they will soon be unable to move at all - be it collectors car or a normal one. The spare parts are available only for a limited time and when it has gone that is when final countdown starts for that car. Unless you can hire your own restoration team, that is - but even their knowledge of the manufacturing techniques is limited to certain time range. What happens when you can't any more get the fuel what the car needs?
Regarding the comfort and luxury, you didn't say ultimate, but:
You can say what you want, but in America, Cadillac always has, and still is, the symbol of luxury and class."
That was on page 2, at the bottom.
well go ahead and ask anyone in america if they find Cadillacs to be a standard of class and luxury in cars.
i just asked all 8 people in the room here with me, and didn't get a "no"
This is on page 3.
Bob-san said on page 2:
It is still an American icon for style, luxury, and class.
All this translates to me as pretty close to ultimate. But now that I think of it, or are you referring to the new Cadillac models? If this is the case, why you didn't mention this?
Mika
-
It all depends on the actual model if it is considered so highly... mostly on personal opinion on a mass scale will get a car recognized as a classic. Its pretty close to "the ultimate" as it does deliver what Americans want; style, class, and luxury. Not to mention memory... one of the reasons people like the Cadillacs of old is because there are memories of them; older people will remember being a small child and looking up at a big fancy car, thinking something to the idea of "I'm going to be driving this when I'm an adult". Alot of younger people (myself included) have had exposure to the style of cars, and I genuinely like the car. I couldn't be inheriting the car if I didn't like it.
I haven't had any real experience with newer Cadillac models, so I would not be a good judge of more recent stuff. It's just like commenting on an expensive Rolls-Royce... I never so much as saw one that would be driven (not showroom museum models) that I remember. I know they're a nice car, though I can't really comment much on them other then saying what I know.
-
Heh, on the topic of old driveable cars, and your own restoration team - Jay Leno
http://www.popularmechanics.com/greengarage
http://www.vmix.com/view.php?id=1596605¤t_resourceid=1596605&type=video
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/
EDIT: Added Jay Leno's garage link.
-
I think there are cars nowadays which are designed to become collector items, at least partially intentionally. The manufacturing amounts of certain cars are so low that they are basically collector items. Before, no.
but not these. maybe some limited production Cobra or something, but not these 59 cadillacs, or any other comparable cars of the time. Cadillac hasn't ever done something like that
Has this not been clear from the beginning? Yes, this is indeed true. I understand easily keeping your own, well-served car in the garage, and driving around time by time. It has personal value. Even I would wish I still had the same car what I bought when I'm 70 - and that would be something to talk about also. But I don't understand what kind of value one could get by buying someone else's old car with a large amount of cash BINGO - you DON'T understand, as i predicted, the idea of a show or collectors car. and you can't blame this one on Americans either. collectors around the WORLD agree on it. there are some cars that are simply for visual enjoyment. they might get routinely started and driven just to keep the engine and drivetrain running, but for the most part, they are not to be driven, just looked at. this is not an alien concept by any means... it's what collectors do, whether Americna, European, Australian, etc. - rather than to buy an expensive car. And even more, what there could possibly be to add by putting that car into hermetically sealed sack - especially if one has never driven with the model? Or just about anything what is collected?
Regardless, cars were meant to move, not remain parked. If they remain parked, they will soon be unable to move at all - be it collectors car or a normal one.again, you don't understand - collectors don't WANT their cars to be able to 'move'. they want them for show. and that whole argument of "cars were meant to move, not remain parked" is moot anyway... if you go to a museum where they have a wooden wagon wheel from the 1800s... why don't they strap that wheel onto a cart and push it around? I mean... the wagon wheel was MEANT to be on a cart and moving, right? so what good does it serve sitting in a museum? ...Get the point? The spare parts are available only for a limited time and when it has gone that is when final countdown starts for that car. Unless you can hire your own restoration team, that is - but even their knowledge of the manufacturing techniques is limited to certain time range. What happens when you can't any more get the fuel what the car needs?
All this translates to me as pretty close to ultimate. But now that I think of it, or are you referring to the new Cadillac models?
If this is the case, why you didn't mention this?
not sure what you're getting at here... but yes, Cadillac is a symbol of luxury in America. of course there are much bigger symbols around, such as Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Maserati, etc... but not without paying $200,000 more than you could for a cadillac.
Mika
-
And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.
and so far, i don't think anyone's posted up a car IN THE SAME CLASS as the cadillac in the first post. that's just my opinion
And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:
(http://www.discountnewcars.com.au/carimages/ford_falcon_xr6_turbo_ute_bf.jpg)
that's a nice looking truck. but talk is cheap; tell me when you actually get it. how old are you by the way?
one thing i'd like to point out about that thing though, as nice as it looks, the fronto end looks like it belongs on a car. maybe that's just because i'm used to seeing trucks having sharp edges, flat 'faces' and grills, as opposed to styled and stretched like a car
EDIT: i just realized. i'm sure the difference between "car" and "truck" as used in America is not as the rest of the world understands it. Over here, a 'truck' is anything with a bed at the back. a "car" is anything that doesn't, but isn't a SUV, etc.. But I know in South Africa, a "truck" was the equivalent here to a semi. an 18 wheeler.
It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect :)
yes it looks nice, but i disagree with the "handlingl better". there aren't many trucks that "handle better" than cars, due mostly to the lack of weight at the rear end. sometimes it's possible to overcome that with AWD or FWD, but you're still risking fishtailing when you have no weight back there. performance is another thing i question... in fact, i'd race my Cadillac CTS-V against your truck/car in the picture, any day of the week and guarantee i'd win :) That's one thing that makes the CTS-V so awesome, and even many European fans love it...... because it doesn't just have the brute force of a 400HP LS2, it can also handle like a European sports car. watch Top Gear's demo of it.
It's a ute, something that's more or less unique to Australia. It's essentially the latest falcon sedan (Falcons being Ford's local 4 door sedan (with power comparable to an american muscle car in the modern variants) with the rear seats and boot replaced with a tray. My version will be the sports variant, load limited to about 750 - 800 kgs, but with the stronger suspension on the standard Falcon utes they can carry over a tonne.
As for the CSTV, it might win against the ute because you're right, limited weight over the rear axle does impact performance. Moreover, the CST has a bigger, V8 engine to my 6 cylinder turbo. So yeah, yours has more power. But the main issue is that the Cadillac would cost 64000 AUD - mine is two thirds the cost. Hell, even going up to the XR8 and trimming it up to luxury levels (not hard in the XR Series, since they're pretty far up the ford range down here) comes out cheaper. So I'll be happy with my ute, especially since iut's vastly, vastly cooler in Australia to have an XR ute than it is some American car.
Oh, and for the record, I'm 21 and graduating next year into a guaranteed 72,000 a year, probably more if I actually looked around the job market rather than going with the first company who've offered me a job. So I will be getting this car.
[EDIT]Interesting - the XR8 has exactly the same engine specs as the Holden Monaro, which only lost to the CST by .6 seconds, and weight difference between the two is negligible. Without putting the XR8 over the track, it'd be difficult to say which'd be faster, but I doubt it'd be a comfortable win for either car. And again, the XR8, even specced out, is about 10000 AUD cheaper.
-
It's a ute, something that's more or less unique to Australia. It's essentially the latest falcon sedan (Falcons being Ford's local 4 door sedan (with power comparable to an american muscle car in the modern variants) with the rear seats and boot replaced with a tray. My version will be the sports variant, load limited to about 750 - 800 kgs, but with the stronger suspension on the standard Falcon utes they can carry over a tonne.
yeah like i said, i'm not going to lie... it's not a bad looking truck
As for the CSTV, it might win against the ute because you're right, limited weight over the rear axle does impact performance. Moreover, the CST has a bigger, V8 engine to my 6 cylinder turbo. So yeah, yours has more power. But the main issue is that the Cadillac would cost 64000 AUD - mine is two thirds the cost. Hell, even going up to the XR8 and trimming it up to luxury levels (not hard in the XR Series, since they're pretty far up the ford range down here) comes out cheaper. So I'll be happy with my ute, especially since iut's vastly, vastly cooler in Australia to have an XR ute than it is some American car.
yeah that's one thing you have over me, and that's always been one of the main arguments against the CTS-V - the price tag
Oh, and for the record, I'm 21 and graduating next year into a guaranteed 72,000 a year, probably more if I actually looked around the job market rather than going with the first company who've offered me a job. So I will be getting this car.
that's good; wanted to make sure you weren't a 15 year old kid speaking out of your ass
[EDIT]Interesting - the XR8 has exactly the same engine specs as the Holden Monaro, which only lost to the CST by .6 seconds, and weight difference between the two is negligible. Without putting the XR8 over the track, it'd be difficult to say which'd be faster, but I doubt it'd be a comfortable win for either car. And again, the XR8, even specced out, is about 10000 AUD cheaper.
but in the first paragraph you just said that you have a 6 cylinder, whereas my CTS-V (not CST - lol, you confused me with that) has a V8. the Holden Monaro, or Vauxhall Monaro, or Pontiac GTO as it's known in the US, came with either a 5.7L or 6.0L (depending on the year). The 5.7L LS6 or the 6.0L LS2. The cadillac CTS-V, interestingly, has the exact same drivetrain as the Pontiac GTO (Monaro), but the only reason it's slightly faster is due to gearing. However, it was the 5.7 and 6.0 liter Monaros/GTOs (the CV6 I believe they're called) that could compete with the Cadillac CTS-V, not 6 cylinder versions of them.
i know i rambled on a bit, but i'll sum it up here :p :
The Monaro that could run with the CTS-V was the CV6 version, with the V8s, not any of the other V6 versions, who were ~2 seconds slower in the 0-60. Since you said your car has a 6 cylinder, i'd assume you're mistaken when you you say your car can run with the CTS-V
-
Volkswagen was originally constructed on the idea that "every man can have a car".
Mika
I think Henry Ford came up with the idea of a truly affordable car by paying his workers good money and not charging silly money for the model T.
He had local asylum residents working on his mechanised production line, being paid **** all.
-
but in the first paragraph you just said that you have a 6 cylinder, whereas my CTS-V (not CST - lol, you confused me with that) has a V8. the Holden Monaro, or Vauxhall Monaro, or Pontiac GTO as it's known in the US, came with either a 5.7L or 6.0L (depending on the year). The 5.7L LS6 or the 6.0L LS2. The cadillac CTS-V, interestingly, has the exact same drivetrain as the Pontiac GTO (Monaro), but the only reason it's slightly faster is due to gearing. However, it was the 5.7 and 6.0 liter Monaros/GTOs (the CV6 I believe they're called) that could compete with the Cadillac CTS-V, not 6 cylinder versions of them.
i know i rambled on a bit, but i'll sum it up here :p :
The Monaro that could run with the CTS-V was the CV6 version, with the V8s, not any of the other V6 versions, who were ~2 seconds slower in the 0-60. Since you said your car has a 6 cylinder, i'd assume you're mistaken when you you say your car can run with the CTS-V
The XR8 has the same engine specs as the Monaro - the next step up in the falcon sports line from the XR6 Turbo, which will be what I'm getting. This is just me assuming everyone will know the differences between the two, since it's pretty standard knowledge here in Australia.
-
Regarding collectors and museums, I don't have any problems with stuff on display in museums. It is there so that you can see what was before and how it led to things that are today. Private collectors, generally, do not serve this purpose. Jay Leno seems to be an exception, at least he is also talking about the engineering points in the cars he has acquired. He is also the only car collector I know by name. But I'm not familiar with TV formats or TV personnel in US - nor with the museum system in US. Here, museums are funded by taxes and there are only a handful of private museums.
But thanks for putting on those links.
Some stuff I found to be of interest:
Three wheeled car constructed by 17-year-old guy. Engine was taken from Indian motorcycle. Built from the extra parts. Chain transmission, 200000 miles behind it. Quite an achievement.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/3475911.html?page=1
Mazda with a Wankel motor.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/2629006.html?page=1
Imagine how much work had be done to make this kind of engine possible. Even Leno's restoration team had no experience of these engines.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/2420976.html?page=2
Interesting point. What I know is that there used to be a guy in the service stations who was solely responsible for oiling and greasing. This guy was quite respected man, for he made it sure that your car will be able to do the other 10000 km. For some reason, the car manufacturers have decided to go to the current service system. I have collegue who had trouble with a '85-'90 Mitsu (forgot the year). The car already has a diagnostic computer, only the reading device has to be bought. Unfortunately, the price for the reading system is like 500 €. Basically that thing contains a resistor and a LED. He was able to make his own reader and check out what was the problem, so maybe there is still hope.
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/owen_shell.shtml
Huh? I cannot understand if this thing works with gas (as in gaseous form) or with gasoline from the text. Anyways, it has a generator and directs the current to electrical motor located in wheels. Never heard about this thing before. Quite a transmission this thing has.
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/toronado_shell.shtml
They put a 1070 hp engine in front wheel drive?! Ah, not so. They changed it to rear wheel drive first. The only question is that doesn't that thing has enough power to bend the whole damn transmission axis like Viper?
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/topolino_shell.shtml
Makes you think how much unnecessary stuff todays cars carry...
Citroen DS, a car which is probably better known around Europe than US.
http://www.citroen.mb.ca/june00/68IDbrochure/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_DS
Advanced thing in its time (manufacturing started from 1955). I have heard stories about that thing, many people thought that the suspension had failed when the car stopped and the suspension lowered down.
Mika
-
The XR8 has the same engine specs as the Monaro - the next step up in the falcon sports line from the XR6 Turbo, which will be what I'm getting. This is just me assuming everyone will know the differences between the two, since it's pretty standard knowledge here in Australia.
But the Monaro doesn't have the same engine specs as the Monaro CV8, which has the same engine specs as the CTS-V.
-
The last CV8-Z pumped out 260 kW and 500Nm of torque - exactly what you get out of Falcon's new Barra 260, which they put in the BFII XR8s, except the BF gets its torque lower down in the revs.
-
then that's not the car that could run with the CTS-V, because the GTOs here (Monaros elsewhere) (not sure of what model they are, i assumed it was the CV8), have 400 HP. it's those 400HP cars that run with the CTS-Vs, not the 350HP ones you're referring to
-
The last CV8-Z pumped out 260 kW and 500Nm of torque....
what's that in old money ?
On the subject of restorations, did anybody else read about that fella who spent a mint restoring a white E30 M3 only to stash it in a car cacoon (like a big sealed tent) and has openly declared it will never leave ththe cocoon again. Ever.
Will try and find a source but I can't remember where I saw it.
-
to each his own Roanoke.
also, that's 350HP. not sure of the torque rating though
-
Stealth, are you familiar with that Citroen model that I posted recently?
Mika
-
i'm not going to lie:
no i'm not at all familiar with it :p
-
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/A686FUP/Front.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/A686FUP/Off-Side.jpg)
proper mota
-
Refering to first post: God please dont tell me thats you... also, whats up with the old and UGLY car?
Why do people like that old crap? seriously.. not that newer cars are much better. Meh.
-
... yes it is me, you got a problem with me? why... because i'm not as unshaven or as big a nerd as you'd like me to be?
-
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/A686FUP/Front.jpg
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/A686FUP/Off-Side.jpg
proper mota
Good lord, an Opel Manta! I thought our family was the only one to ever own one... and I haven't seen any since until now! Ours was black...
That said, I preferred this ;)
(http://europeanautohausinc.com/_wsn/89%20Jag%20xjs.JPG)
-
I've a soft spot for the big cat. Has to be the earlier models, with the flying buttress rear end though.
As for Mantas, I've got two of the buggers:
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m101/E555KHY/mine1.jpg)
but this one is off the road, restoration and crazy modifications pending.
-
Kalfireth, Mantas are still being used here and are quite common.
Roanoke, you might find these interesting:
http://irc-galleria.net/view.php?nick=Fallu&image_id=11210801
(Seems that they have changed the hull to Opel Ascona but kept the outer look...)
Another Manta 1971,
http://www.nettiauto.com/viewVehicle.php?id_car=166833&PN%5B0%5D=cat_link_2&PL%5B0%5D=listCategory.php?id=7
2600 km, 20000 €. Straight 6 engine, 350 hp. Personally I think they have wasted a perfectly good car.
-
Kalfireth, Mantas are still being used here and are quite common.
Roanoke, you might find these interesting:
http://irc-galleria.net/view.php?nick=Fallu&image_id=11210801
(Seems that they have changed the hull to Opel Ascona but kept the outer look...)
I don't understand. looks like a normal manta with some stripes to me :)
Kalfireth, Mantas are still being used here and are quite common.
Another Manta 1971,
http://www.nettiauto.com/viewVehicle.php?id_car=166833&PN%5B0%5D=cat_link_2&PL%5B0%5D=listCategory.php?id=7
2600 km, 20000 €. Straight 6 engine, 350 hp. Personally I think they have wasted a perfectly good car.
I've seen this one before. Very nice but that 6 cylinder engine puts an awful lot of weight ahead of the front wheels.
-
It is not a Manta at all. Only the outer panels are taken from a Manta. Inside, it's all Opel Ascona 2.0 and its technique.
-
They're the same anyway. Ascona/Cavalier/Manta all the parts are interchangeable. People like to put the Ascona front on a Manta and call it a "Mancona" :D
-
Currently lusting after this:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CHEVROLET-GMC-CAMARO-RED-LPG_W0QQitemZ180104844767QQcategoryZ18301QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
someone loan me £3k ?
-
IROC-Z, nice :)
-
... yes it is me, you got a problem with me? why... because i'm not as unshaven or as big a nerd as you'd like me to be?
No. Its just i feel sorry for you. Your parked on the sidewalk, and you must be picking up parking violations:P
-
IROC-2, nice :)
IROC-Z ;)
-
Ya, that.. :nervous: pretty car. :D
-
This car (http://ceed.kiamotors.com/) isn't a dream car or even a luxury car, but it is affordable, practical, looks good and it's is my new car as soon as it arrives.
The 1,6liter (89,7kW/122hp) EX HB model costs me only 13 466€ (18,205.29 USD) because I exchange it for my old car. When I took it for a short test drive, it felt very nice and engine was very quiet. The car comes with 5 year (or 150 000km) warranty, 7 years (or 150 000km) for engine, transmission and gearbox. Fair deal I reckon, I'm quite content with my choice, but that's pretty ignorant statement as the car hasn't even arrived yet. :)
It seems like the international site is very slow, so here's a link (http://kiamotors.fi/?p=464) to finnish site with pics.
-
I really hate it when they hide the engine behind huge chunks of plastic.