[Flipside]

Most of Europe is far more class-centric than it likes to admit though.

[aldo_14]

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).

[Stealth]

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. 

[aldo_14]

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 .

[Mika]

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

[Roanoke]

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.

[Stealth]

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

*shakes head*

[Stealth]

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

[aldo_14]

A Lexus?

[Black Wolf]

HAHAHAHA

you need a girlfriend man

And the random arbitrary comment of the day goes to...

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.

[vyper]

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):







(Sadly, this was never put into mass production, but the design is real.)












But of course... it's all down to personal preference. I'll just take that XJ and be leaving now...

[Bob-san]

Now for american cars....









^^Note: That is water on the hood^^



^^Note: That I assume was taken during winter (rocksalt much?)



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)

[vyper]

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.

[aldo_14]

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

[Stealth]

And the random arbitrary comment of the day goes to...

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.

[Stealth]

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

[aldo_14]

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. 

[Roanoke]

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

[aldo_14]

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

Is it some form of Manta, perchance?

[Stealth]

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