[aldo_14]

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)

[Taristin]

0-60 times mean jack ****, especially when companies are gearing their cars to get to 60 fast and be dogs past that.

[Roanoke]

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

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 

[Mika]

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

[Bob-san]

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?

[Mika]

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

[Bob-san]

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.

[Mika]

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

[Roanoke]

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.

[Stealth]

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? ... 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.

[Bob-san]

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.

[Stealth]

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.

[Bob-san]

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.

[Mika]

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

[Bob-san]

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". 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.

[jr2]

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&current_resourceid=1596605&type=video
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/
EDIT: Added Jay Leno's garage link.

[Stealth]

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

[Black Wolf]

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:


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.

[Stealth]

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 :
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

[vyper]

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.