Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DANK_AS_gay]

11 hours ago, Bitter said:

I think battery packs in general are proving to be more reliable and longer lived than expected. I'd take a used BEV over a crappy new gas car like one of those shitty turbo GM cars. Plus you need to figure in all the pollution from oil changes too and all the energy from transporting and recycling used oil.

That's nothing compared to the environmental impact of this:

 

It's easy to justify a phone, because it would only take like 10 minutes to get that much cobalt, but a car? The Tesla Model X and the Model S (II) have 7kg of cobalt in each car. That multiplied by the number of Tesla Model X's sold (93148)= 652036kg of cobalt. That's the X. Not the 3s, not either generation S, just the X. 650 Million iPhone were in the Apple battery replacement program, at 10g of cobalt each= 6500000kg of Cobalt. But that's including everything from the 6 until now, and the older phones had much worse battery technology as you can imagine. One generation of electric car vs 7 generations of the single most popular mobile phone product line isn't exactly fair, but the fact that it's that close is shocking.

Plus recycling oil is a good thing, means we don't have to use as much, and synthetics also are a good thing. The one thing I think Tesla does right, is consolidating all of the chips and subsystems into a few chips. That makes it cheaper to produce, simpler, and much easier to get some out during a chip shortage. Meanwhile most other companies have a different microchip for each part of the car it seems. Trunk hatch? Chip. Left taillight? Chip. Right taillight? Different chip. Seems like common sense to me to put those together and save a buck. Makes your car simpler, which means more reliable, and cheaper to produce, but we can't have people thinking can we? That's dangerous for their health.

7 hours ago, IPD said:

Temperature tends to be the thing that kills off batteries faster.  Specifically heat.  I was watching a vid on YT recently where they were comparing OEM stated range (new) against actual range after ~10 years or so.  Tesla's were ~9% degredation, where Leaf's were ~20%; they chalked this up to the Leaf lacking any active cooling measures for the battery packs--which means they cook on a hot day.

 

I think I saw the same vid, and as I said earlier, the Ford Lightning struggles to keep up charging speeds (as in the drop below half of the peak, something Ford specifically designed their truck not to do) at 100 degrees F, a common temperature during the summer in the US.

On 6/29/2022 at 10:38 AM, theninja35 said:

You could use my argument and say that in the long-run, hydrogen can be made more efficient, but then why not start with something that's already more efficient and develop it further?

Hydrogen has the same customer comforts as Electric (battery electric anyways) and ICE, while having fewer drawbacks. You can fill your tank easily and quickly, it's silent, etc. Something Jay Leno said in reference to the GM Turbine car, was that people don't want to move on to something new unless there is a benefit to doing so (not a direct quote). He said that the Turbine car was just as good as a normal car, but that was the problem. It wasn't markedly better. EVs are at best a side-grade. This is why there is so much pushback. The appeal of fast 0-60 times doesn't outweigh the drawbacks a battery has. Plus, Hydrogen may not be efficient, but the Toyota Mirai being tested by Motortrend cost them as much as a normal ICE with roughly 20 mpg. That's mostly because the cost of hydrogen is high (it didn't increase like gas did, but it was at $11-$13 per kg). I would personally be fine with Hydrogen. Especially given that a tank capable of withstanding 500+ PSI isn't exactly going to care about a wreck, so long as an overloaded pickup truck doesn't flatten it against a concrete wall. In which case you are dead anyways. 

[IPD]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

It seems like GM makes a lot of stupid decisions, I saw a post a bit ago from a GM fan, getting frustrated and listing all of the potential successes that ended up being failures because GM got the car perfect, then, after putting all of that money into it, they discontinued it. The Fiero for example.

This is 100% truth.  GM's axiom is they will promptly assassinate whatever they have perfected.

 

-Isuzu has a mid-engined supercar prototype (4200R)?  KILL IT because we can't have something that is superior to the Corvette!

-Isuzu has mastered the budget off-road market?  KILL IT and usurp everything competent in it to boost Chevy and GMC sales!

-Aztek prototype debuts to rave reviews?  KILL IT by overdesign-by-committee and making it into a bloated, fugly walrus

-Fiero is finally a competent mid-engined car that will compete with the likes of the MR2?  KILL IT!

-Blackwing V8 engine is a fantastic addition to the Cadillac lineup?  KILL IT, replace with conventional tech, usurp it for Corvette ZR1

-C7 Z06 supercharged V8 engine?  KILL IT, convince people that losing 132 torque on the flat-plane N/A C8 Z06 is "an improvement"!

-Competitors are reviving competent off-road SUV classics?  Revive the Blazer as a boring grocery-getter!

-USA craves a compact/sub-compact pickup or UTE?  Kill off Holden and never bring the UTE to the USA!

-Ford debuts Maverick, Hyundai debuts Santa Cruz?  Refuse to bring the Chevy Montana to the USA!

-USA desperately needs a smaller, competent SUV to compete with the Wrangler?  SELL OFF Suzuki stock and refuse to help bring the Jimny back to the USA, even though it is selling like wildfire in Mexico!

 

I mean the list goes on and on.  GM couldn't find it's ass with both hands.

[DANK_AS_gay]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

USA craves a compact/sub-compact pickup or UTE?

I miss the Ford Ranger. The good ones, not the new one. A small pickup is perfect for someone who needs the utility of a truck, but doesn't tow large loads, and needs the gas mileage.

I mean, look at this:

 

That doesn't look cool. It looks like a brick. Literally the front of it is a flat slab of chrome and plastic. And it's pointless too. You know that whoever buys this does not ever tow anything.

 

This is a real truck. It has few luxuries, but you don't want luxuries, because they would get covered in mud and scratched with nails/hobnailed boots. My friend got in a 5 car pileup in a 2003 Ford Ranger. He made money off of that crash, because the thing took little damage in the wreck due to the tow hitch taking the brunt of the force from the rear, and his bumper being offset from his grille. The worst damage was a leak in his radiator. Insurance gave him like a grand. He only needed $300 for a new radiator and tow hitch. I didn't even know it was in an accident looking at it. It looks brand new. It's 20 years old. We used that thing to transport our tools and robots for robotics. I was so jealous even with my FX4 2005 F150. 

1 hour ago, IPD said:

USA desperately needs a smaller, competent SUV to compete with the Wrangler?

BRONCO! BRONCO! BRONCO!

Ford tried 4 times to make retro cars. The (2000) Thunderbird sucked. The GT was fantastic! The Mustang was good, a modern (for 2005/06) take on a timeless classic. But the Bronco? Man I love that thing. It looks good, and it really is an off road beast. I think it perfectly fits with the legacy of the old Bronco, and the sales show that many agree with me. I was so pissed when I saw the Blazer get disrespected like that. I thought the Bronco would force GM to resurrect the Blazer as a similar vehicle given that their legacies are so similar. Aside from O.J. Simpson.

I'm not even a GM fan.  I'm mostly a Ford fan because occasionally you get a breath of fresh air from them. Like the cars I mentioned above, and they have won in every kind of racing. F1 with the Cosworth engines. Rally with the RS 200 and 2000, later the Focus and Fiesta WRC cars. Endurance with the Mk. 40, and later, on the anniversary of the Ford GT Mk. 40 winning Le Mans, they came back in 2017 (I forget which) with the new Ford GT, and won, first try. They created muscle cars. They took the then new SVT Raptor (completely stock) to the Baja 1000 and made it through the entire race without breaking down once.

But they can't make a good everyday car/truck anymore. They let RAM catch up with the TRX, and Ford's response, the Raptor R, not coming out until at least a year later.

 

[Bitter]

5 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

GM designer: what if we put ebay china turbos in our cars?

GM executive: LETS DO IT

  

5 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

GM designer: what if we put ebay china turbos in our cars?

GM executive: LETS DO IT

2015 Buick Encore, no cooling fan operation. Been to dealer and another shop. Somehow everyone missed these problems???

GM expected these contacts top and bottom to carry upto 60 amps and probably around 50 amps continually. I'm no rocket surgeon but that's not a lot of contact area and the bottom one clearly ate shit when the fan died. Crazy thing is, connection failed from over current but the fuse never blew. Solid engineering there.

[IPD]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

 

BRONCO! BRONCO! BRONCO!

Ford tried 4 times to make retro cars. The (2000) Thunderbird sucked. The GT was fantastic! The Mustang was good, a modern (for 2005/06) take on a timeless classic. But the Bronco? Man I love that thing. It looks good, and it really is an off road beast. I think it perfectly fits with the legacy of the old Bronco, and the sales show that many agree with me. I was so pissed when I saw the Blazer get disrespected like that. I thought the Bronco would force GM to resurrect the Blazer as a similar vehicle given that their legacies are so similar. Aside from O.J. Simpson.

The day they announced details, I looked at the wheelbase.  100.4".

 

Sorry, Ford, that is not a "small SUV".  The 2-door Wrangler is 96.8"--and that's already too big.  Ford opted to pay homage to the looks of the 1g, without actually doing anything in true 1g fashion.  No roadster.  No 2-door soft-top.  No 2-door Raptor.  No storage for the doors in a 2-door in the back.  And no 3.5L ecoboost option regardless.  Nostalgia will wear off.  Ford missed the boat on this about as much as Hyundai missed the boat when they neglected to ever offer the Tau V8 in the Genesis Coupe.

 

Meanwhile, the 4g Jimny has an 88.6" wheelbase and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

 

The day kei cars are mainstream in the USA--will be a wonderful time to rejoice.

[Bitter]

2000 Celica has a 102.4 inch wheel base I think. You're telling me a 2D Wrangler is too long but is shorter THAN A SPORTSY CAR!?

[AlwaysFSX]

9 minutes ago, Bitter said:

2000 Celica has a 102.4 inch wheel base I think. You're telling me a 2D Wrangler is too long but is shorter THAN A SPORTSY CAR!?

IT MUST BE NIMBLE AND ABLE TO ROLL LIKE A SUZUKI SAMURAI.

[IPD]

28 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

IT MUST BE NIMBLE AND ABLE TO ROLL LIKE A SUZUKI SAMURAI.

To be fair, the "rollover risk" ballyhoo was entirely fabricated.  Consumer Reports deliberately tried to roll the car repeatedly--and failed.  And after one extreme attempt where it "tapped" an outrigger slightly, they cited that single result as proof-positive of it being dangerous.  There's also comparison footage of the route that the Jimny took on the course, which was sharper than the route the "competing" vehicles were driven.  Meaning that the lateral forces were higher on the Jimny.

 

 

 

I do not get the fascination with cars the size of imperial starcruisers.  But for the love of god, stop the FUD.  CR fucked Suzuku; plain and simple.

38 minutes ago, Bitter said:

2000 Celica has a 102.4 inch wheel base I think. You're telling me a 2D Wrangler is too long but is shorter THAN A SPORTSY CAR!?

90.9" on a 2022 MX5. 94.5" on an S2000.  Even the 1991 Celica wasn't that small by comparison (at 99.4").

[DANK_AS_gay]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

1g

 

1 hour ago, IPD said:

4g

??

What does g stand for?

And, Ford could've done a lot worse.

Yikes. Not even close.

At least the Bronco is close.

 

 

[AlwaysFSX]

49 minutes ago, IPD said:

To be fair, the "rollover risk" ballyhoo was entirely fabricated.  Consumer Reports deliberately tried to roll the car repeatedly--and failed.  And after one extreme attempt where it "tapped" an outrigger slightly, they cited that single result as proof-positive of it being dangerous.  There's also comparison footage of the route that the Jimny took on the course, which was sharper than the route the "competing" vehicles were driven.  Meaning that the lateral forces were higher on the Jimny.

Why can't I get a fun reply for once lol

25 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

??

What does g stand for?

 

A mystery we may never solve.

[DANK_AS_gay]

45 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Why can't I get a fun reply for once lol

 

A mystery we may never solve.

Here's a wonderful solution. 1st Gen, 2nd Gen, 3rd Gen. 

"1g" Could mean anything. 1 Granny. 1 Gravity. 1 Game.

[JoaoPRSousa]

Yes, mister dictator.

[Bitter]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Here's a wonderful solution. 1st Gen, 2nd Gen, 3rd Gen. 

"1g" Could mean anything. 1 Granny. 1 Gravity. 1 Game.

Yes, we're talking about grandmas in a thread titled

"Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

JFC dude get some context going, are you this stupid or just pretending to be this stupid to try to make some shitty point? I'm seriously not able to tell right now.

[IPD]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Here's a wonderful solution. 1st Gen, 2nd Gen, 3rd Gen. 

"1g" Could mean anything. 1 Granny. 1 Gravity. 1 Game.

It will really start messing with your head when I start referring to them by production ID rather than generation.

 

eg.

FB, FC, FD - RX7

R32, R33, R34 - Skyline

Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5 - Supra

YJ, TJ, JK, JL - Wrangler

R170, R171, R172 - SLK

[Bitter]

Those JK Wranglers REALLY are a JK. Worst generation ever I think.

[DANK_AS_gay]

Just now, Bitter said:

Yes, we're talking about grandmas in a thread titled

"Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

JFC dude get some context going, are you this stupid or just pretending to be this stupid to try to make some shitty point? I'm seriously not able to tell right now.

Normally I am great at analyzing context to determine the meaning of a word I do not understand. That's how I read the Count De Monte Cristo in 4th grade. Obviously my vocabulary wasn't to that level yet, but I was able to get the gist. You do realize what 1g means in the context of force on a car during turns and acceleration right? That was the only 1g that I could think of, and it didn't makes sense. The reason why people say 1st Gen is to write in shorthand first generation. I genuinely did not understand what he was saying. I also asked politely. It was when I got a sarcastic response that I made the shitty point. I do not like being talked down to. I am here to learn and discuss. When I ask a simple fucking question, I don't expect a sarcastic or demeaning response. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

5 minutes ago, IPD said:

It will really start messing with your head when I start referring to them by production ID rather than generation.

 

eg.

FB, FC, FD - RX7

R32, R33, R34 - Skyline

Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5 - Supra

YJ, TJ, JK, JL - Wrangler

R170, R171, R172 - SLK

The simple number/letter progression makes sense. The YJ, TJ, JK, JL doesn't make sense. 

Oh also, before I asked, I looked this up. I tried to not bother you guys, but all I got were idiotic news articles from 2012 about phones. 

[IPD]

20 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

The simple number/letter progression makes sense. The YJ, TJ, JK, JL doesn't make sense. 

Oh also, before I asked, I looked this up. I tried to not bother you guys, but all I got were idiotic news articles from 2012 about phones. 

Manufacturers make those designations.  They are not public ones.  Frequently these are codes referring to the chassis.  It's not a lot different than people referring to an RB26 or a 4G63.

 

1g, 2g, 3g are just more universal designations to make it easier to understand for people who aren't familiar with a given platform.  Easy to understand for people who know a 1g vs 2g eclipse, but wouldn't know offhand what a D21A vs a D31A is.

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, IPD said:

The day they announced details, I looked at the wheelbase.  100.4".

 

Sorry, Ford, that is not a "small SUV".  The 2-door Wrangler is 96.8"--and that's already too big.  Ford opted to pay homage to the looks of the 1g, without actually doing anything in true 1g fashion.  No roadster.  No 2-door soft-top.  No 2-door Raptor.  No storage for the doors in a 2-door in the back.  And no 3.5L ecoboost option regardless.  Nostalgia will wear off.  Ford missed the boat on this about as much as Hyundai missed the boat when they neglected to ever offer the Tau V8 in the Genesis Coupe.

 

Meanwhile, the 4g Jimny has an 88.6" wheelbase and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

 

The day kei cars are mainstream in the USA--will be a wonderful time to rejoice.

I remember seeing Doug Demuro's review of a Suzuki Jimny and wondering why they don't sell in it the US, Suzuki would sell so many of those small SUV's, not sure if they would pass US crash safety requirements though.

6 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

I miss the Ford Ranger. The good ones, not the new one. A small pickup is perfect for someone who needs the utility of a truck, but doesn't tow large loads, and needs the gas mileage.

I think the old Ford Ranger is a better truck than the new one which is more of a car with a truck bed, although the old Ranger wasn't that good on gas, but if Ford had updated the old Ranger and used an Ecoboost engine it would've been a much better truck than the one they're selling now.

[AlwaysFSX]

49 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Count De Monte Cristo

An excellent sandwich choice

[vetali]

I've seen this thread debate some stupid shit before, but this has to take the cake. This is why there needs to be a practical evaluation before graduating from the bicycle and bus pass enthusiast club

[iDeFecZx]

3 hours ago, vetali said:

but this has to take the cake.

Mmm cake

[vetali]

20 minutes ago, iDeFecZx said:

Mmm cake

only g2 cake tho

[AlwaysFSX]

37 minutes ago, iDeFecZx said:

Mmm cake

I haven't had cake in a while

[iDeFecZx]

2 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I haven't had cake in a while

Funnily enough neither have I