rant :P
February 17th, 2009, 05:54 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 28
rant :P
"Unlike the unrefined pony cars of yesteryear, the Challenger features the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a contemporary coupe."
...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone?
lol, I think not.
/rant
...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone?
lol, I think not./rant
February 17th, 2009, 06:14 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 11,798
I see a lot of this as marketing hype.
It is getting hard to justify the 40 to 50K+ price tags on these new "refined" musclecars... I would rather have the real thing.
True, cars are more refined then yesterday, but any car is only is as safe as its driver. How much of this techno-guff do we need on cars anyway?
Sure, even the Cadillac salesmen try to convince me that my '97 STS is lacking and unsafe, just because it does not have side airbags...
I tell them about the my best safety features - good eyes and brain and no phone or alky.
I look well both ways before going through any intersection well in advance and I take my motorcycle survival skills to the cages, also.
This fuel efficiency crap is getting annoying also. I just saw consumer reports of the baby buggy cars - you know the fits, versas, and those tiny things I would not be caught dead in. They got a real life rating of 20-22mpg in the city. Heck, my Caddy gets 18-20 in the city and my old Ford gets 20 consistantly. On the highway the new little buggies do better, but I surely would not want to go far in one of those things, IF you could even get me into one at all.
My '72 Olds got 19.8mpg over a 1700 mile trip. Same as minivans and mid-size SUVs. I am happy enough...
Of course my '72 Olds convertible gave me more SMILES per gallon than any other car I have been in!!
It is getting hard to justify the 40 to 50K+ price tags on these new "refined" musclecars... I would rather have the real thing.
True, cars are more refined then yesterday, but any car is only is as safe as its driver. How much of this techno-guff do we need on cars anyway?
Sure, even the Cadillac salesmen try to convince me that my '97 STS is lacking and unsafe, just because it does not have side airbags...
I tell them about the my best safety features - good eyes and brain and no phone or alky.
I look well both ways before going through any intersection well in advance and I take my motorcycle survival skills to the cages, also.
This fuel efficiency crap is getting annoying also. I just saw consumer reports of the baby buggy cars - you know the fits, versas, and those tiny things I would not be caught dead in. They got a real life rating of 20-22mpg in the city. Heck, my Caddy gets 18-20 in the city and my old Ford gets 20 consistantly. On the highway the new little buggies do better, but I surely would not want to go far in one of those things, IF you could even get me into one at all.
My '72 Olds got 19.8mpg over a 1700 mile trip. Same as minivans and mid-size SUVs. I am happy enough...
Of course my '72 Olds convertible gave me more SMILES per gallon than any other car I have been in!!
Last edited by Lady72nRob71; February 17th, 2009 at 06:53 AM.
February 17th, 2009, 07:36 AM
#3
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 4,430
Why do they call them Smart cars? You would have to be an idiot to drive one of those unless everybode else is. I still want to see one on the interstate driving by a semi in a snowstorm, or even on snowy roads by itself around here . My yard tractor has bigger tires and probably has more horsepower, much safer too.
February 17th, 2009, 08:46 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idano
Posts: 9,127
If you look at cost per pound the small cars cost more then their bigger brothers. And I agree on the interstate at 60+ I would hate to get passed by a dual tractor rig might blow a smart car off the road.
Last edited by citcapp; February 17th, 2009 at 03:18 PM.
February 17th, 2009, 09:01 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 11,798
March 4th, 2009, 07:32 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cambridge England
Posts: 205
The Smart Car is quite popular here in England. To my surprise thay did a crash test. They drove it 40 mph into a solid block wall and it bounced back seceral feet and the drivers comp was really good and the crash test dummy showed only minor injuries. I don't think I would test with a large hauler but I was surprised. I think they are on the way to the USA soon. Andy
March 4th, 2009, 07:40 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 11,798
Over here, the traffic speeds are too high and too many big vehicles - pickups and suvs... Being sandwiched by two big trucks is my fear. I have seen too many accords turned into little accordians so a smart car would be compacted even easier; kinda like a bug on a windscreen...
March 4th, 2009, 08:26 AM
#11
Trying to remember member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,112
"Unlike the unrefined pony cars of yesteryear, the Challenger features the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a contemporary coupe."
...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone? lol, I think not.
/rant
...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone?
lol, I think not./rant
Face it, my Expedition can outhandle *most* of the '60s cars and out brake virtually all of them! My Expedition is now 5 years old with over 130,000 miles. Brakes are still more the 50% left, original exhaust, and there has been nothing more than routine maintenance done, except for 2 light bulbs. No rust is visible. Compare that to a '60s car? Just trying to be realistic here.
Why do they call them Smart cars? You would have to be an idiot to drive one of those unless everybode else is. I still want to see one on the interstate driving by a semi in a snowstorm, or even on snowy roads by itself around here . My yard tractor has bigger tires and probably has more horsepower, much safer too.
March 4th, 2009, 09:28 AM
#12
this is not my car lol
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 362
"Unlike the unrefined pony cars of yesteryear, the Challenger features the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a contemporary coupe."
...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone? lol, I think not.
/rant
...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone?
lol, I think not./rant
interms of unrefined, the older cars were not, compared to todays products...
the steering was loose, suspension spongy with lots of body roll-
the driveline was basic, with a lot frictional loss in the transmission.
the interior was spartan with seats that were not meant for spirited cornering.
crash safety wasnt paramount,
etc etc..
they are trying to replicate the look of old cars by attracting buyers using that "oh i had that car when i was young" technique..
March 4th, 2009, 12:36 PM
#13
Past Administrator
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rural Waxahachie Texas
Posts: 10,157
Unrefined doesn't always go hand in hand with technology though. One must take into consideration workmanship and what the market can handle. Comparatively speaking I would not be afraid to say that people are purchasing cars that are probably beyond their true capacity to afford, and auto manufacturers are building them because of that. In the years gone by, one was more prone to purchase what one could really and truly afford so the manufacturers responded in kind. If you take into consideration technology, cars of yesteryear were probably as refined as they could have been. Comparing one of today's cars to one of yesteryear's cars only on technology such as steering, braking and handling capabilities is like comparing apples to oranges and isn't a valid comparison really. I like the way my family sedan rides and feel more comfortable and safe in it but that does not mean I like driving it better than my Cutlass or my model 76. I think the most invigorating ride I ever had in a car was in my Uncle's 1973 Triumph spitfire, that thing was so small and so quick and light that 45 mph felt like 100mph in a highway cruiser and I did my share of the latter.
March 4th, 2009, 12:58 PM
#14
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 17,731
Not to sir the pot.
But, I think during past more prosperous times we been fooled into thinking we NEED things that we don't. We may WANT them or think they're cool. But we really don't NEED them. [wheather there're more "refined" or not.]
I also think [with these changing times] we going to forced to discern between "what we want" from "what we need."
For example. I can read a map, I don't want my car telling me where to turn.
Go into McDonalds and after the register is opened, find some change in your pocket to make it different than what the kid rang up. 99% of them have no clue how to make change. They're reading it and that's all they know. At the rate we're going, Soon no one will be capable of rolling up a window or reading a map.
End of rant
But, I think during past more prosperous times we been fooled into thinking we NEED things that we don't. We may WANT them or think they're cool. But we really don't NEED them. [wheather there're more "refined" or not.]
I also think [with these changing times] we going to forced to discern between "what we want" from "what we need."
For example. I can read a map, I don't want my car telling me where to turn.
Go into McDonalds and after the register is opened, find some change in your pocket to make it different than what the kid rang up. 99% of them have no clue how to make change. They're reading it and that's all they know. At the rate we're going, Soon no one will be capable of rolling up a window or reading a map.
End of rant
March 4th, 2009, 01:14 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 11,798
I use only maps, but cannot always refold them correctly...
I used to use my pocket compass, but it only seemed to point in one direction - I think its busted... I had to get a digital compass instead...
Last edited by Lady72nRob71; March 4th, 2009 at 05:57 PM.
March 4th, 2009, 05:47 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idano
Posts: 9,127
At least I can work on both of my Oldsmobiles and maintain them myself down to the last nut and bolt. Can't say that about my 2003 cadd STS or the Hya--- car. Hell my Cat diesel in my motor home is easier to work on then the Cadd.
March 4th, 2009, 05:59 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 11,798
March 4th, 2009, 07:31 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idano
Posts: 9,127
Takes two hours just to remove all of the plastic (without breaking anything) just to get to the were you can see what your looking for.
I owned a 96 before and liked it better then the 03, It was faster also
I owned a 96 before and liked it better then the 03, It was faster also
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
