Ever wanted to know the thoughts of car fans?

[e_dawg]

Nice cars, Tim and Doug! I'm getting new car envy with my 2 year old Jetta here

I love what Acura did with their interior, taking the best from BMW and Acura and putting it into the TSX. No more snide Euro Accord comments from me. It looks great.

 

[Stereodude]

Haven't even gotten pulled over yet. Hopefully it will stay that way.

Not with that bright yellow car.

 

[Howell]

Handy, The picture of the guages looks nice, nigh professional.

 

[Buck]

Nice pictures Doug. Tim, you're being out done, we need more photos!

 

[timwhit]

Nice pictures Doug. Tim, you're being out done, we need more photos!

I only will post pictures of my car when it is clean. It is really dirty now so I will have to wait until next week when I get it washed again.

 

[blakerwry]

Your car is looking good! I'll admit yellow isn't my first choice for a car, but I think it looks good on your car. Have you had a chance to stretch its legs yet? I bet that car moves pretty darn good.


I also got around to taking some pictures of my car a couple weeks ago.

nav 1 | nav 2 | guages | engine | Interior

Handy, are the door handles that metalisized plastic that Honda uses in some of their cars? I would really like to replace those with metal if so... just a persona preference I dispise plastic in place of metal.

 

[Handruin]

I think the handles are only plastic with a chrome finish on top.

 

[blakerwry]

This is getting rediculous... have any of you noticed that the front grills of cars are now often plastic made to look like metal? They do a good job of imitating chome and cast steel and aluminum... but overtime the plastic just doesn't last as long. And isn't nearly as sturdy.

 

[timwhit]

This is getting rediculous... have any of you noticed that the front grills of cars are now often plastic made to look like metal? They do a good job of imitating chome and cast steel and aluminum... but overtime the plastic just doesn't last as long. And isn't nearly as sturdy.

Actually Blake I think most new cars are made almost entirely of plastic. There are still some parts that are metal: doors, hood, trunk, roof, frame, engine. The reason that plastic is widely used is because it is cheap, easily molded, and much lighter than steel or aluminum. My car weighs only 2700lbs. Any normal sized car back in the 60's would weigh around 5000lbs. The lighter the car, the faster it will be and the better it will handle. Plus, it will get better gas mileage. But, just make sure you don't hit anything with those plastic bumpers, they are meant to break, and they cost hundreds of dollars for some reason when you need a replacement (even though they are probably made for a few bucks).

One other thing is that plastic will never rust. Which is always a good thing.

 

[blakerwry]

Yeah, I noticed even bumpers are plastic now.. mine are fiberglass, which I feel is far superior than the plastic bumpers which seem to bend instead of crack and also seem to sag on some cars...

It just amazed me when I looked at this nice car.. in the $40,000 range and noticed that the front grill was plastic made to look like cast metal... really disapointed me.

There are places where plastic belongs because of its cheapness and ease of being custom modling. But there are just some places where it shouldn't go...

 

[fool]

I am probably wrong, but I thought the reason for using stuff like plastic bumpers was that they would[u/] break. The thinking being that its better to write off a bumper than a person, just like if you crash a bicycle and land on your head, you don't re-use the helmet you were wearing.

 

[Buck]

Fool, your thinking is correct. The idea behind "plastic" components in the bumper is to absorb minor impacts without damaging the major structure of the vehicle. Ideally, the bumper should not only absorb these impacts, but also rebound from them, thus resulting in almost no damage to the bumper itself (perhaps just a minor scrape). Nonetheless, we are talking about negligible impacts -- impacts less then 10 mph. Once you exceed 15 mph you start encroaching on the automobile body’s crumple zone and its inherent design to absorb major impacts.

 

[blakerwry]

non metal bumpers are fine. I actually prefer a nice painted bumper.. but io prefer fiberglass to plastic from what I've seen.

I personally prefer when things feel sturdy and substantial. Plastic can, but usually does not in most vehicles.

 

[e_dawg]

Nonetheless, we are talking about negligible impacts -- impacts less then 10 mph. Once you exceed 15 mph you start encroaching on the automobile body’s crumple zone and its inherent design to absorb major impacts.

Are you kidding? 10-15 mph? US bumpers are only rated to withstand 2.5 mph collisions. Some cars incur thousands of dollars of damage with a 10-15 mph impact. With only a 5 mph collision, the average repair costs for a 2003 Suzuki Aerio were $1,131 US. 1999 Mazda Protege? $1,144 US. Rally cars like the Lancer and the WRX? $776 and $629, respectively. The new Altima? $805.

Shocker: the consumer-perceived safest car in the world, a Volvo S80, took a $1,845 hit. The half-Ford, half-Jaguar X-Type? $1,759.

Think a rugged SUV can handle 5 mph no problem? The Pathfinder racked up $2,256 and the 4Runner clocked in at $2,116. The Isuzu Trooper? $3,168. And these aren't glorified station wagons like the Toyota Highlander or the Lexus RX300 are. These are legendary workhorse SUV's, the 4Runner and Trooper still being built on a pickup-truck style ladder frame (as opposed to the wimpy unibody construction).

But a 1998 Volkswagen Beetle? $52 US. Truly the people's car. :mrgrn:

Source: IIHS

 

[blakerwry]

But a 1998 Volkswagen Beetle? $52 US. Truly the people's car. :mrgrn:

Source: IIHS

hahahah.... that's funny


My neighbor rubbed my drivers door with her cherokeee while she was backing out of her driveway and I was temprarily parked on the street for about an hour. Damage: rooughed up paint and a dent/scratch on the door. Estimate $700-$900

Had a friend change lanes into me once with his fender and my passanger rear door. Estimate was about the same amount although damages looked far greater. I repaired it myself for under $50 with bondo, sanding, and paint.

Had a horse attak my father's explorer.. damage was about $500 for some scratches on the side and hood.


The biggest annoyances to me are people who hit their doors into your car. I've had to repaint the door trim on my car and use spot putty and some sanding to get the bigger nicks out. It's been hit since and it's just really annoying that people can't keep their doors to themselves. Any paint left on my car is usually repairable using a little polish and some buffing.

 

[timwhit]

Nonetheless, we are talking about negligible impacts -- impacts less then 10 mph. Once you exceed 15 mph you start encroaching on the automobile body’s crumple zone and its inherent design to absorb major impacts.

Are you kidding? 10-15 mph? US bumpers are only rated to withstand 2.5 mph collisions. Some cars incur thousands of dollars of damage with a 10-15 mph impact. With only a 5 mph collision, the average repair costs for a 2003 Suzuki Aerio were $1,131 US. 1999 Mazda Protege? $1,144 US. Rally cars like the Lancer and the WRX? $776 and $629, respectively. The new Altima? $805.

Shocker: the consumer-perceived safest car in the world, a Volvo S80, took a $1,845 hit. The half-Ford, half-Jaguar X-Type? $1,759.

Think a rugged SUV can handle 5 mph no problem? The Pathfinder racked up $2,256 and the 4Runner clocked in at $2,116. The Isuzu Trooper? $3,168. And these aren't glorified station wagons like the Toyota Highlander or the Lexus RX300 are. These are legendary workhorse SUV's, the 4Runner and Trooper still being built on a pickup-truck style ladder frame (as opposed to the wimpy unibody construction).

But a 1998 Volkswagen Beetle? $52 US. Truly the people's car. :mrgrn:

Source: IIHS

My old Jeep could have taken a 5mph hit with no problem. Actually it did a bunch of times when off roading. I accidentally ran it into trees and other things obstacles several times. The bumper was actually steel and it had 2 large rubber bumpers on it that would help to take some of the impact. I would routinely run it into a cement wall in my parking lot and it never had any visual damage. The steel bumper was connected directly to the frame of the Jeep which made it even stronger.

OTOH my Sentra would rack up some major repair charges if I ever hit anything with it. Someone scuffed my back bumper and I found a guy who would paint it for $75. The dealership bodyshop quoted me an astounding $500 for the same paint job. I can't even tell that anything ever happeded to the bumper after he painted it.

 

[Fushigi]

My Galant comes with 5MPH bumpers so I assume it would take minimal effort to repair in a 5MPH or slower collision. Luckily, after 4.5 years that has yet to be tested.

Unfortunately, I do have 3 or 4 door dings from inconsiderate people. It doesn't help that parking spaces seem to be getting more narrow each year while cars & SUVs get wider.

 

[Drakantus]

Nice car Tim. I bought a new car about a month ago. I testdrove a yellow SE-R Spec V just like yours, except it was a 2004. I ended up buying a Jetta though. GLI, Gray, pretty much loaded- no spoiler. Manual 6-speed of course.

 

[e_dawg]

Same car as honold (exactly) and myself (different trim level.. GLS 12 valve VR6 5M)

 

[timwhit]

Nice car Tim. I bought a new car about a month ago. I testdrove a yellow SE-R Spec V just like yours, except it was a 2004. I ended up buying a Jetta though. GLI, Gray, pretty much loaded- no spoiler. Manual 6-speed of course.

It's a good thing you didn't buy the '04 Spec-V. They really screwed it up. The frontend of the car is now ugly as are the rims. Let me find pictures to prove my point.

'03

'04

If you want a better shot of the '03s rims check out the picture of my car.

 

[Drakantus]

Same car as honold (exactly) and myself (different trim level.. GLS 12 valve VR6 5M)

Yeah, I read back most of the thread, seems that Jettas are popular among storage enthusiasts. I like smaller cars, I wanted 4 doors, and torque matters to me. So after a lot of research it came down between the Jetta, the SE-R V-Spec, and the Subaru WRX.

The SE-R was awesome for the price, but I decided the Jetta was worth the extra $5k to me. I didn't actually drive the WRX, but I know the WRX STI was out of my price range, and I didn't really want to get the next model down. Just a personal thing, I wanted to have the top of the line of whatever I ended up getting. I also testdrove the 1.8t, which was really not bad at all, but like Honold, I love the fact that the VR6 is silent at idle. Two different passangers on seperate occasions have looked up in suprise as I started driving saying "what?! the car is on?". It's that silent.

From my prior car (a 2000 V6 Mustang) this is far, far better.

 

[Pradeep]

Apprently the McLaren F1 was good for 30 MPH with no damage. Amazing what a carbon fibre frame/body and a $1 million bucks will get you! None of that wussy steel here.

 

[flagreen]

Tim,

What's that on your windshield? Did a 300lb pidgeon fly over?

 

[timwhit]

Tim,

What's that on your windshield? Did a 300lb pidgeon fly over?

That would be a reflection of a tree I think.

 

[Pradeep]

Tim,

What's that on your windshield? Did a 300lb pidgeon fly over?

Santilli's cat on the prowl?

 

[Buck]

Apprently the McLaren F1 was good for 30 MPH with no damage. Amazing what a carbon fibre frame/body and a $1 million bucks will get you! None of that wussy steel here.

Sounds nice, but how much of the impact do you think the car absorbed? Probably none. The driver would take the full impact -- ouch.

 

[Handruin]

It's a good thing you didn't buy the '04 Spec-V. They really screwed it up. The frontend of the car is now ugly as are the rims. Let me find pictures to prove my point.

I agree...your car has much nicer wheels and frontend...

 

[Howell]

I agree...your car has much nicer wheels and frontend...

Ditto.

 

[Handruin]

The more I look at the '04 pics of your car, the more I see a ford mustange/escort frontend...

 

[blakerwry]

heh, that's the 1st thing I thought of.

 

[Howell]

What would be the power-feel difference between a 2.0L and 2.5L non-turbo engine with the same amount of horsepower and torque(eg. mid-60s for both)?

 

[e_dawg]

Hard to say given that other factors could be different (gearing, weight, etc... especially if it's an entirely different car!)

But I would say that if the two engines have the same peak torque and HP, the larger displacement engine would have more power and torque at lower rpm's and would hit its peak power and torque at lower rpm's. Another way of saying that would be the larger displacement engine is more powerful, but in a narrower powerband.

 

[e_dawg]

Another way of describing the characteristics of the two engines would be that the bigger engine would have more power "off the line" (i.e., at stoplights, etc.), but would run out of breath at high rpm's.

 

[Howell]

...but would run out of breath at high rpm's.

With both being non-turbo? Assume weight and everything else is the same. You think the torque and power curves would be roughly the same shape but with the higher displacement engine curve shifted toward the lower RPMs?

 

[e_dawg]

Not exactly, but close enough. Without knowing anything about the respective "squareness" of the designs, number of cylinders, valvetrains, heads, and induction systems, it's hard to say for sure. Don't you have any more information available? Like the rpm at where the peak power and torque was made?

 

[Howell]

Like the rpm at where the peak power and torque was made?

Assume it's the same. I know there will be a certain margin of error. I'm just looking for a ballpark.

 

[Howell]

Like the rpm at where the peak power and torque was made?

Assume it's the same. I know there will be a certain margin of error. I'm just looking for a ballpark.

Although, understandably, the same "magic" that gets the same power out of both systems is likely make the waveform look magical. I see your point.

Square-waves...fast fourier transforms...EE AHHHHH *runs and curles up in a ball after reliving repressed memories.

 

[e_dawg]

Like the rpm at where the peak power and torque was made?

Assume it's the same. I know there will be a certain margin of error. I'm just looking for a ballpark.

I am not sure what you were talking about in your last post, but given engines of different displacement and identical peak power and torque ratings, the rpm at which peak power and torque is created is almost guaranteed to be different.

 

[Howell]

Like the rpm at where the peak power and torque was made?

Assume it's the same. I know there will be a certain margin of error. I'm just looking for a ballpark.

I am not sure what you were talking about in your last post, but given engines of different displacement and identical peak power and torque ratings, the rpm at which peak power and torque is created is almost guaranteed to be different.

I know. Think outside the block. :lol:

 

[Handruin]

Ever hear of this Sweden car?

http://www.koenigsegg.com/