I want to buy a new car

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#1
No, not really. At least not in the next two months. We'll see in November. Since the old thread with the same title is apparently unrecoverable, I thought about starting a new one.

Among the interesting new cars, there's the Cadillac ATS. A new turbocharged 2.0L engine will be offered with it. I read in an article that it will have 272hp, but on Cadillac's website, it drops to 270hp. Not that I'd notice the 2hp difference, but it would be nice to know for sure. I don't know if it'll offer all-wheel-drive, but I hope it will. Cadillac's website states that it will be available this summer, but we're at mid-August and it still isn't. With comparable features (on paper at least), GM claims it will cost 5K$ to 8K$ less than a BMW 3-series. One major drawback though : it's ugly as a baboon ass.

One very recent car I look forward to try is the Buick Verano. Not the actual version, but the one with the turbo engine that's coming I don't know when. I hope it will be the same 2.0L engine they put in the Cadillac ATS. That would be awesome. Very much so considering the Verano is much nicer looking than the Awwwe...TS.

I haven't seen the impact rating from safercar.org from neither cars, but the trend is good on GM's recent cars.

Lastly, the Ford Taurus is also getting a turbocharged 2.0L engine. It's a bulkier car than either the Verano or the ATS and the engine isn't as powerful (probably less sophisticated too), but for the Taurus, we already know it scores five-star in all governmental collision tests, so it's a certified very safe car to drive.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#4
It is a little bit better, but it should improve tremendously in November. I'll wait until it's a done deal to give more details. My old car would need several costly repairs to put it on back in shape and I don't think I'm willing to spend that kind of money on a nine years old car with ~240000Km on the engine.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,386
Location
Twilight Zone
#8
My wife calls my Xb a 'chick magnet' and on occasion has gotten rather upset at all the attention it gets. :-D It must have something to do with looking like a Toaster or a Rubic's Cube (the Element)
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,827
Location
USA
#11
No, not really. At least not in the next two months. We'll see in November. Since the old thread with the same title is apparently unrecoverable, I thought about starting a new one.

Among the interesting new cars, there's the Cadillac ATS. A new turbocharged 2.0L engine will be offered with it. I read in an article that it will have 272hp, but on Cadillac's website, it drops to 270hp. Not that I'd notice the 2hp difference, but it would be nice to know for sure. I don't know if it'll offer all-wheel-drive, but I hope it will. Cadillac's website states that it will be available this summer, but we're at mid-August and it still isn't. With comparable features (on paper at least), GM claims it will cost 5K$ to 8K$ less than a BMW 3-series. One major drawback though : it's ugly as a baboon ass.

One very recent car I look forward to try is the Buick Verano. Not the actual version, but the one with the turbo engine that's coming I don't know when. I hope it will be the same 2.0L engine they put in the Cadillac ATS. That would be awesome. Very much so considering the Verano is much nicer looking than the Awwwe...TS.

I haven't seen the impact rating from safercar.org from neither cars, but the trend is good on GM's recent cars.

Lastly, the Ford Taurus is also getting a turbocharged 2.0L engine. It's a bulkier car than either the Verano or the ATS and the engine isn't as powerful (probably less sophisticated too), but for the Taurus, we already know it scores five-star in all governmental collision tests, so it's a certified very safe car to drive.
This post seems to indicate that the ATS will offer AWD, but I don't know if that depends on location. Go see it in person whenever it's released and then judge how it looks. Your opinion may change. I think the ATS looks much better than the Verano, but looks are personal.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,827
Location
USA
#12
It is a little bit better, but it should improve tremendously in November. I'll wait until it's a done deal to give more details. My old car would need several costly repairs to put it on back in shape and I don't think I'm willing to spend that kind of money on a nine years old car with ~240000Km on the engine.
Congrats, I hope things work out for you come November.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,795
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#15
Among the interesting new cars, there's the Cadillac ATS. ... One major drawback though : it's ugly as a baboon ass.
It reminds me a of a Camry, so that automatically makes it one of the uglier cars on the road. On the other hand, an exotic and expensive Audi also reminds Mercutio of a Camry, so perhaps the Cadillac is in good company? ;)

But yeah, its ass is a shocker.

I read in an article that it will have 272hp, but on Cadillac's website, it drops to 270hp.
You're not a young pup like some of the revheads on this forum - why do you need 200kW in a 1500kg car? I very much doubt the chassis can use that high a power-to-weight ratio. Money may not buy you happiness, but a lack of money sure as hell buys you misery. A car is a shitty investment and a high performance version even more so. Don't be an ass, buy something cheap and functional and defer your midlife crisis to next year.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#18
You're not a young pup like some of the revheads on this forum - why do you need 200kW in a 1500kg car? I very much doubt the chassis can use that high a power-to-weight ratio. Money may not buy you happiness, but a lack of money sure as hell buys you misery. A car is a shitty investment and a high performance version even more so. Don't be an ass, buy something cheap and functional and defer your midlife crisis to next year.
270hp in a mid-sized car hardly makes it high performance. In fact, most mid-sized cars feature a ~250hp engine. What I like about it is that it's a 4-cylinder, therefore it should offer subsantially better gas mileage compared to other cars of a similar size. Same goes for the other two I mentioned.

If I'm able to spend 40K$ on a car, I'll probably opt for the Volvo S60 AWD with the 5-cylinder engine. It's the safest car on the market. The engine isn't as modern as the 2.0L 4-cylinder in the Taurus and ATS, but IMO, it should be a more intelligent buy since the first priority in a car should be safety, then everything else. Nothing beats the S60 on this aspect right now. It scored perfectly on the new IIHS small front overlap impact test, in which they unfortuantely didn't include any Cadillac car.

I'll only spend that kind of money if I get the raise I plan to gain (x2.5 on my income). Otherwise, it will be a Chevy Cruze. Safest car I could buy with my current earnings.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,795
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#19
270hp in a mid-sized car hardly makes it high performance. In fact, most mid-sized cars feature a ~250hp engine.
Unless you're including 4000 pound cars as "mid-sized", you're talking bullshit.

Ddrueding's car can manage 0-100 km/h in about 6 seconds (reports vary widely) and the 1/4 mile in 14.9 seconds. That's better acceleration than maybe 95% of the vehicles on the road.

The Cadillac weighs about the same but has a claimed 38% more power. I'd expect a 1/4 mile in the low 14 second range, which is definitely high performance.

What I like about it is that it's a 4-cylinder, therefore it should offer subsantially better gas mileage compared to other cars of a similar size.
Better yes, but substantially? With similar power outputs, I doubt it.

Otherwise, it will be a Chevy Cruze.
I haven't looked closely, but isn't the Cadillac based on the same platform as the Cruze anyway? Eg. same wheelbase, etc?
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,277
Location
Monterey, CA
#20
In America (and probably Coug's area as well) my car is a compact. 4000 pound cars are mid-sized, particularly if you are talking about American cars. 0-62mph in under 5.5 I would consider fast, with 1/4-mile in the 12s.

Granted, my car is faster than most, and that is fun, but I've already become accustomed to it. Almost time for more.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,795
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#21
For unmodified cars, 1/4 mile in the 15's is brisk, in the 14's is quick, in the 13's is very quick and in the 12's is pretty much the domain of supercars. Below 12 you're talking slicks etc, etc.
 

sdbardwick

Storage is cool
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
553
Location
North San Diego County
#22
For unmodified cars, 1/4 mile in the 15's is brisk, in the 14's is quick, in the 13's is very quick and in the 12's is pretty much the domain of supercars. Below 12 you're talking slicks etc, etc.
Not anymore. You can walk into Chevrolet or Ford dealers, pony up <$60000USD and drive off in a car that will do 12.1/11.7 1/4 mile times with OEM street tires. And they are decent everyday drivers as well (at least the Chevy is; haven't been in a GT500). Road & Track comparison here.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,795
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#23
You don't consider the ZL1 a supercar? 7:41.27 around Nürburgring not good enough? ;)

The fact that people can go below 12 in the Shelby is a testament to the Goodyear F1 'Supercar' tires - which apparently need preheating, just like slicks.
 

sdbardwick

Storage is cool
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
553
Location
North San Diego County
#24
Supercar class performance, sure. But I wouldn't consider it a supercar. The McLaren F1 (or pretty much any McLaren) is a supercar. These are refurbished commodity cars.
I'm not really a car snob; I'm just trying to point out that the baseline acceptable performance (for the US at least) has risen significantly in the past decade or so. When you have secretaries routinely driving cars that can do 6 second 0-60MPH people become somewhat jaded as to power. My 2001 car can do 0-60 in about 6.3 seconds, which back in the day was good for about the 90th percentile in Los Angeles. Nowadays I might be in the 60th percentile. Hell, I think the V6 Honda Accords could take me now, and there is a metric shitload of those around here.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,386
Location
Twilight Zone
#25
You don't consider the ZL1 a supercar? 7:41.27 around Nürburgring not good enough? ;)

The fact that people can go below 12 in the Shelby is a testament to the Goodyear F1 'Supercar' tires - which apparently need preheating, just like slicks.
The tires are good, but the traction control is doing most of the work.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,827
Location
USA
#26
For unmodified cars, 1/4 mile in the 15's is brisk, in the 14's is quick, in the 13's is very quick and in the 12's is pretty much the domain of supercars. Below 12 you're talking slicks etc, etc.
Interesting interpretation of what you consider super cars. In the case of the S4, there are verified track time reports of 1/4 mile time of 12.832sec @ 107.31 mph for an unmodified car. My point being I don't consider the car to be a super car. I agree it's fast, but not super car fast.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,795
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#28
You may be right, although I qualified my 12s rule of thumb with "pretty much". ;)

It's interesting that the S4 is hitting such low elapsed times with a relatively low terminal speed. It's annoying that so few reviews publish the terminal speed, because it's a good indicator of how much power the car can put down. 1/4 mile elapsed time is highly dependent on torque and gearing. The S4 has bucket loads of torque and you would have to assume that Audi's AWD power distribution is so good, that it's helping traction even under heavy acceleration in a straight line. Impressive stuff.

No, it's not a supercar by today's standards. But it's still very quick (compare it to a Porsche Boxster), especially for a 4-door sedan.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#29
I've just watched the six videos about the ATS on Cadillac's website. I thought this simply was their entry-level model. I didn't realize this model was so special to them. There's certainly a lot of hype about it.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#30
Oh and the ATS will sell for around 15000$ less than an Audi S4. Don't expect it to beat it on the ¼ mile. Neither is it what I'm looking for btw. I just want the best car for the money I'm willing to part with. It more and more looks like it will be between the Volvo S60 and the Cadillac ATS.
 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
621
Location
on the floor
#33
I couldn't get the S4 when I wanted...so I'm hoping for an S7 in a couple years. That 4.0 twin turbo V8 looks like a sweet engine.
Plus by then Audi should have improved their sub-standard performance in the new small front overlap test that Coug linked to.

It's interesting how Mercedes is living in a fantasy land where they only support the tests where the existing models do well (confirmation bias anyone?), whereas Toyota was man enough to accept the results and work towards better results in future models.

"A Toyota statement about the performance of its Lexus models read, in part, “With this new test, the institute has raised the bar again, and we will respond to this challenge as we design new vehicles.”

Mercedes responded by questioning the value of the test, saying, “As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants — and less confidence in any test that doesn’t reflect that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/automobiles/tougher-crash-test-brings-lower-scores.html
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,827
Location
USA
#34
Oh and the ATS will sell for around 15000$ less than an Audi S4. Don't expect it to beat it on the ¼ mile. Neither is it what I'm looking for btw. I just want the best car for the money I'm willing to part with. It more and more looks like it will be between the Volvo S60 and the Cadillac ATS.
Since safety is your primary concern for a new vehicle, you might also want to consider the Acura TL. It fared equally as good on all the safety tests as the Volvo S60.
 

fb

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
572
Location
Östersund, Sweden
#36
I think the active safety systems in the Cadillac and Volvo makes them interesting. Passive safety is great, but it's even better if you can avoid the accident before it happens.
 

MaxBurn

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
3,243
Location
SC
#38
I don't worry about the safety thing so much any more. As long as you are buying a halfway decent car that is newish you are already doing so much better than just ten or fifteen years ago.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,131
Location
Michigan
#39
So the insurance companies cooked up a new test which many cars do badly at which they can then use as a basis to raise insurance rates? I for one have to say I'm shocked.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,795
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#40
Mercedes responded by questioning the value of the test, saying, “As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants — and less confidence in any test that doesn’t reflect that.”
I'm not particularly happy about defending Mercedes, but they're entitled to say that. They've spent far, far more on vehicle safety research than any of these independent crash testers.

You have to remember: these are only simple synthetic tests that attempt to model a broad range of collision scenarios. The test in question is a poor representation of what happens when you clip an oncoming vehicle's corner, and I can't see many people managing to hit a tree or pole with the front left corner of their car on a left-hand-drive road.

More reliable information can be gleaned from analyzing large numbers of actual accidents, but this is extremely time-consuming. Manufacturers with a good holistic approach to crash safety tend to do well in this kind of analysis. And of course, bigger cars tend to do better than smaller cars - something these synthetic tests don't show at all.

Another problem is that the synthetic tests are conducted at low speeds. This is good to identify potential serious injuries in everyday urban shunts, but is no indicator of survivability in higher energy collisions, or for that matter rollovers.
 
Top