I want to buy a new car

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
One of the options is the "Magnetic Ride Control". Is that similar to the magnetic suspension developped by Bose almost ten years ago?
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Just bought a 2012 Honda CRV. I'm surprised how clunky the BT integration is. Apparently it's not a problem isolated to this car either.
Still we like it, quality, good gas mileage and good storage.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,552
Location
USA
One of the options is the "Magnetic Ride Control". Is that similar to the magnetic suspension developped by Bose almost ten years ago?
The concept has been around for quite a while at least on many GM vehicles that I know of. Not all that familiar with the 'Vette system but, IIRC, voltage is applied to the shock absorbers to dynamically change the damping value of the shocks some hundreds of times per second. I believe the fluid in the shocks has some metallic properties that allow the viscosity to change almost instantaneously with the change in signal being sent to the shocks by some black box. The technology was developed by Delphi (part of GM) back around 2002 IIRC.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/08/hey-ferrari-like-those-magnetic-ride-shocks-yea-we-invented-them-–-cadillac-video.html
 

Will Rickards

Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
1,991
Location
Here
Website
willrickards.net
The bluetooth in my 2012 subaru is fine from a sound quality perspective.
But it absolutely sucks from a manage and call phone numbers perspective.
Voice control is absolutely painful.

We bought an aftermarket radio with bluetooth for our older subaru and it isn't even fine from a sound quality perspective.
And the controls are confusing. Who designs these awful things?
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
The sound quality is fine for us as well as music/pandora control. What we are really missing is the ability to send txt replies without leaving the steering wheel. This could be either canned responses or Siri integration. Soon maybe.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,280
Location
USA
The sound quality is fine for us as well as music/pandora control. What we are really missing is the ability to send txt replies without leaving the steering wheel. This could be either canned responses or Siri integration. Soon maybe.
My fiancee also has the 2012 CR-V and we've noticed some of the same. When I looked into it more it was the iPhone which did not support the proper bluetooth profile which allowed for proper car-to-txt functionality. This was back in Feb, 2012 so Apple may have corrected this by now (or partially). The audio sounds fine but some of the pairing and operation can be a pain.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
We ran into the same issue you saw initially.

On the phone, find the handsfreelink pairing and turn on notifications. You my also need to remove the phone from the car and re-pair it. As of now, the car will read any new txt messages to me but I can not see old ones or respond.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,552
Location
USA
Nice car. For $100K, I think I'll pass.

I'd prefer a base 2014 C7 for 1/2 the price that handles better, is available with a real manual transmission, doesn't need two turbos, gets 29MPG highway and is within ~0.1s 0-60.........and then use the $50K left over to fund my son's 529 plan. :)
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,280
Location
USA
Nice car. For $100K, I think I'll pass.

I'd prefer a base 2014 C7 for 1/2 the price that handles better, is available with a real manual transmission, doesn't need two turbos, gets 29MPG highway and is within ~0.1s 0-60.........and then use the $50K left over to fund my son's 529 plan. :)
I would also pass for various reasons. I just enjoy seeing something that heavy be able to move that fast. :) It's not at all represented/marketed as a track car and wouldn't compete very well with many cars that are more equipped like the C7 for track duty. If that V8 was in the C7 it might even be an upgrade considering how the biturbo 4.0L is underrated from the factory to begin with. ;-) It doesn't need two turbos...I believe they have deployments of this engine without turbos.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,552
Location
USA
When it's a car that heavy, it just needs the two turbos to be that fast & fun. Nothing really needs a turbo but if I were spending $100K I would expect at least two, no matter how big the base engine is. :) Reason being..I'm spending $100K. And by the way, it better be delivered by that girl riding the bike.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Nice car. For $100K, I think I'll pass.

I'd prefer a base 2014 C7 for 1/2 the price that handles better, is available with a real manual transmission, doesn't need two turbos, gets 29MPG highway and is within ~0.1s 0-60.........and then use the $50K left over to fund my son's 529 plan. :)
Yes, the C7 Corvette and S8 are definitely in the same class. :rotfl:
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
This is my new car. My fist new car since 1994, and the second car since then (bought a used one in 2006). I'm getting the Turbo-Jet (T-Jet) Petrol, variant is Emotion (current top line). My decision is contrary to the majority here, who prefer diesel for the lower fuel price and higher mileage. The car was a hoot to test drive, offering power and driving dynamics unparalleled for the price; known to be a driver's car. The next car (pricewise) that could match it would be the Skoda Octavia petrol, at an on-road price at least 70% higher. The car has been ordered, expecting to pick it up by next week-end.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,280
Location
USA
When it's a car that heavy, it just needs the two turbos to be that fast & fun. Nothing really needs a turbo but if I were spending $100K I would expect at least two, no matter how big the base engine is. :) Reason being..I'm spending $100K. And by the way, it better be delivered by that girl riding the bike.
Clocker, I've been meaning to bug you about something. Do you know who the people are responsible for building the manual transmissions on the corvette and camaro? My dad has a 2010 camaro SS with a 6-speed and that damn 1st > 4th "feature" meant for fuel economy is a horrid piece of donkey turd. I've been driving manual for 20 years now and that damn thing could cause an accident. I can't understand the rationale behind forcing me as a driver who specifically chose a manual transmission to go from 1st gear to 4th gear when driving lightly. It catches you unexpectedly and each time it happens I stop paying attention to the road and refocus on trying to get the car into an appropriate gear. However the car locks me out of 2nd and sometimes 3rd?!? Wtf

They are sports cars. Why the hell do they force this? It always happens when I'm driving slow and making that large of a gear jump causes the engine to chug even with 426HP. Who thought this was a good idea for either the vette or the camaro? I want to have a conversation with that person. It can't even be bypassed or disabled without hacking the car!

I like his car but I would not consider one given this silly nanny device on a manual...
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
This is my new car. My fist new car since 1994, and the second car since then (bought a used one in 2006). I'm getting the Turbo-Jet (T-Jet) Petrol, variant is Emotion (current top line). [...] The car has been ordered, expecting to pick it up by next week-end.
Congratulations. It's always special to get a new car. I hope you won't regret your choice. I can't comment on the car because this model isn't for sale here. With all the bad drivers (judging from one of your previous posts) and the pollution in India, it probably won't stay new and/or clean very long, so enjoy it as soon as you get it.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Thanks Coug.

Hope to do a bit of touring with it. Initial choice was a domestic 4x4 SUV. I liked it, but wife didn't. She found it difficult to get in and out (she's petite). Also the second row of seats is a bear to get in and out of; its position with respect to the rear door isn't good.

This is a sedan proper with very good ground clearance (a necessity here with the bad roads and frequent, high, speed-breaker humps put up by everybody everywhere). Fiat's 1.3 diesel is considered the national engine here because many manufacturers put it in their vehicles. It's available in various states of tune, and powers everything from large sedans to small hatchbacks. The engine in my car is another gem - a turbo petrol. This car has not sold well previously (marketing problems at Fiat India), but they relaunched it a month ago and sales are picking up. There is a small band of enthusiasts that love this car, and I've sorta joined that gang now.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Clocker, I've been meaning to bug you about something. Do you know who the people are responsible for building the manual transmissions on the corvette and camaro? My dad has a 2010 camaro SS with a 6-speed and that damn 1st > 4th "feature" meant for fuel economy is a horrid piece of donkey turd. I've been driving manual for 20 years now and that damn thing could cause an accident. I can't understand the rationale behind forcing me as a driver who specifically chose a manual transmission to go from 1st gear to 4th gear when driving lightly. It catches you unexpectedly and each time it happens I stop paying attention to the road and refocus on trying to get the car into an appropriate gear. However the car locks me out of 2nd and sometimes 3rd?!? Wtf

They are sports cars. Why the hell do they force this? It always happens when I'm driving slow and making that large of a gear jump causes the engine to chug even with 426HP. Who thought this was a good idea for either the vette or the camaro? I want to have a conversation with that person. It can't even be bypassed or disabled without hacking the car!

I like his car but I would not consider one given this silly nanny device on a manual...
Two words: CAFE standards
 

fb

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
589
Location
Östersund, Sweden
It sounds like a stupid way to reach certain emission levels, why don't they try some good old engineering work instead?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
It sounds like a stupid way to reach certain emission levels, why don't they try some good old engineering work instead?
Not the most sophisticated engine. 6.2L V8 with only 426HP and 16/24MPG. It needs all the help it can get.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,896
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Congratulations Mubs, that seems like a really nice car.

I'm guessing that the low-boost turbo is to cope with the low fuel octane rating and consequent lower engine compression ratios that are predominant in India? If so, an elegant and apparently very fuel-efficient solution.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,896
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Not the most sophisticated engine. 6.2L V8 with only 426HP and 16/24MPG. It needs all the help it can get.
Nothing wrong with >50kW per liter in any naturally aspirated engine, and especially one with such a large per-cylinder volume.

The fuel economy doesn't seem unreasonable either, for a 3860 lb car packing that kind of firepower, not to mention the power-to-weight ratio.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Congratulations Mubs, that seems like a really nice car.

I'm guessing that the low-boost turbo is to cope with the low fuel octane rating and consequent lower engine compression ratios that are predominant in India? If so, an elegant and apparently very fuel-efficient solution.
Thank time.

Nope. It's a heavy car (doors close with a thunk); kerb weight of 1230 kgs (2705 lbs). A lower variant comes with a normally aspirated engine 1.4L that makes 90ps/6000 rpm and 115Nm/4500 rpm. It's slow and a dog, didn't sell well (besides being a petrol and not a diesel). Fiat modified that engine (aluminum head, turbo) and now it puts out 114ps/5000 rpm and 207Nm/2200 rpm. Compare this with the 1.3L diesel: 93ps/4000rpm and 209Nm/2000 RPM. The turbo petrol puts out as much torque as it's diesel sibling! That's why it's such a hoot to drive. The great thing is that this power is in a chassis that is well tuned and driving/handling dynamics are excellent. The total package makes it a driver's car. It's not very popular, but has a niche following that literally worships this car.

It wasn't even in my shortlist, but I started frequenting an Indian auto enthusiast website where I read reviews and user experiences. I was intrigued enough to want to test drive the diesel, but since I was there anyway, I tested the turbo petrol as well. Once I did this, all the other vehicles in my shortlist were dropped (even without a test drive) and the decision was made to get the turbo petrol.

We moved at the end of May and this new place is closer to a lot of lovely mountains and other interesting place. We plan to drive out every time my daughter has a break from school and I can get away from work. Let see....
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
Nothing wrong with >50kW per liter in any naturally aspirated engine, and especially one with such a large per-cylinder volume.

The fuel economy doesn't seem unreasonable either, for a 3860 lb car packing that kind of firepower, not to mention the power-to-weight ratio.
Lately I've considered being close to 100hp/l to be the standard? BMW has been doing it for years among others. And that is before you get into forced induction.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
I really must be missing something because I do not see the appeal of a peak HP/Torque anywhere above 3000 rpm's for normal city/Hwy driving. I can see it being needed for racing but other than that, no rational that I can think of.

I also understand buying a high performance sports car but trying to make a big heavy luxury car go fast like a sports car is ridiculousness. At that point, buy two cars one for fun and something different to get you wherever you want in comfort and style.

For the normal person that is concerned with efficiency, function, longevity what's wrong with something like a Prius, Camry hybrid, a Volt, or a even Tesla (There are lots of good choices less than $50K US). If you have more specialized needs a minivan, SUV, or pickup seems reasonable.

I wouldn't consider any of the cars being mentioned as way over-priced for what you are actually getting. It would take a major change in my mentality to be willing to spend $100K+ when there are very good alternatives at less than $50K. I just can see much better uses for that extra $50K.

Enlighten me, because I think you are all insane in your car choices. I am merely one and you are many so I must be missing something really important in what you get for that extra $50K.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,894
Location
Flushing, New York
Enlighten me, because I think you are all insane in your car choices. I am merely one and you are many so I must be missing something really important in what you get for that extra $50K.
I think it's just a case of "boys and their toys" rather than practicality. For strict practicality and low operating costs nothing beats some kind of electric vehicle like a Leaf, or one of the low-end Teslas. If more people bought electrics, there wouldn't even be a price premium over gas cars. And they have gobs of torque from 0 RPM if fast acceleration is your thing. For the city, if one wants to talk practical, I'd say walking, mass transit, and cycling. I regularly match or beat typical auto travel times on my bike. If 99% of your travel is within a big city, you don't even need a car. If a lot of your trips are where public transit doesn't go, and they're too far to bike, an electric bike, or even an electric motorcycle like the Vectrix, are much more practical than any kind of car. Parking is just a hassle in cities. The smaller the vehicle, the easier the parking.

I also understand buying a high performance sports car but trying to make a big heavy luxury car go fast like a sports car is ridiculousness. At that point, buy two cars one for fun and something different to get you wherever you want in comfort and style.

The reason for this is many people can't afford two cars-one for fun and one for comfort. That said, I'm a firm believer that sports cars belong on a track and nowhere else. To drive them like they're meant to be driven on public roads needlessly endangers everyone else. I regularly see jackasses in high-powered sports cars drag-racing between red lights. I can't wait for the city to start installing speed cameras. You want to go fast, that's what highways are for.

It would take a major change in my mentality to be willing to spend $100K+ when there are very good alternatives at less than $50K. I just can see much better uses for that extra $50K.

I can see much better uses for the money spent on any car, like maybe retiring earlier. Most financial experts say those who forego car ownership can retire 15 to 20 years earlier than they otherwise could. I went through the numbers in my early 20s, and came to the conclusion cars are massive money pits for the benefits they offered (few of which mattered to me anyway). By not owning one, I had the choice of retiring earlier or just not working as much (I involuntarily picked the latter path). My mobility is hardly compromised. I can pretty much go anywhere I want to by subway, bus, bike, or walking.

Anyway, sorry about the rant, but Mark is making a good point here. Even if you really need a car, often something for $20K or $25K will do just fine. Put the extra money into something else instead of a highly depreciable asset which could easily end up a pile of scrap metal at any time if you or someone else screws up.


 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Some post 1950 technology, that is what it really needs.
The modern pushrod engine dates back to 1949. The overhead cam dates back to before World War I.

Further, the power to weight and power to size ratio of the modern GM pushrod V-8 is pretty much unrivaled.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
I really must be missing something because I do not see the appeal of a peak HP/Torque anywhere above 3000 rpm's for normal city/Hwy driving. I can see it being needed for racing but other than that, no rational that I can think of.
I can agree with this, but might push it to 4000rpm. Above that is uncivilized in a road car. Race cars are different.

I also understand buying a high performance sports car but trying to make a big heavy luxury car go fast like a sports car is ridiculousness. At that point, buy two cars one for fun and something different to get you wherever you want in comfort and style.
To start, there is only room for one car per adult in my garage. I also prefer the versatility of not having to decide before I leave what kind of drive I'm about to take.

For the normal person that is concerned with efficiency, function, longevity what's wrong with something like a Prius, Camry hybrid, a Volt, or a even Tesla (There are lots of good choices less than $50K US). If you have more specialized needs a minivan, SUV, or pickup seems reasonable.
Prius, Camry, and Volt are all insufficient with regards to noise, vibration, handling, build quality, and amenities. Nothing wrong with the Tesla, but the price is $80k+ for a good one.

I wouldn't consider any of the cars being mentioned as way over-priced for what you are actually getting. It would take a major change in my mentality to be willing to spend $100K+ when there are very good alternatives at less than $50K. I just can see much better uses for that extra $50K.
Perhaps you (and I) simply aren't in their demographic? I suspect many of the cars mentioned here are most often purchased by those with household incomes in excess of $200k+
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,894
Location
Flushing, New York
I suspect many of the cars mentioned here are most often purchased by those with household incomes in excess of $200k+
Yes, I think that's it. My sister is driving a 10+ year old Elantra with about 170K on it. My brother is using a 1993 Mark VIII with 240K. Neither could afford even a low-end new car at this point, never mind one of the cars in this thread.
 
Top