I hate current new cars - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

gatorblue92 · #31 06-04-2012, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Pseudo retro scheisse with no windows or visibility to speak of with the top up.

ok then how bout this

anghrist · #32 06-05-2012, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorblue92

ok then how bout this

Good option. I just wish these conversions had a boot for the top like the 107s did.

Air&Road · #33 06-05-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

And some for the bad -- no excuse that the average sedan is lugging around 3000 lb of pigfat.

Yes, I find it quite interesting about the weight gains of recent years. For awhile they were putting cars on a diet with all sorts of different tricks. I THINK that the recent gain toward weight gain has been caused by efforts to make the cars more rigid in areas while at the same time having adequate crumple zones.

In the last 15 or 20 years cars of ALL makes and models have become incredibly rattle free. I think this is related to the weight gain.

With the CAFE mileage average being forced up and up, it's amazing that weight is also going up. Weight is the single most important factor in fuel economy and also an extremely important factor in performance.

Jim B. · #34 06-05-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Other than a cabrio, what are your other requirements . . . number of doors, number of seats, price range.

It would have to run on "Stupid".

Jim B. · #35 06-05-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaughingGravy

New Beetle Convertible? I know there isn't one out yet for the new, new beetle, but it looks like it may fit the bill.
One of the things I like about it is that it doesn't look like every other Camry, or Mini or large or crossover SUV style. It actually has style.
For some, there's the stigma of girly, but with the right color combination, I think that can be surpassed.

or

maybe not

Mini Cooper Convertible? I see the same problem, but I do see more guys driving them than girls.

Yeah, but those are the "neat boyz" ...

I know that 'cause I had a great dinner in San Francisco last night.

G-Benz · #36 06-05-2012, 11:58 AM

I think many designs probably look great on the drawing board...until they hit the wind tunnel...the they are revamped to suit some optimal coefficient of drag until...

...the final effort looks like every other model on the market.

Dee8go · #37 06-05-2012, 12:01 PM

Even worse are out-dated new cars . . . .

spdrun · #38 06-05-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

Even worse are out-dated new cars . . . .

Depends what you mean by out-dated -- I`d kill to be able to buy some 90`s cars new today.

Air&Road · #39 06-05-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Benz

I think many designs probably look great on the drawing board...until they hit the wind tunnel...the they are revamped to suit some optimal coefficient of drag until...

...the final effort looks like every other model on the market.

Absolutely correct! Aerodynamics is at the top of the list of items that effect fuel economy. It has most DEFINITELY effected the looks, shape and even interior arrangements.

tbomachines · #40 06-05-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

Yes, I find it quite interesting about the weight gains of recent years. For awhile they were putting cars on a diet with all sorts of different tricks. I THINK that the recent gain toward weight gain has been caused by efforts to make the cars more rigid in areas while at the same time having adequate crumple zones.

In the last 15 or 20 years cars of ALL makes and models have become incredibly rattle free. I think this is related to the weight gain.

With the CAFE mileage average being forced up and up, it's amazing that weight is also going up. Weight is the single most important factor in fuel economy and also an extremely important factor in performance.

It's structural rigidity as well as electronics. Those 15 air bags aren't too light, and having a sensor and wire on everything really adds up. My little hatch is over 3000 lbs but considering its safety record, I'll take it. It's still faster than most cars out there too.

The new brz is about 2500-2800lbs and word on the street is that the nd miata will be even less (sign me up!)

spdrun · #41 06-05-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

It's structural rigidity as well as electronics. Those 15 air bags aren't too light, and having a sensor and wire on everything really adds up. My little hatch is over 3000 lbs but considering its safety record, I'll take it. It's still faster than most cars out there too.

Personally, I couldn`t give less of a crap about auto safety than I already do. Rigidity is good, isolation isn`t -- bring *ON* the NVH rather than trying to diminish it to nothing.

I love that new Break My Wallets are so quiet that they need to pipe in fake engine noise via the stereo system.

Dee8go · #42 06-05-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Depends what you mean by out-dated -- I`d kill to be able to buy some 90`s cars new today.

I was merely poking fun ant the redundancy in the title of this thread . . . A new, out-dated car is in my opinion, often more of a head turner that any new, new car. So, I agree with you on that.

nate300d · #43 06-05-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anghrist

That's why I covet this:

So true....for my tastes it is the Holy Grail of roadsters. I drove a 1968 280SL with a manual. WOW........

Dee8go · #44 06-05-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorblue92

ok then how bout this

THAT, my friend, is a real gem! Hoo, boy!

nate300d · #45 06-05-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorblue92

ok then how bout this

I know that this is not a production car, but I never cared much for convertibles that when the top is down it sets way above the body. I like then flush, hidden or just a little above the body. I miss my 1965 T-bird.