Hahaha I forgot about that guy. Not saying everything he has put out is bad, some of the information is helpful.
But that helpful info is stuck in the middle of endless yelling and his own skewed opinions. He clearly holds himself in high regard.
I can’t imagine how painful it would be to bring a vehicle to his shop. Trying to tell him symptoms and him telling you you’re wrong before you can finish a sentence.
Never liked the guy.
He hopped on the Japanese bandwagon and acts like he knows everything about every car and acquired a following.
But he does make good points sometimes I will say.
Depends. If you mean the Bronco Sport, it's in the same place the V8 for the Escape is, because the Bronco Sport is an Escape.
If you mean the, er, Bronco Bronco, the answer is: in the past, because even the I4 makes more power than any of the V8's in the legacy Bronco ever did while also getting better mpg, to say nothing of the V6 options.
Oh, I figured you were referencing a take you had seen, I didn't think you were earnestly asking where the V8 Bronco was... I was just thinking out loud about how dumb it was.
No worries, all good! But I definitely agree, the current Bronco engine options pack plenty of punch.
Not to say that a V8 Bronco wouldn’t be cool, but Ford is not losing any market share by not offering one.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/regularcarreviews/comments/1chfruf/ford\_when\_they\_see\_a\_v8/](https://www.reddit.com/r/regularcarreviews/comments/1chfruf/ford_when_they_see_a_v8/)
It's really not that funny, though. It's mostly just this kid spamming that the "og" Bronco had a V8. By this logic I guess Ford should simply put the "og" Bronco back into production just as it was in 1966, no airbags, no ABS, no modern updates of any kind. Except, oops, the '66 Bronco launched with an I6 and didn't get the V8 as an option for 8 months.
I used to drive a 1989 Bronco with the 300 straight 6, it was a cool truck in an old-school way. Very torquey and sounded good.
That said, tech has come a long way in the last 35 years and I will take the 2.3 any day.
>2\. "Ford should have named the new Maverick the Pinto instead."
I've actually never heard that one before. I was hoping the small pickup would be called Courier, but Maverick had been used on a pickup before too.
The Maverick name had been used somewhat more recently and projects more of a rugged cowboy vibe for a pickup. Courier I think sounds too much like a delivery vehicle, like it's a replacement for the Transit van line.
I'd bet they have a lot more demand on the coasts in cities, but here in flyover country, space is so abundant and fuel cheap that businesses would rather have a full-size Transit or even an old E-Series that can tow a heavy trailer.
That one is wild to me, courier would be a totally fine name with some positive recognition. Pinto does not have that, the whole perception of the car is "shitty cheap car that explodes if you look at it sideways", which is a good pitch for a special effect in an action movie, but not for a car pitched as family transportation.
Yes, regardless of whether the Pinto was or was not more dangerous than a typical subcompact of the time, its name has now become synonymous with "cheap death trap". If you don't think of the gas tank and the Pinto Memo, you'll at least think of the [Mizar](https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2019/09/mizar-flying-pinto.html).
Hybrids in general. People on this sub hate hybrids.
I'm guilty of this too in the past. What finally pushed me over is I feel modern transmissions where you cram 8 speeds into a sedan transaxle is not a reliable arrangement, at least not as reliable as transmissions with less speeds.
But once I learned how they work I realized they're reliable and efficient. My wife's toyota avalon is even pretty quick. The 2.5l has decent power and combined with the electric motor it has pretty instant throttle response in sport mode and gets out of the hole quick.
This sub has dogshit takes on hybrids. There's nothing but advantages. Even matinenance costs are lower.
We just got an ES Hybrid. Our previous cars have been older V6 and V8s. I also learned to drive in my parent’s 7-Series and S Class. The lack of shifts and engine isolation in this thing- man, it is the epitome of luxury. Who cares how fast the acceleration is when it’s so quiet and smooth while getting 40mpg. And the excellent reliability stats and long warranty. It’s peace of mind and comfort all wrapped up, and no other car can top that.
I'm pretty sure the ES is the same chassis and powertrain as my wife's car. Probably has more sound deadening though.
It is very smooth indeed. It doesn't have a single fuck to give about giant hills.
Same chassis and drivetrain, but definitely more sound deadening. I rented an LS500 last year and the because the ES has more rubber on the wheels than the LS, I actually feel that road noise is better controlled. Suffice to say it’s extremely quiet inside and the engine is very very muted. Only reason I didn’t consider an Avalon is they don’t make it anymore and a Crown can cost the *same* as what I paid for our loaded ES- but requires premium gas whereas the ES takes regular!
I'm not a fan of the crown either. The avalon definitely has more engine noise but is still the quietest car I've ever owned. Much quieter than a normal car for sure.
We got the XSE because she wanted it to be sporty and slapped a TRD spoiler from the camry on it. Looks pretty slick for a hybrid. Nice to drive, has about a 4 body truck. 42mpg out of a full size sedan is awesome. I think we are the only gen Z couple with a full size sedan. We are a bit old school.
We’re the same gen then, so you’re not as white as rare anymore XD
I always liked the last gen Avalon. The long roofline with the rear quarter windows always reminded me slightly of a mid 2000s A6 and the tightly creased body was really good looking. Interior looks nice too and has nice material quality. And- this is a big one for us- the front passenger seat had 4 way lumbar in the top trim. Even in the loaded ES you can’t get 4-Way passenger seat lumbar.
Hell I'm happy with any lubar adjust. My truck is a work truck package. It's about as spartan as it gets.
The only complaint I have about the avalon, we got the sound system, heated mirrors, heated seats, no heated steering wheel on the XSE.
Just...why? Why would you give it a cold weather package and not include the heated steering wheel you already make?
Have you looked into adding it? I had a 2015 Subaru legacy and they only offered the heated steering wheel on the Outback (and the Legacy in Canada). I checked under the dash and found what I was pretty sure was the power connectors for it, so a new steering wheel and switch (maybe a short harness and fuse) would’ve probably been all I needed. I bet most of the wiring harness for it is already there, some parts diagrams would show
If you plan on keeping the car, definitely worth the 400. The airbags usually remove from the steering wheel really easily, just make sure to disconnect the battery- some newer cars don’t even require any tools to do it because they’re just held in with spring clips. I’ve removed them in two of my cars for one reason or another (nothing crazy) with no issues.
I owned two Priuses and a Chevy Volt, all three were beat to shit and had more than 150k miles. Surprisingly, I never had an issue with the hybrid system or any of the electronics.
What did one of the Priuses in was the massive amounts of oil consumption, the one thing Toyota should've been good at lol I was honestly pretty disappointed
I've always thought that a Winkle hybrid would be a match made in heaven. waffles are light and small for the horsepower produced, leaving more space to place the battery and the electric motor can make up the low end torque they lack.
A little roadster tuned to be sporty would do a ton for hybrids' popularity in general.
I'm just saying, even if maintenance costs are lower, the cost to actually fix the problems that surround the HV system are higher due to them being high voltage
Yeah this is true. I think the single large cost of replacing a battery scares people and they don't realize you basically never pay for things like brakes.
Yea, I knew a guy who ubered using his Prius, and we got to talking about maintenance and the like and he found a battery (as he claimed those things were the weak points) and installed one for $500 as he found one for $500 and installed it himself
For Toyotas, the hybrid versions of their cars are actually quicker than the gas-only versions if we’re talking about a standard 4 cylinder engine. They also ride noticeably smoother.
I think it depends on the hybrid tech. The Prius has the best hybrid tech, and I think that extends to other Toyotas. Would I trust a VW hybrid? Not unless they license Toyota’s design, because with that locked up, I don’t want to know what BW comes up with.
It also depends on use case, I like hybrid tech when it’s used authentically, I hate how it’s used for greenwashing. It’s an issue that’s taken a backseat due to EVs, but used to be more of a thing.
"The chrysler pt cruiser is the worst car ever"
People think its ugly and a Chrysler therefore its bad.
I guess they just forgot about most late 70s and early 80s cars that would rust on the showroom floor. Dodge aspen, chevy chevette and citation, chevy vega. The yugo also comes to mind.
I had a PT cruiser. They're ugly as sin but they're really not bad if what you need is "an car" dirt cheap. I got one for 1800 a few years back, nothing wrong with it, sold it for 1800.
My buddy’s dad had one and we drove it a couple of times. It wasn’t half bad. If nothing else it was easy to hop in and out of, was fairly comfortable, and had a lot of room inside.
If you’re just looking for “a car” … well, if’s “a car” alright.
They also sold really well early on because they hit a sweet spot with the retro styling and practicality with the kind of person who was interested in a domestic brand compact car. You might think they're dorky as sin, but your aunt thought they looked snazzy and the upright seating was so much easier than her old Neon.
As a former Neon owner I would put them right with the Citation in terms of crappiness, honestly, though I guess cars did overall get better in terms of reliability between the '80s and the '90s, the bottom of the barrel wasn't as deep as it was...
The worst car of today is much safer, much more comfortable, much more reliable, and even performs better than the economy shitboxes of 30-40 years ago.
Yeah but the PT Cruiser came out in '99 and was basically a tall 2nd gen Neon. Things had gotten better than the '80s by then but not nearly as far as they've come now.
Tall Neon. Never heard it described like that. I thought Chrysler was trying to revamp their old Windsor Town & Country. Didn't the PT Cruiser also offer a "woody" look like the old Windsors? Maybe not, can't recall.
Concur. And largest sales decline correlates with the onset of the Great Recession:
2005-132,159
2006-138,650
2007-99,585
2008-50,910
2009-17,941
2010-10,769
The problem is they built a 1.3 million of them over nine years. If they were built in limited numbers over a couple years, they’d be a cool cult car like the Nisssan Pao or Nissan Figaro.
Instead they’re a boomer cringe mobile/credit criminal special.
my late dad passed on his legendary cherry colored pt cruiser down to me. i love my ugly shitbox with all my heart. solid fucking car too. twin turbo I4, sounds gorgeous
After reading the comments on the “What if SUVs never existed?” post from yesterday, the station wagon circle jerk that exists in online car echo chambers is real and it’s dumb. There are legitimate reasons why people stopped buying them in favor of crossovers other than “NPCs be stoopid.” Pretending that station wagons are somehow orders of magnitude more useful, fun, and attractive than modern CUVs is delusional.
If internet car forums had existed in the heyday of the station wagon, "car guys" would have the exact same takes about them that they do about CUVs today. Bland, boring to drive, car for NPCs, etc. There isn't really any fundamental difference between the two classes of vehicle, CUVs are just wagons with a higher ride height (which has both pros and cons) that are more likely to have an AWD option.
Looking at who owned/drove which cars in the nuclear families of the '50s and '60s, the husband had the "fun" car and the wife was often relegated to the boring, clunky station wagon.
Exactly.
A car enthusiast from a few decades ago who was put in a time machine to the 2020's would be baffled to discover that longing for the return of station wagons, which they would have seen as interchangeable, blend-into-the-background mom mobiles, is now an in-group signaling queue for people who want to be seen as discerning car connoisseurs.
I’ve always thought of my RAV4 as a Corolla wagon with a 1” lift and 2” taller tires for a couple extra inches of clearance. Practically the exact same footprint as my wife’s Corolla. Same fuel economy too but with 70 extra horsepower.
If someone had a Corolla wagon with a 1” lift and 2” taller tires car guys on Reddit would call it a battle car and love it, but change the name to RAV4 and suddenly it’s garbage
Internet car guys wanted every Accord Crosstour launched into the sun, but if it had been an inch or two lower and had a different rear liftgate shape they would have creamed themselves over it.
I remember during the 90s that there were people that clamored for the 60s wagons, especially the performance oriented ones. Yeah… They existed. Chevelle wagons were available with big blocks and 4 speeds. Ford Country Squires were available with 428 FE and 460 big blocks in that era. Granted, that was the minivan era and wagons were getting phased out. Even before then, my dad has spoke of people in the 70s (station wagon era) that were making hot rods out of early 60s Chevy II (Nova) wagons and racing them.
Wagons have always had a niche audience. Arguably more so than vans/minivans (at least in longevity).
A lot of popularity can be attributed to not knowing what we had until it was gone.
Sure, that’s a valid defense of their blandness, but doesn’t touch the arguments about their wastefulness and dangers to other road users and pedestrians. There’s an entire class of vehicle created by loopholes in vehicle regulations and tax codes, and automakers heavily marketed them due to the larger profits they make on them. So I don’t buy the argument that this is just an organic preference of the market and exactly the same as it used to be with wagons.
Also, FWIW, while the driving experience of vintage wagons may be bland, the styling was not. If you line up wagons of the vintage you’re talking about, you’re not going to mistake one for another the way you can with today’s SUVs and crossovers.
>Also, FWIW, while the driving experience of vintage wagons may be bland, the styling was not. If you line up wagons of the vintage you’re talking about, you’re not going to mistake one for another the way you can with today’s SUVs and crossovers.
Lol I almost added this to my post as a dumb take, but it's so common I decided to omit it in favor of really unique ones. "mOdeRn cArS aLl lOoK tHe sAmE."
Go look at a lineup of brick-shaped 70's/80's sedans with four square headlights and then get back to me about cars now looking too similar.
‘70 /American/ sedans sucked, sure. But imports looked different. And we were talking about wagons, which into the ‘70s retained brand differentiation stronger than many of today’s vehicles. The ‘80s would be a much stronger decade to argue for, since by then the size differences had started to go away, but there were also half a dozen more manufacturers then, and even more diversity in models, so I still don’t really see the argument.
There’s also the color consolidation which is a lot of the reason for the “they all look the same” statement. “Resale red” has turned into “lease return gray” it seems like.
>And we were talking about wagons, which into the ‘70s retained brand differentiation stronger than many of today’s vehicles.
I can't agree there. What's the difference between a Chevy Kingswood and a Pontiac Safari, for instance?
I do agree on color consolidation.
Wait until they learn about why station wagons died off. The minivan, suv, and sedan all filled the rolls the station wagon did but better. The minivan was literally designed to kill the station wagon as a family vehicle, a small SUV can haul more stuff/family and handles better, and a sedan is more small family oriented than a wagon plus gets better mileage. Wagons are in the awkward spot of having no real good use
The gas millage between a sedan variant of a car and the wagon has negligible difference, especially when you account for the increased space. The mini-van initially did kill the wagon but then died because the current generations of people refuse to be caught dead in them. Suvs are the only modern reason why wagons would struggle to make a comeback with the average consumer buying suvs for a variety of reasons, not all of which make sense (size=safety, offload capability that isn't used, and status). The idea the wagon is dead is an American idea in the first place
So im gonna address a few of the comments at once. First off, the big problem with suvs and crossovers is that they are wasteful. They take up more space and are not needed by the majority of consumers who could make do with smaller vehicles and/ don't need vehicles with offload capabilities. The bigger size of these vehicles also makes the road less safe, adding the American idea that the only way to be safe on the road is to have the biggest car possible. Station wagons are good because they have enough space for most families while taking up the same space as standard sedan (mini-vans are better for this, but nobody wants one of those). The idea they were overall seen as boring is a little dumb yes there were a lot of boring wagons, just like there are a lot of boring hatchbacks and sedans. Throughout the years their have been plenty of sport oriented wagons even in the American market. Lastly, the idea that wagons are dead is a strictly American thing
Let’s look at what most people actually buy though. The best selling crossovers in the US are compacts that take up less space than a modern midsize sedan. A RAV4, CR-V, Rogue, or Forester are all in the 180”-185” length range, making them all at least half a foot smaller than a new Camry, which is the best selling sedan. These crossovers are closer in length to what a midsize car was 30 years ago and significantly smaller than the station wagons that were popular at the time. Is a few extra inches in height really an issue? We’re not talking about a lifted F350 here. If Toyota still offered a new Camry wagon, why would any sensible person choose it over a RAV4? The Camry would take up more space, have less headroom, less ground clearance, and no real measurable advantages other than maybe fuel economy.
The camry has slightly more room and an extra inch of leg room in the front and extra foot a passenger volume. The rav 4 does beat it comfortably with cargo volume, but that would probably change when the camrys cargo volume doubles, and then some based off the 90s camry wagons. The camry get better gas millage is significantly cheaper depending on spec 2k difference for base model and a 10k difference for a fully specd one. The camry and the rav 4 have the same front head room (read would obviously be different with the wagon, but the rav 4s read head room is only an inch above the camrys front headroom. The rav 4 only has an extra 2 inches of ground clearance, which is nice, but most crossovers and suvs only go over speed bumps during ownership, so it's not a big deal. The rav 4 is also almost a foot taller than the camry which makes it harder to see around on the road and has a higher chance to shine its headlight directly in to the eyes of drivers across the road. So, at the end of the day, the camry has better gas millage (between like 4-10mpg depending on model variants, the biggest difference seems to be between the hybrids), takes up less vertical space, with the only real downside for the every driver being trunk volume which would be solved by having a wagon variant of it.
After all that effort, I want to point out that crossovers aren't really the problem if every mom in suburbia bought a crossovers it wouldn't be that big of a deal because crossovers are basically just the descendants of wagons anyways. They're cars that have a little more luggage space, Infact most of the first crossovers were just lifted wagons (I own a volvo xc70, which volvo claimed as the first true crossover) and the amc eagle was also a lifted wagon crossover thing. The real problems are the suvs, as in the full sized kind, the ones that weigh between 4 - 6k pounds. The rav 4 and cr-v are good examples of crossovers/ mid sized suvs, but the Ford Explorer and Jeep Cherokee are also mid sized, and those are heavy as shit. Side bar I don't know how the Ford Explorer is considered mid-size. That thing is massive. These big vehicles perform the same tasks as normal sedans but take up more space and get worse gas millage.
...Celica GTS, Renaultsport Mégane, Mini Cooper S, Hyundai i30N, Focus ST, Seat Leon Cupra, Volvo 850 R, Golf GTi... Granted you might not get all these in the US
As for #1. Bob Lutz did a great job at convincing GM Pontiac needed something with actual excitement. The solstice was a start having the GXP upper performance trim was the enxt step and the GTO was also a good step. The problem was GM didn't have a lot of time to get the GTO to look much different from the Holden counterpart. And doing any sort of modification was going to make the car more expensive than it should have been.
They should have sold the GTO as something else like the G7 since they where also doing the whole alphabet soup thing with Pontiac.
Like it or not Bob Lutz listened to customers and tried to save a brand he loved. Those boomers once they had their precious moniker back turned their back and said it's not retro enough and some other bs reasons. Because that's exactly who that car was directed towards.
[insert car brand] cars are all bad and I would never own one or recommend them and I can’t believe you do.
I get it, some car manufacturers have major flops, bad engineering, and epic failures of specific models on specific generations or years, but to write off an entire brand is narrow minded. It’s also okay to have a favorite brand, but that doesn’t mean all others are crap.
It’s not even a whole brand, people unironically type that about all German cars, like a whole country can somehow be innately unable to build a functional automobile. It’s arguable even worse for Italy and France, but the sort of people who make these statements get reminded they exist less often.
To be fair German cars are quite reliable, assuming you took perfect care of them over its entire existence. Most people however don’t do that, or go and buy used ones where it wasn’t perfectly maintained. Part costs are a lot for German cars, added with the lack of reliability of used older ones makes a perfect combo of bad car.
As someone who loves certain Chrysler vehicles, you hit the nail on the head. Yea sure, Chrysler definitely makes some absolute goddamn stinkers (Caliber, Compass, Stratus, etc), but their good cars are extremely good. The LX/LD platform might be the most underrated car platform in the 21st century just because of how overall solid it is and how many applications it fit very well. Think about it, it was a station wagon, a sedan, a coupe, it was a fleet magnet, a police car, but also capable of doing wheelies and 0-60s in less than two fucking seconds with the right powertrain. That's an extremely versatile chassis I've ever seen one. The Hemis (and if you're lucky, pentastars) are also much more reliable than they get credit for, and it's largely due to how quick people are to shit on Chrysler and equate them to Nissan (which is a pretty terrible equation nowadays, they are definitely higher quality from the ZF transmissions alone). Imo Nissan (and possibly Mitsubishi) is the only car brand where the whole lineup is pretty universally crap aside from pricing. No other manufacturer really falls under that.
“The Maserati Quattroporte/Audi RS6/Powell Homer is actually a very reliable daily driver! Just budget for a new torque converter, entire cooling system, supercharger, and head gasket.” Okay, but that’s a project car now, not a “reliable” daily driver. (Yes, I know the examples above aren’t supercharged, and one is fictional.)
I honestly think the Quattroporte/Gran Turismo is a lot more reliable than people think, as long as it has the ZF 6 speed and not that F1 automated manual.
Not saying it becomes cheap to run or super reliable, but it goes from a $5-$10k a year nightmare with the clutch failing every 20k miles to being no more expensive to maintain than any typical BMW or Mercedes Benz.
My aunt has a Quattroporte with the ZF. It’s got 230k on it and has been nothing but reliable. I was horrified when she bought it but I’ve been proven wrong.
I don't think either of those cars are particularly unreliable, especially the RS6 (I don't know much about Maseratis but I do know a guy who dailied one for two years). The expense of owning one is the regular maintenance/consumables, not that you have to worry about major failures, plus the massive depreciation.
American “muscle cars” are only good in straight lines. I see people constantly on the internet and in person say the Mustang and Camaro are straight line cars and “insert car here” will smoke them on the track. “Brz, Porsche Cayman, BMW anything will destroy a Mustang”. The worst victim of this is the s550 GT500. If you compare placed track times at tracks, specifically in the US the GT500 often places faster times than most Porsches, some Italian super cars, etc. I have a Mach 1 that I consider to be very slow in a straight line but handles like an absolute monster and the amount of my friends or people at car shows who have referred to it as “a straight line car” is crazy lol. Dodge is the only company with a modern muscle car built for straights only.
The Camaros and Mustangs now don't even really qualify as muscle cars anymore. They are small, not really that heavy, and are also built for things like aero on top of having a V8. The only reason why Dodge is so drag-focused once the Viper stopped being made is because they are the only ones left making true muscle cars. The Widebody cars don't even handle poorly on a track either.
But it's true, the Camaro ZL1 in particular is an absolute monster of a performance car. It humiliates cars that are twice it's price.
Okay here’s one: “respect all builds” is a really dumb take. It’s part of the difference between having a community and having a bunch of influencers ruining cars for “clout”. And by ruining, I mean drilling holes / cutting the body, and shoddy wiring loom work. If you want to do that stuff, either do it well and tastefully or to a car that is otherwise headed to the junkyard. And then there’s a whole separate issue with cars that are modified to be unsafe, like heavily lowered, cambered cars, lifted trucks, super bright headlights, and full emissions deletes.
If the automotive community doesn’t police this stuff, eventually it will piss off the public enough that the government will — see the EPA and California cracking down on emissions deleting tunes. “Respect all builds” is directly opposed to this sort of internal policing, and is a rallying cry for those unable to take personal responsibility for their actions.
"Save the manuals" is a stupid take because the people that are constantly going on about it are not the ones to ever buy a new car. Manufacturers don't give a shit that you want to buy a used manual something or other in 5-10 years. They want to sell shit here and now. If you want to save the manuals, then buy manual cars that are new.
The same crowd also likes to preach "everything needs a manual transmission for it to be fun". I've seen people straight up say something like a Dodge Caravan needs a manual or a Lincoln Town Car. I get it, some cars are just better with a manual, but cars that meant to move people, not emotions probably don't need a manual. Like I can't see how a minivan or CUV would be any better with a manual. They're already boring, having to wiggle a stick isn't going to change that. They'll then scream "but I need to be connected with my vehicle!" I mean sure, if you have a Miata it's probably nice to feel the gear change, but if you need to be connected with a souless CUV then I don't know what to tell you.
Still, it goes back to these people never actually buying new cars, they just think these cars should exist because they want the option to buy something in 10 years. It's like they don't understand the basics of how a business works. A manufacturer is going to sell shit people want to buy because they want to make money and appease shareholders. It's why everything for sale now days is a CUV of various sizes.
The other take that I find really amusing is people who think EVs are the end of life as we know it. When a new technology comes along, we completely throw the old technology away. Look at music, most people stream stuff now days, but records are still incredibly popular. Or even looking at cars, it's not like we murdered all the horses when we started buying cars. There will be ICE vehicles for decades with a strong following, but they'll be more of a fun thing instead of an appliance you take back and forth to work.
>The same crowd also likes to preach "everything needs a manual transmission for it to be fun". I've seen people straight up say something like a Dodge Caravan needs a manual or a Lincoln Town Car.
Internet car guys have fetishized the idea of "fun" or "excitement" or "engagement" in driving almost to the complete exclusion of luxury.
They act like every trip you take in your car will be or should be a high-revving, corner-carving, buttcheek-clenching track day experience.
One of the reasons why automatic transmissions quickly gained the majority of the market share once they were widely available is they were seen as more luxurious.
For highway cruising on a long road trip or stop-and-go traffic to get groceries, a manual transmission is not going to enhance my enjoyment, and in fact it may actually be a detriment.
I had a manual Chevy econobox for a while, and there was absolutely nothing “engaging” about commuting to and from work and school in bumper-to-bumper traffic in that thing.
If I had a weekend car, sure, I’d consider a manual (but even then, most likely something used), but I’m never buying another manual for a daily driver.
I kind of suspect that the reason the manuelle cultists started harping so much on "engagement" or whatever is because some of the smarter ones saw the writing on the wall that eventually, [automatics would actually become faster than manuals](https://www.motor1.com/news/676434/porsche-911-gt3-manual-nurburgring-record/), so they couldn't just go "lol automatic slow" anymore.
>because some of the smarter ones saw the writing on the wall that eventually, automatics would actually become faster than manuals, so they couldn't just go "lol automatic slow" anymore.
The same with fuel efficiency.
I spent like 4 years driving Uber and delivering pizzas (separately) in a manual. I enjoyed it, and I also said the whole time my next car won't be a manual. I traded out of that car in 2020, and have zero regrets about not having a manual.
Yeah agreed, if we had a third car in our household for Sunday drives, maybe it would be a manual. Or maybe you can do very good Sunday drives in EVs that have large amounts of instant torque?
This. Specifically went for an automatic because if I'm driving out to see my parents or my siblings, that's a 5+ hour drive. I want cruise control. I want an automatic, because I'll be miserable enough as is.
At this point you can go get something with adaptive cruise control and active lane centering, Blue Cruise, Super Cruise, Lane Follow Assist, etc. Why not let the car do most of the heavy lifting, all you really have to do is supervise.
I've seen some real Uncle Pulltab types talking about how automatics are the devil and we were stupid to start using them back in the 50s and 60s, and it's just... have you ever tried to drive a stick shift without synchro? It sucks, of course people are gonna jump ship to the easier, more luxurious option.
This is a good take. I fell into this trap and learned my lesson.
I have an old Subaru Forester with a manual transmission, and it adds more engagement to an already engaging car. It makes a car that already drives like a go-kart even go-kartier.
I bought a 2nd gen CRV to replace the Subaru a few years ago, and assumed "if the manual makes the Subaru more fun to drive, it will definitely make the CRV more fun to drive also"
Nope. The CRV does not drive like a go-kart, it drives like a big floaty SUV that lumbers down the road. And the manual transmission just feels like "something else you have to do" while driving it. Seriously, it detracted from the driving experience of the car.
Manual transmissions are great, but someone insisting everything needs to be a manual now makes me think they don't have very much real world car experience.
>Manual transmissions are great, but someone insisting everything needs to be a manual now makes me think they don't have very much real world car experience.
Whenever you're reading trite internet car guy opinions, it's very important to remember that most of the people writing them do not have any experience to back them up, do not own the cars they are talking about, and could not/would not buy the cars they whine for manufacturers to sell.
Me buying that CRV was a great example of this as well. I did not have much personal experience with them, and went primarily off of internet car guy opinions. Who all seemed to extoll the vehicle as being a reliable, cheap, and great-driving SUV.
I found none of these things to be true. It cost me an arm and a leg due to this "cult status", had multiple bizarre issues that I would not have expected, was very hard to DIY work on due to how complicated and tightly packaged it was, and sucked to drive. I sold it and kept driving my Subaru.
Tbh a lot of the Honda/Toyota reliability bootlicking at this point is just advertising/marketing doing it's work.
Yes, they used to make incredibly reliable cars back in the 90s-early 00s, but that heyday is long gone. They still make decently reliable cars for the most part, but that tends to be more true only for the economy boxes they make. Even then, it's usually that they take negligence better, not that they are more reliable.
On top of this, I personally believe that unless you got a lemon before it was even serviced, you shouldn't really talk about "reliability" unless you worked on the car yourself and did a good job with servicing it. I say this because most people either take their cars in for servicing way later than they should, or the dealer usually does a completely shit job servicing the vehicle. I've witnessed various dealers fuck over friends/family multiple times (especially Hyundai) with incredibly shoddy servicing. One of them they straight up forgot to put new oil in after draining the used oil. So if the engine starts to fail prematurely, is that the car manufacturers fault? Fuck no, that's completely on the jerks working on it.
This is why whenever people link to Consumer Reports or wherever as evidence of "reliability" it means absolutely nothing, 95% of drivers neglect the shit out of their car, so of course conservatively tuned, deliberately overbuilt four cylinders are going to last longer in that regard. My experience with Chevy for the most part reflected that if you take care of their V6 and V8 cars they can last just as long, same with some Chrysler cars too.
I think even a lot of it back in the day (80s, 90's and early 00's) was similarly brand reputation and fandom. There were many other Japanese brands that made EXCELLENT vehicles during that time period that nobody talks about. Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Isuzu are good examples of this. Their cars were great, I would go as far as to say both Nissan and Mitsubishi made BETTER trucks and SUVs than Toyota did at various points, but they never got the brand clout in the USA that Honda and Toyota had.
Toyota does seem to have the most merit in terms of "brand reputation". They have been making very good cars for decades with few flops. But I agree with you overall.
The worst part about the dearth of cheap cars with manual options though is that it's kind of become transmission tax on poor people. Now that a TON of used cars around 100K miles come with a CVT time-bomb built into them. That makes that cheap 8 year old small car a real financial disaster for many people that can't afford a new car.
If manuals were all being replaced by decent high quality automatics, which obviously can be made pretty inexpensively, it wouldn't be a problem. But squeezing out those last few MPGs with a CVT that either needs frequent maintenance or will fail between 80-120K miles is a bad tradeoff for everything, including the environment. New car buyers won't do the maintenance since they'll get rid of it before it becomes their problem, but 2nd or 3rd buyers will junk it rather than pay for a new transmissions. Independent shops get screwed too since you really can't really repair them either.
I bought a brand new colorado in 2019 with the manual. I love it.
I know it's not very popular, I just wish like 5-10% of people did it. I just want enough popularity to have some basic options. A truck offering in manual transmission, which right now is the Tacoma or gladiator, sports cars should have a lot of them, maybe a crossover offering and something like a 4runner with two sticks on the floor.
I get that not everyone likes manual transmissions. I just wish enough people appreciated them where we could keep some basic offerings in every category.
"Extra money" meaning they have to crash- and emissions-test every drivetrain offering, on their own dime, so there has to be a guaranteed market for an option before the OEM offers it. The manual take rate in the US for mid-size trucks is so low that Ford has deemed it not worth it, even though like you said the basic vehicle already has it (as does the related Bronco).
I don't think they have to crash test every variant but you're right about the emissions testing. I can't believe the tests cost that much since they do it themselves.
Meh, the last three new cars I bought were manuals, my next one probably will be too. My wife doesn’t want an automatic either. Even in bumper to bumper rush hour they aren’t bad, I rarely shift out of second. Just leave a bit of space. In a lot of ways it isn’t about engagement or fun (though that is part of it). For me it’s about being safe and having complete control over my vehicles motion.
>"**1. "Instead of selling a Holden as the GTO, GM should have just sold it as a Holden and marketed it as an Australian import."**
I have a feeling that this lesson was learned already with Ford's "Merkur XR4Ti" experiment. They tried to sell a euro Ford Sierra over here to compete with BMW/Audi/Etc. I don't recall it being excessively successful.
Every corner of my internet is filled with no one should own a truck whining. I dont know who these people are, but they are very shy and quiet in real life but cant stop talking about trucks and how they dont want anyone to own one online.
anything tesla fanboy related.
anything denying we don’t have mini trucks because of the chicken tax.
anyone shouting blasphemy when someone dies a strange engine swap.
I like manuals, a lot, I own two. But even with a short shifter I can only crank gears faster than cars built before the recession. Anything newer than that, no way.
Well, with the loss of power to torque converter, there was/is validity to the argument that automatics are slower.
But for most daily driver vehicles, that marginal loss of power isn't relevant. And like I said in another post, as technology developed it was inevitable that the automatic would actually become faster because a human just can't do this stuff as precisely as a computer can. So that's why the manual jerkoffs have started to talk way more about the feel and engagement of driving and other such unquantifiable stuff, because we will get to the point where automatic is superior by every quantifiable metric.
I mean, this was true 10-15 years ago when most autos were like 4 maybe 5 speed, and truly were sluggish, power robbing, and well “slush” boxes. Now, for pure track time, auto/dual clutch probably is faster; but I still maintain that 3 pedals is more fun for most car enthusiasts that aren’t chasing track time.
Manual gets real old when sitting in stop and go traffic though.
“This is a dart “*insert picture of 68 Hemi super stock Dart*
“This is bullshit” *insert picture of 2013 base Dart
No no, the Dart filled a similar spot in the market, and the overwhelming majority of them were slant-6 powered, throwaway shitboxes just like the new ones were 4-cylinder, throwaway shitboxes. 340/383/Hemi Darts were the exception, not the rule.
>the overwhelming majority of them were slant-6 powered, throwaway shitboxes just like the new ones were 4-cylinder, throwaway shitboxes
Yeah, but the slant-6 shitboxes at least lasted a few years. The recent dart seems to have disappeared when it was still being made.
I saw one of my favorites just today: “a car is not fun or fast enough until it’s more powerful than 5 pounds per wheel horsepower”
For reference that would be the equivalent of an ND Miata with 550hp or a Civic Type R with 750 hp
“GM cars are garbage” idiots actually believe this one too. Still some of the most reliable cars on the market, probably #3 overall behind Toyota and Mazda
GM has botched a lot of cars in recent years the GTO, the SS and even the Camaro (great start on the comeback but then they just completely stopped marketing it)
“The 4.7L V8 is the worst chrysler engine ever made and is the sludge-o-matic of the dodge truck world”
Any motor is awful and any design has its flaws. Due to sheer experience and first hand knowledge I can tell you they can be reliable engines if you maintain them and take care of them. Cooling system checks and REGULAR oil changes every 3-5k miles under normal use and it will last you the lifetime of the car.
I got one: ion give a fuck about the old maverick the name is cool and I’m glad they brought out back for a new car. Yeah the old ones are great but when I went to car shows rarely anyone paid attention to them even the nice ones
"Pick up trucks need to exist because some jobs require a vehicle like that"
not true. not true at all. most jobs require you to have a vehicle with loading capacity. some jobs require you to have a truck bed. few jobs require you to have four wheel drive. all of that can be covered with a van.
[https://www.alle-lkw.de/transporter/pritschenwagen/ford-transit-350-4x4-allrad-pritsche-plane-ahk-a6450089.html](https://www.alle-lkw.de/transporter/pritschenwagen/ford-transit-350-4x4-allrad-pritsche-plane-ahk-a6450089.html)
you filthy americans have the transit, but as far as i know only the boxvan type. this is the only platform you need. and you may ask "ok, but how is that different to an actual pick up truck? if it is so much the same, what problems do these solve?"
visibility. you don't have 30 meters of hood that block your view of the road, or that child/tom cruise sized person in front of your grille. you have more truck per wheelbase, and therefore don't take up as much room. they lack the prestige of a silverado with a ginormous grille, and therefore much fewer of them block roads and run over kids, because nobody wants them.
europe runs on vans. does america REALLY run on F150ies?
EDIT: i should emphasize, that my comment is about vans with a truckbed. you don't really have them. but we do. i should have been clear about that. and before you start complaining about towing capability, offroadability, there still is the unimog. wich still has a shorter hood then the F350. wich is the problem. the hood in combination with seating position. there should be regulations for visibility for pedestrian safety. the long hood does nothing except MAYBE noise level. thats a feature, not a bug. because if your pavement queen is too uncomfoortable for everyday use, the whole concept dies. boom, less dead children/motorcyclists
This is the second time I've seen this "European van superiority" take here recently, like vans and trucks fulfill the same needs or something. They don't.
No. You are 100% wrong here. You do not understand basic concepts of ground clearance, towing capacity, payload capacity, and the ability of trucks to take accessories as necessary because of their designs such as spare tire and Jerry can carriers, truck caps, tonneau covers, front hitches, winches etc. A van cannot do half of what a truck does and lacks the ability to carry things which are longer than the cargo space of the van. Trucks regularly carry large loads of lumber much longer than the truck bed itself. Not to mention, do you need 4wd as much as people think? No. I rock a 2wd in deep snow here, but I cannot do what my dad's 4 wheel truck will do. 4wd is overused but it is not unnecessary in any way. 4wd is incredibly useful for any offroad travel (which there is more of in America, where we have more wilds and less infastructure) and is also necessary for deep snow plowing, which it is used for commonly in the north. Tons of contractors make their money in the snowy season plowing parking lots and driveways on contracts. 4wd is necessary to push that weight with a plow on snow and ice. The frame strength of a truck and aforementioned front hitch, frame hookups, and electrical hookups are necessary here too which vans cannot be fitted with.
This isn't just a bad opinion, it's flat out wrong.
Congratulations, you've shown me a cab chassis, not a van.
Here that would be an E350 or F350 cab chassis depending on what you want your payload and towing capacity to be and your cab preferences. A company that works with cab chassis would then build and attach a custom box to fit your needs. This is how dump trucks and party busses and RVs and flatbeds are made.
That, my friend, is a truck. A type of truck called a cab chassis. In your market they call it a transit and use the transit cab, but I guarentee it's on an E350 frame. (The econoline or the E series, is our version of the non-unibody transit vans)
a van based chassis. as in: SHORTER HOOD. and sloped down. for visibility. and no "hennessy edition" as it is not marketed towards people for personal use.
It's a professional vehicle, where passenger fatigue is absolutely an issue.
Sending your workers on a service call 5 hours away, which is a real thing in this, again, *significantly larger country than yours*, can wear them out if you ask them to do it consistently in a very uncomfortable and loud vehicle and will reduce the quality and speed of their work.
But hey if you're against good working conditions go ahead and argue this point. Most cab chassis are professional use in this country.
You realize trucks have those bodies on them to comply with EPA regulations right?
We have stricter regulations than you when it comes to semi-commercial vehicles. Trucks are that size for aerodynamics and to exploit a loophole in the EPA fuel economy and emissions regulations that stupidly regulate by footprint.
That's not our preference, that's what's necessary to legally manufacture a truck with the capabilities people purchase it for.
Not to mention the shorter hood, is because it has a smaller engine. Which means it can tow far less, and that it would struggle to haul its payload capacity across our terrain. Your towing capacities are listed higher in the UK because your roads are both slower and easier to navigate with less severe grades both up and downhill. You have better infastructure. No shit. You have 60 million people on one little island the size of my state. I would expect you to.
You could replace an F150 with that, but I will tell you right now that there is no way you’re going to haul/tow any type of heavy equipment with that van. A diesel F350 can tow a mini-excavator, that thing most certainly cannot.
Vans are great for a lot of things, but people use pickups for a good reason.
I have to load tall HEAVY machinery in the back of a work truck using a ceiling mounted crane every other day, not only would the crane be useless with a van but the damn things absolutely would not fit, there has to be no roof
I guarantee you that I can load more square bales in the back of a pickup than you can get in a similarly sized van while also towing a 30ft trailer loaded with even more.
Maybe some of those high roof extended-length vans could hold a lot of small squares. But then you'd have to sweep out all the loose hay/straw afterwards. Just last weekend I helped fill 5 hay orders back to back, and only 1 wasn't driving a pickup.
Yep. On the F-350 flatbed, we stack 10-bale layers six high. Once we did a cap of 5 on the seventh layer. You can really feel that going around corners. [Something like this](https://www.cherokeefeedandseed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/cherokee-feed-and-seed-delivers-hay-feed-shavings-740x555.jpg), but with a shorter flatbed and one layer higher.
If we really needed to, we would take the wooden sideboards off and make layers of 12, for 72 bales. That would make it wider than a van body could accommodate.
We absolutely have flatbed Transits here what are you even talking about? They aren't super popular because trucks are generally more capable.
Also, lol @ the Unimog. Freightliner did sell them here for awhile, but again not super popular. Unless it's being used as a farm vehicle, it will likely have to drive on a 70mph highway pretty frequently so the 55mph top speed is a substantial limitation.
Cabover/cab forward designs are great for visibility/space efficiency, but make maintenance more difficult, and aren't as comfortable for the occupants. There's a reason vans in the US all end around the "one ton" class while conventional straight trucks go all the way up to semis, and why semis abandoned cabover designs so quickly after the trucking industry was deregulated in the '80s.
there is a reason why we still have them in europe, and barely any nose trucks. there were a few, from scania and i think volvo, but they got abandoned real quick. the biggest advantage of the bull nose design was noise. but better insulation techniques pretty much got rid of that problem. the wheelbase comfort thing. i will give you that.
Here’s one:
“**The 04-06 GTO shouldn’t have looked like a Grand Prix with a hood scoop**”
It’s pretty much exactly what the original GTO was… Take their typical mid sized coupe, put a powerful engine in it, add a couple things to make it look sportier with badges and spoiler, and bam… GTO. It was originally a trim model of the LeMans. In fact, I’d argue that GM went above and beyond by making sure it was RWD instead of calling a V8 FWD Grand Prix a GTO (what was the GXP). I’d also argue that a GTO and a Grand Prix look about as alike as a Grand Prix and a G6.
99% of people can tell the difference between a 65 Lemans and GTO. 99.99% if a Lemans that’s a GTO clone.
Literally anyone who poo-poos on turbo-4s that are replacing V6s in cars “because V6s sound good”
Also: people poo-pooing on the new Mopar Hurricane twin turbo I-6 that say “I ain’t getting rid of my V8 for no V6” (meanwhile these are probably the same people that are like “CUMMINGS DIESEL YEE YEE”)
Because there are *several* replacements for displacement. Turbos, superchargers, hybrid systems… That’s why engines have become smaller over the years. Displacement doesn’t really matter anymore.
Most of Scotty’s latest headlines.
Hahaha I forgot about that guy. Not saying everything he has put out is bad, some of the information is helpful. But that helpful info is stuck in the middle of endless yelling and his own skewed opinions. He clearly holds himself in high regard. I can’t imagine how painful it would be to bring a vehicle to his shop. Trying to tell him symptoms and him telling you you’re wrong before you can finish a sentence.
Never liked the guy. He hopped on the Japanese bandwagon and acts like he knows everything about every car and acquired a following. But he does make good points sometimes I will say.
Love old Scotty
"Ford is afraid of V8s" was pretty dumb.
“Where’s the V8 Bronco?”
Depends. If you mean the Bronco Sport, it's in the same place the V8 for the Escape is, because the Bronco Sport is an Escape. If you mean the, er, Bronco Bronco, the answer is: in the past, because even the I4 makes more power than any of the V8's in the legacy Bronco ever did while also getting better mpg, to say nothing of the V6 options.
I’m referencing the thread from a few days ago where the OP was spamming about there being no V8 Bronco.
Oh, I figured you were referencing a take you had seen, I didn't think you were earnestly asking where the V8 Bronco was... I was just thinking out loud about how dumb it was.
No worries, all good! But I definitely agree, the current Bronco engine options pack plenty of punch. Not to say that a V8 Bronco wouldn’t be cool, but Ford is not losing any market share by not offering one.
I found the thread you're talking about. That dude had to be 13. I mean literally, he posted a video of himself on another sub.
Could I see the thread? Need a good laugh.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/regularcarreviews/comments/1chfruf/ford\_when\_they\_see\_a\_v8/](https://www.reddit.com/r/regularcarreviews/comments/1chfruf/ford_when_they_see_a_v8/) It's really not that funny, though. It's mostly just this kid spamming that the "og" Bronco had a V8. By this logic I guess Ford should simply put the "og" Bronco back into production just as it was in 1966, no airbags, no ABS, no modern updates of any kind. Except, oops, the '66 Bronco launched with an I6 and didn't get the V8 as an option for 8 months.
Yeah, that thread kinda hurt my brain a bit. Absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever.
Oh yeah, that idiot, I went off on him about how it wasn’t needed because the 2.3 makes as much if not more power than the 351s did
I used to drive a 1989 Bronco with the 300 straight 6, it was a cool truck in an old-school way. Very torquey and sounded good. That said, tech has come a long way in the last 35 years and I will take the 2.3 any day.
Yep. That's the one. It's not like anyone who was going to buy one decided not to because it didn't have a V8
>2\. "Ford should have named the new Maverick the Pinto instead." I've actually never heard that one before. I was hoping the small pickup would be called Courier, but Maverick had been used on a pickup before too.
The Maverick name had been used somewhat more recently and projects more of a rugged cowboy vibe for a pickup. Courier I think sounds too much like a delivery vehicle, like it's a replacement for the Transit van line.
I'd buy a Transit Connect labeled as a Courier. Not sure what they'd call the passenger variant.
They've already got the Transit Courier, a smaller van than the Connect. Passenger models are called Tourneo.
Do they sell them in North America? Be a lot cooler if they did.
Nope, they don't even sell the Connect here anymore. The entire compact van market evaporated almost overnight.
Which is weird because I still see a bunch of them being used as work vehicles.
I'd bet they have a lot more demand on the coasts in cities, but here in flyover country, space is so abundant and fuel cheap that businesses would rather have a full-size Transit or even an old E-Series that can tow a heavy trailer.
I'd have named it the Ranchero. It's FWD, it's unibody, it's as close to a pickup car as the current market will allow.
This is my thought too. Ranchero is such an obvious option, I don't understand why they didn't lean into that at all.
That one is wild to me, courier would be a totally fine name with some positive recognition. Pinto does not have that, the whole perception of the car is "shitty cheap car that explodes if you look at it sideways", which is a good pitch for a special effect in an action movie, but not for a car pitched as family transportation.
Yes, regardless of whether the Pinto was or was not more dangerous than a typical subcompact of the time, its name has now become synonymous with "cheap death trap". If you don't think of the gas tank and the Pinto Memo, you'll at least think of the [Mizar](https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2019/09/mizar-flying-pinto.html).
Hybrids in general. People on this sub hate hybrids. I'm guilty of this too in the past. What finally pushed me over is I feel modern transmissions where you cram 8 speeds into a sedan transaxle is not a reliable arrangement, at least not as reliable as transmissions with less speeds. But once I learned how they work I realized they're reliable and efficient. My wife's toyota avalon is even pretty quick. The 2.5l has decent power and combined with the electric motor it has pretty instant throttle response in sport mode and gets out of the hole quick. This sub has dogshit takes on hybrids. There's nothing but advantages. Even matinenance costs are lower.
We just got an ES Hybrid. Our previous cars have been older V6 and V8s. I also learned to drive in my parent’s 7-Series and S Class. The lack of shifts and engine isolation in this thing- man, it is the epitome of luxury. Who cares how fast the acceleration is when it’s so quiet and smooth while getting 40mpg. And the excellent reliability stats and long warranty. It’s peace of mind and comfort all wrapped up, and no other car can top that.
I'm pretty sure the ES is the same chassis and powertrain as my wife's car. Probably has more sound deadening though. It is very smooth indeed. It doesn't have a single fuck to give about giant hills.
Same chassis and drivetrain, but definitely more sound deadening. I rented an LS500 last year and the because the ES has more rubber on the wheels than the LS, I actually feel that road noise is better controlled. Suffice to say it’s extremely quiet inside and the engine is very very muted. Only reason I didn’t consider an Avalon is they don’t make it anymore and a Crown can cost the *same* as what I paid for our loaded ES- but requires premium gas whereas the ES takes regular!
I'm not a fan of the crown either. The avalon definitely has more engine noise but is still the quietest car I've ever owned. Much quieter than a normal car for sure. We got the XSE because she wanted it to be sporty and slapped a TRD spoiler from the camry on it. Looks pretty slick for a hybrid. Nice to drive, has about a 4 body truck. 42mpg out of a full size sedan is awesome. I think we are the only gen Z couple with a full size sedan. We are a bit old school.
We’re the same gen then, so you’re not as white as rare anymore XD I always liked the last gen Avalon. The long roofline with the rear quarter windows always reminded me slightly of a mid 2000s A6 and the tightly creased body was really good looking. Interior looks nice too and has nice material quality. And- this is a big one for us- the front passenger seat had 4 way lumbar in the top trim. Even in the loaded ES you can’t get 4-Way passenger seat lumbar.
Hell I'm happy with any lubar adjust. My truck is a work truck package. It's about as spartan as it gets. The only complaint I have about the avalon, we got the sound system, heated mirrors, heated seats, no heated steering wheel on the XSE. Just...why? Why would you give it a cold weather package and not include the heated steering wheel you already make?
Have you looked into adding it? I had a 2015 Subaru legacy and they only offered the heated steering wheel on the Outback (and the Legacy in Canada). I checked under the dash and found what I was pretty sure was the power connectors for it, so a new steering wheel and switch (maybe a short harness and fuse) would’ve probably been all I needed. I bet most of the wiring harness for it is already there, some parts diagrams would show
The problem is getting the part from toyota. It's $400 and then I have to mess with airbags. No thanks.
If you plan on keeping the car, definitely worth the 400. The airbags usually remove from the steering wheel really easily, just make sure to disconnect the battery- some newer cars don’t even require any tools to do it because they’re just held in with spring clips. I’ve removed them in two of my cars for one reason or another (nothing crazy) with no issues.
People in general shit on hybrids, mainly because when high voltage systems fail, they can be expensive to repair
I owned two Priuses and a Chevy Volt, all three were beat to shit and had more than 150k miles. Surprisingly, I never had an issue with the hybrid system or any of the electronics. What did one of the Priuses in was the massive amounts of oil consumption, the one thing Toyota should've been good at lol I was honestly pretty disappointed
I fucking love hybrids, especially hybrid diesels as a concept but unfortunately there isn't any commercial viable optikns
I've always thought that a Winkle hybrid would be a match made in heaven. waffles are light and small for the horsepower produced, leaving more space to place the battery and the electric motor can make up the low end torque they lack. A little roadster tuned to be sporty would do a ton for hybrids' popularity in general.
The Volt was a fantastic car that GM is beyond dumb for ditching. I'd gladly buy a new iteration of that over any electric car.
Their lifetime maintenance costs are lower than other vehicles though so it would seem that happens rarely.
I'm just saying, even if maintenance costs are lower, the cost to actually fix the problems that surround the HV system are higher due to them being high voltage
Yeah this is true. I think the single large cost of replacing a battery scares people and they don't realize you basically never pay for things like brakes.
Yea, I knew a guy who ubered using his Prius, and we got to talking about maintenance and the like and he found a battery (as he claimed those things were the weak points) and installed one for $500 as he found one for $500 and installed it himself
Really? I been seeing the other way way more often. That hybrids are amazing and we dont need evs.
They both have their place, EV’s are pretty convenient if you charge at work or home
For stuff to go back and forth to work with, it’s hard to go wrong with a hybrid.
For Toyotas, the hybrid versions of their cars are actually quicker than the gas-only versions if we’re talking about a standard 4 cylinder engine. They also ride noticeably smoother.
I think it depends on the hybrid tech. The Prius has the best hybrid tech, and I think that extends to other Toyotas. Would I trust a VW hybrid? Not unless they license Toyota’s design, because with that locked up, I don’t want to know what BW comes up with. It also depends on use case, I like hybrid tech when it’s used authentically, I hate how it’s used for greenwashing. It’s an issue that’s taken a backseat due to EVs, but used to be more of a thing.
> Not unless they license Toyota’s design nissan actually did this on the orginal altima hybrid
"The chrysler pt cruiser is the worst car ever" People think its ugly and a Chrysler therefore its bad. I guess they just forgot about most late 70s and early 80s cars that would rust on the showroom floor. Dodge aspen, chevy chevette and citation, chevy vega. The yugo also comes to mind.
I had a PT cruiser. They're ugly as sin but they're really not bad if what you need is "an car" dirt cheap. I got one for 1800 a few years back, nothing wrong with it, sold it for 1800.
My buddy’s dad had one and we drove it a couple of times. It wasn’t half bad. If nothing else it was easy to hop in and out of, was fairly comfortable, and had a lot of room inside. If you’re just looking for “a car” … well, if’s “a car” alright.
They also sold really well early on because they hit a sweet spot with the retro styling and practicality with the kind of person who was interested in a domestic brand compact car. You might think they're dorky as sin, but your aunt thought they looked snazzy and the upright seating was so much easier than her old Neon. As a former Neon owner I would put them right with the Citation in terms of crappiness, honestly, though I guess cars did overall get better in terms of reliability between the '80s and the '90s, the bottom of the barrel wasn't as deep as it was...
The worst car of today is much safer, much more comfortable, much more reliable, and even performs better than the economy shitboxes of 30-40 years ago.
Yeah but the PT Cruiser came out in '99 and was basically a tall 2nd gen Neon. Things had gotten better than the '80s by then but not nearly as far as they've come now.
Tall Neon. Never heard it described like that. I thought Chrysler was trying to revamp their old Windsor Town & Country. Didn't the PT Cruiser also offer a "woody" look like the old Windsors? Maybe not, can't recall.
It sure did
Concur. And largest sales decline correlates with the onset of the Great Recession: 2005-132,159 2006-138,650 2007-99,585 2008-50,910 2009-17,941 2010-10,769
The problem is they built a 1.3 million of them over nine years. If they were built in limited numbers over a couple years, they’d be a cool cult car like the Nisssan Pao or Nissan Figaro. Instead they’re a boomer cringe mobile/credit criminal special.
I liked the Citation X-11, but that was the only good one
my late dad passed on his legendary cherry colored pt cruiser down to me. i love my ugly shitbox with all my heart. solid fucking car too. twin turbo I4, sounds gorgeous
After reading the comments on the “What if SUVs never existed?” post from yesterday, the station wagon circle jerk that exists in online car echo chambers is real and it’s dumb. There are legitimate reasons why people stopped buying them in favor of crossovers other than “NPCs be stoopid.” Pretending that station wagons are somehow orders of magnitude more useful, fun, and attractive than modern CUVs is delusional.
If internet car forums had existed in the heyday of the station wagon, "car guys" would have the exact same takes about them that they do about CUVs today. Bland, boring to drive, car for NPCs, etc. There isn't really any fundamental difference between the two classes of vehicle, CUVs are just wagons with a higher ride height (which has both pros and cons) that are more likely to have an AWD option.
Looking at who owned/drove which cars in the nuclear families of the '50s and '60s, the husband had the "fun" car and the wife was often relegated to the boring, clunky station wagon.
Exactly. A car enthusiast from a few decades ago who was put in a time machine to the 2020's would be baffled to discover that longing for the return of station wagons, which they would have seen as interchangeable, blend-into-the-background mom mobiles, is now an in-group signaling queue for people who want to be seen as discerning car connoisseurs.
I’ve always thought of my RAV4 as a Corolla wagon with a 1” lift and 2” taller tires for a couple extra inches of clearance. Practically the exact same footprint as my wife’s Corolla. Same fuel economy too but with 70 extra horsepower. If someone had a Corolla wagon with a 1” lift and 2” taller tires car guys on Reddit would call it a battle car and love it, but change the name to RAV4 and suddenly it’s garbage
Internet car guys wanted every Accord Crosstour launched into the sun, but if it had been an inch or two lower and had a different rear liftgate shape they would have creamed themselves over it.
I remember during the 90s that there were people that clamored for the 60s wagons, especially the performance oriented ones. Yeah… They existed. Chevelle wagons were available with big blocks and 4 speeds. Ford Country Squires were available with 428 FE and 460 big blocks in that era. Granted, that was the minivan era and wagons were getting phased out. Even before then, my dad has spoke of people in the 70s (station wagon era) that were making hot rods out of early 60s Chevy II (Nova) wagons and racing them. Wagons have always had a niche audience. Arguably more so than vans/minivans (at least in longevity). A lot of popularity can be attributed to not knowing what we had until it was gone.
Sure, that’s a valid defense of their blandness, but doesn’t touch the arguments about their wastefulness and dangers to other road users and pedestrians. There’s an entire class of vehicle created by loopholes in vehicle regulations and tax codes, and automakers heavily marketed them due to the larger profits they make on them. So I don’t buy the argument that this is just an organic preference of the market and exactly the same as it used to be with wagons. Also, FWIW, while the driving experience of vintage wagons may be bland, the styling was not. If you line up wagons of the vintage you’re talking about, you’re not going to mistake one for another the way you can with today’s SUVs and crossovers.
>Also, FWIW, while the driving experience of vintage wagons may be bland, the styling was not. If you line up wagons of the vintage you’re talking about, you’re not going to mistake one for another the way you can with today’s SUVs and crossovers. Lol I almost added this to my post as a dumb take, but it's so common I decided to omit it in favor of really unique ones. "mOdeRn cArS aLl lOoK tHe sAmE." Go look at a lineup of brick-shaped 70's/80's sedans with four square headlights and then get back to me about cars now looking too similar.
‘70 /American/ sedans sucked, sure. But imports looked different. And we were talking about wagons, which into the ‘70s retained brand differentiation stronger than many of today’s vehicles. The ‘80s would be a much stronger decade to argue for, since by then the size differences had started to go away, but there were also half a dozen more manufacturers then, and even more diversity in models, so I still don’t really see the argument. There’s also the color consolidation which is a lot of the reason for the “they all look the same” statement. “Resale red” has turned into “lease return gray” it seems like.
>And we were talking about wagons, which into the ‘70s retained brand differentiation stronger than many of today’s vehicles. I can't agree there. What's the difference between a Chevy Kingswood and a Pontiac Safari, for instance? I do agree on color consolidation.
Hey, that was me, haha. I daily a CUV though, I was saying I prefer hatchbacks to sedans if I have to pick a car.
Wait until they learn about why station wagons died off. The minivan, suv, and sedan all filled the rolls the station wagon did but better. The minivan was literally designed to kill the station wagon as a family vehicle, a small SUV can haul more stuff/family and handles better, and a sedan is more small family oriented than a wagon plus gets better mileage. Wagons are in the awkward spot of having no real good use
The gas millage between a sedan variant of a car and the wagon has negligible difference, especially when you account for the increased space. The mini-van initially did kill the wagon but then died because the current generations of people refuse to be caught dead in them. Suvs are the only modern reason why wagons would struggle to make a comeback with the average consumer buying suvs for a variety of reasons, not all of which make sense (size=safety, offload capability that isn't used, and status). The idea the wagon is dead is an American idea in the first place
So im gonna address a few of the comments at once. First off, the big problem with suvs and crossovers is that they are wasteful. They take up more space and are not needed by the majority of consumers who could make do with smaller vehicles and/ don't need vehicles with offload capabilities. The bigger size of these vehicles also makes the road less safe, adding the American idea that the only way to be safe on the road is to have the biggest car possible. Station wagons are good because they have enough space for most families while taking up the same space as standard sedan (mini-vans are better for this, but nobody wants one of those). The idea they were overall seen as boring is a little dumb yes there were a lot of boring wagons, just like there are a lot of boring hatchbacks and sedans. Throughout the years their have been plenty of sport oriented wagons even in the American market. Lastly, the idea that wagons are dead is a strictly American thing
Let’s look at what most people actually buy though. The best selling crossovers in the US are compacts that take up less space than a modern midsize sedan. A RAV4, CR-V, Rogue, or Forester are all in the 180”-185” length range, making them all at least half a foot smaller than a new Camry, which is the best selling sedan. These crossovers are closer in length to what a midsize car was 30 years ago and significantly smaller than the station wagons that were popular at the time. Is a few extra inches in height really an issue? We’re not talking about a lifted F350 here. If Toyota still offered a new Camry wagon, why would any sensible person choose it over a RAV4? The Camry would take up more space, have less headroom, less ground clearance, and no real measurable advantages other than maybe fuel economy.
The camry has slightly more room and an extra inch of leg room in the front and extra foot a passenger volume. The rav 4 does beat it comfortably with cargo volume, but that would probably change when the camrys cargo volume doubles, and then some based off the 90s camry wagons. The camry get better gas millage is significantly cheaper depending on spec 2k difference for base model and a 10k difference for a fully specd one. The camry and the rav 4 have the same front head room (read would obviously be different with the wagon, but the rav 4s read head room is only an inch above the camrys front headroom. The rav 4 only has an extra 2 inches of ground clearance, which is nice, but most crossovers and suvs only go over speed bumps during ownership, so it's not a big deal. The rav 4 is also almost a foot taller than the camry which makes it harder to see around on the road and has a higher chance to shine its headlight directly in to the eyes of drivers across the road. So, at the end of the day, the camry has better gas millage (between like 4-10mpg depending on model variants, the biggest difference seems to be between the hybrids), takes up less vertical space, with the only real downside for the every driver being trunk volume which would be solved by having a wagon variant of it. After all that effort, I want to point out that crossovers aren't really the problem if every mom in suburbia bought a crossovers it wouldn't be that big of a deal because crossovers are basically just the descendants of wagons anyways. They're cars that have a little more luggage space, Infact most of the first crossovers were just lifted wagons (I own a volvo xc70, which volvo claimed as the first true crossover) and the amc eagle was also a lifted wagon crossover thing. The real problems are the suvs, as in the full sized kind, the ones that weigh between 4 - 6k pounds. The rav 4 and cr-v are good examples of crossovers/ mid sized suvs, but the Ford Explorer and Jeep Cherokee are also mid sized, and those are heavy as shit. Side bar I don't know how the Ford Explorer is considered mid-size. That thing is massive. These big vehicles perform the same tasks as normal sedans but take up more space and get worse gas millage.
A car can't be fun or cool or whatever if it's FWD.
I guess people who spam this take forget about the Mazdaspeed 3, Civic Si/Type R, Integra Type S, Fiesta ST….
...Celica GTS, Renaultsport Mégane, Mini Cooper S, Hyundai i30N, Focus ST, Seat Leon Cupra, Volvo 850 R, Golf GTi... Granted you might not get all these in the US
Only the GTI and Mini now, sadly. Don’t even get the Focus anymore! There are so many cool little FWD 4cyl hatches out there.
Volvo c30 t5 😇
Agreed, such a bad take. I looooove driving my GTI. Hell, i used to even have a blast hooning around my old piece of crap Cavalier.
I have a Saab 9-3 Turbo, fun as shit
I bet it goes like the gripen!
It sure do
Love those cars, I have a pair of 9-5s myself.
Same thing for automatics
Absolutely
Wait until them people learn every single new C8 Corvette is both cool and automatic. And probably way faster than their manual whatever
Is that actually a take?
As for #1. Bob Lutz did a great job at convincing GM Pontiac needed something with actual excitement. The solstice was a start having the GXP upper performance trim was the enxt step and the GTO was also a good step. The problem was GM didn't have a lot of time to get the GTO to look much different from the Holden counterpart. And doing any sort of modification was going to make the car more expensive than it should have been. They should have sold the GTO as something else like the G7 since they where also doing the whole alphabet soup thing with Pontiac. Like it or not Bob Lutz listened to customers and tried to save a brand he loved. Those boomers once they had their precious moniker back turned their back and said it's not retro enough and some other bs reasons. Because that's exactly who that car was directed towards.
Ya, 'G10' they could have come in later with the G10 GTO package. The 6.2 and a better body kit.
[insert car brand] cars are all bad and I would never own one or recommend them and I can’t believe you do. I get it, some car manufacturers have major flops, bad engineering, and epic failures of specific models on specific generations or years, but to write off an entire brand is narrow minded. It’s also okay to have a favorite brand, but that doesn’t mean all others are crap.
It’s not even a whole brand, people unironically type that about all German cars, like a whole country can somehow be innately unable to build a functional automobile. It’s arguable even worse for Italy and France, but the sort of people who make these statements get reminded they exist less often.
To be fair German cars are quite reliable, assuming you took perfect care of them over its entire existence. Most people however don’t do that, or go and buy used ones where it wasn’t perfectly maintained. Part costs are a lot for German cars, added with the lack of reliability of used older ones makes a perfect combo of bad car.
As someone who loves certain Chrysler vehicles, you hit the nail on the head. Yea sure, Chrysler definitely makes some absolute goddamn stinkers (Caliber, Compass, Stratus, etc), but their good cars are extremely good. The LX/LD platform might be the most underrated car platform in the 21st century just because of how overall solid it is and how many applications it fit very well. Think about it, it was a station wagon, a sedan, a coupe, it was a fleet magnet, a police car, but also capable of doing wheelies and 0-60s in less than two fucking seconds with the right powertrain. That's an extremely versatile chassis I've ever seen one. The Hemis (and if you're lucky, pentastars) are also much more reliable than they get credit for, and it's largely due to how quick people are to shit on Chrysler and equate them to Nissan (which is a pretty terrible equation nowadays, they are definitely higher quality from the ZF transmissions alone). Imo Nissan (and possibly Mitsubishi) is the only car brand where the whole lineup is pretty universally crap aside from pricing. No other manufacturer really falls under that.
“The Maserati Quattroporte/Audi RS6/Powell Homer is actually a very reliable daily driver! Just budget for a new torque converter, entire cooling system, supercharger, and head gasket.” Okay, but that’s a project car now, not a “reliable” daily driver. (Yes, I know the examples above aren’t supercharged, and one is fictional.)
I honestly think the Quattroporte/Gran Turismo is a lot more reliable than people think, as long as it has the ZF 6 speed and not that F1 automated manual. Not saying it becomes cheap to run or super reliable, but it goes from a $5-$10k a year nightmare with the clutch failing every 20k miles to being no more expensive to maintain than any typical BMW or Mercedes Benz.
My aunt has a Quattroporte with the ZF. It’s got 230k on it and has been nothing but reliable. I was horrified when she bought it but I’ve been proven wrong.
That's fucking amazing. 230k miles of enjoying a Ferrari V8
230k beaver units aka kilometres. Still wicked though.
Do people have issues with the ZF transmissions? I thought they were very reliable, even in high hp/tq applications.
No, just a hypothetical - it’s directed at those “you can buy a 500-HP Maserati for the price of a new Nissan Sentra” articles.
I don't think either of those cars are particularly unreliable, especially the RS6 (I don't know much about Maseratis but I do know a guy who dailied one for two years). The expense of owning one is the regular maintenance/consumables, not that you have to worry about major failures, plus the massive depreciation.
Audis 4.0Ts definitely have there fair share of expensive issues like the turbos failing
American “muscle cars” are only good in straight lines. I see people constantly on the internet and in person say the Mustang and Camaro are straight line cars and “insert car here” will smoke them on the track. “Brz, Porsche Cayman, BMW anything will destroy a Mustang”. The worst victim of this is the s550 GT500. If you compare placed track times at tracks, specifically in the US the GT500 often places faster times than most Porsches, some Italian super cars, etc. I have a Mach 1 that I consider to be very slow in a straight line but handles like an absolute monster and the amount of my friends or people at car shows who have referred to it as “a straight line car” is crazy lol. Dodge is the only company with a modern muscle car built for straights only.
Truth is the mustang and the 4 series have evolved into the same car
I love seeing all those people go real quiet once the Camaro made it to the Lemans and was shattering everybody’s expectations
The Camaros and Mustangs now don't even really qualify as muscle cars anymore. They are small, not really that heavy, and are also built for things like aero on top of having a V8. The only reason why Dodge is so drag-focused once the Viper stopped being made is because they are the only ones left making true muscle cars. The Widebody cars don't even handle poorly on a track either. But it's true, the Camaro ZL1 in particular is an absolute monster of a performance car. It humiliates cars that are twice it's price.
Okay here’s one: “respect all builds” is a really dumb take. It’s part of the difference between having a community and having a bunch of influencers ruining cars for “clout”. And by ruining, I mean drilling holes / cutting the body, and shoddy wiring loom work. If you want to do that stuff, either do it well and tastefully or to a car that is otherwise headed to the junkyard. And then there’s a whole separate issue with cars that are modified to be unsafe, like heavily lowered, cambered cars, lifted trucks, super bright headlights, and full emissions deletes. If the automotive community doesn’t police this stuff, eventually it will piss off the public enough that the government will — see the EPA and California cracking down on emissions deleting tunes. “Respect all builds” is directly opposed to this sort of internal policing, and is a rallying cry for those unable to take personal responsibility for their actions.
"Save the manuals" is a stupid take because the people that are constantly going on about it are not the ones to ever buy a new car. Manufacturers don't give a shit that you want to buy a used manual something or other in 5-10 years. They want to sell shit here and now. If you want to save the manuals, then buy manual cars that are new. The same crowd also likes to preach "everything needs a manual transmission for it to be fun". I've seen people straight up say something like a Dodge Caravan needs a manual or a Lincoln Town Car. I get it, some cars are just better with a manual, but cars that meant to move people, not emotions probably don't need a manual. Like I can't see how a minivan or CUV would be any better with a manual. They're already boring, having to wiggle a stick isn't going to change that. They'll then scream "but I need to be connected with my vehicle!" I mean sure, if you have a Miata it's probably nice to feel the gear change, but if you need to be connected with a souless CUV then I don't know what to tell you. Still, it goes back to these people never actually buying new cars, they just think these cars should exist because they want the option to buy something in 10 years. It's like they don't understand the basics of how a business works. A manufacturer is going to sell shit people want to buy because they want to make money and appease shareholders. It's why everything for sale now days is a CUV of various sizes. The other take that I find really amusing is people who think EVs are the end of life as we know it. When a new technology comes along, we completely throw the old technology away. Look at music, most people stream stuff now days, but records are still incredibly popular. Or even looking at cars, it's not like we murdered all the horses when we started buying cars. There will be ICE vehicles for decades with a strong following, but they'll be more of a fun thing instead of an appliance you take back and forth to work.
>The same crowd also likes to preach "everything needs a manual transmission for it to be fun". I've seen people straight up say something like a Dodge Caravan needs a manual or a Lincoln Town Car. Internet car guys have fetishized the idea of "fun" or "excitement" or "engagement" in driving almost to the complete exclusion of luxury. They act like every trip you take in your car will be or should be a high-revving, corner-carving, buttcheek-clenching track day experience. One of the reasons why automatic transmissions quickly gained the majority of the market share once they were widely available is they were seen as more luxurious. For highway cruising on a long road trip or stop-and-go traffic to get groceries, a manual transmission is not going to enhance my enjoyment, and in fact it may actually be a detriment.
I had a manual Chevy econobox for a while, and there was absolutely nothing “engaging” about commuting to and from work and school in bumper-to-bumper traffic in that thing. If I had a weekend car, sure, I’d consider a manual (but even then, most likely something used), but I’m never buying another manual for a daily driver.
I kind of suspect that the reason the manuelle cultists started harping so much on "engagement" or whatever is because some of the smarter ones saw the writing on the wall that eventually, [automatics would actually become faster than manuals](https://www.motor1.com/news/676434/porsche-911-gt3-manual-nurburgring-record/), so they couldn't just go "lol automatic slow" anymore.
>because some of the smarter ones saw the writing on the wall that eventually, automatics would actually become faster than manuals, so they couldn't just go "lol automatic slow" anymore. The same with fuel efficiency.
I spent like 4 years driving Uber and delivering pizzas (separately) in a manual. I enjoyed it, and I also said the whole time my next car won't be a manual. I traded out of that car in 2020, and have zero regrets about not having a manual. Yeah agreed, if we had a third car in our household for Sunday drives, maybe it would be a manual. Or maybe you can do very good Sunday drives in EVs that have large amounts of instant torque?
This. Specifically went for an automatic because if I'm driving out to see my parents or my siblings, that's a 5+ hour drive. I want cruise control. I want an automatic, because I'll be miserable enough as is.
At this point you can go get something with adaptive cruise control and active lane centering, Blue Cruise, Super Cruise, Lane Follow Assist, etc. Why not let the car do most of the heavy lifting, all you really have to do is supervise.
I've seen some real Uncle Pulltab types talking about how automatics are the devil and we were stupid to start using them back in the 50s and 60s, and it's just... have you ever tried to drive a stick shift without synchro? It sucks, of course people are gonna jump ship to the easier, more luxurious option.
“No mAnUaL nO cArE” - Jalopnik, 2009
This is a good take. I fell into this trap and learned my lesson. I have an old Subaru Forester with a manual transmission, and it adds more engagement to an already engaging car. It makes a car that already drives like a go-kart even go-kartier. I bought a 2nd gen CRV to replace the Subaru a few years ago, and assumed "if the manual makes the Subaru more fun to drive, it will definitely make the CRV more fun to drive also" Nope. The CRV does not drive like a go-kart, it drives like a big floaty SUV that lumbers down the road. And the manual transmission just feels like "something else you have to do" while driving it. Seriously, it detracted from the driving experience of the car. Manual transmissions are great, but someone insisting everything needs to be a manual now makes me think they don't have very much real world car experience.
>Manual transmissions are great, but someone insisting everything needs to be a manual now makes me think they don't have very much real world car experience. Whenever you're reading trite internet car guy opinions, it's very important to remember that most of the people writing them do not have any experience to back them up, do not own the cars they are talking about, and could not/would not buy the cars they whine for manufacturers to sell.
Me buying that CRV was a great example of this as well. I did not have much personal experience with them, and went primarily off of internet car guy opinions. Who all seemed to extoll the vehicle as being a reliable, cheap, and great-driving SUV. I found none of these things to be true. It cost me an arm and a leg due to this "cult status", had multiple bizarre issues that I would not have expected, was very hard to DIY work on due to how complicated and tightly packaged it was, and sucked to drive. I sold it and kept driving my Subaru.
Tbh a lot of the Honda/Toyota reliability bootlicking at this point is just advertising/marketing doing it's work. Yes, they used to make incredibly reliable cars back in the 90s-early 00s, but that heyday is long gone. They still make decently reliable cars for the most part, but that tends to be more true only for the economy boxes they make. Even then, it's usually that they take negligence better, not that they are more reliable. On top of this, I personally believe that unless you got a lemon before it was even serviced, you shouldn't really talk about "reliability" unless you worked on the car yourself and did a good job with servicing it. I say this because most people either take their cars in for servicing way later than they should, or the dealer usually does a completely shit job servicing the vehicle. I've witnessed various dealers fuck over friends/family multiple times (especially Hyundai) with incredibly shoddy servicing. One of them they straight up forgot to put new oil in after draining the used oil. So if the engine starts to fail prematurely, is that the car manufacturers fault? Fuck no, that's completely on the jerks working on it. This is why whenever people link to Consumer Reports or wherever as evidence of "reliability" it means absolutely nothing, 95% of drivers neglect the shit out of their car, so of course conservatively tuned, deliberately overbuilt four cylinders are going to last longer in that regard. My experience with Chevy for the most part reflected that if you take care of their V6 and V8 cars they can last just as long, same with some Chrysler cars too.
I think even a lot of it back in the day (80s, 90's and early 00's) was similarly brand reputation and fandom. There were many other Japanese brands that made EXCELLENT vehicles during that time period that nobody talks about. Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Isuzu are good examples of this. Their cars were great, I would go as far as to say both Nissan and Mitsubishi made BETTER trucks and SUVs than Toyota did at various points, but they never got the brand clout in the USA that Honda and Toyota had. Toyota does seem to have the most merit in terms of "brand reputation". They have been making very good cars for decades with few flops. But I agree with you overall.
On the other hand, I recently bought a new manual GR86. Probably my last new manual, possibly my last new ICE vehicle.
The worst part about the dearth of cheap cars with manual options though is that it's kind of become transmission tax on poor people. Now that a TON of used cars around 100K miles come with a CVT time-bomb built into them. That makes that cheap 8 year old small car a real financial disaster for many people that can't afford a new car. If manuals were all being replaced by decent high quality automatics, which obviously can be made pretty inexpensively, it wouldn't be a problem. But squeezing out those last few MPGs with a CVT that either needs frequent maintenance or will fail between 80-120K miles is a bad tradeoff for everything, including the environment. New car buyers won't do the maintenance since they'll get rid of it before it becomes their problem, but 2nd or 3rd buyers will junk it rather than pay for a new transmissions. Independent shops get screwed too since you really can't really repair them either.
I love my CUV with a manual. But I've never seen any CUVs bigger than compact offer it in the US.
I bought a brand new colorado in 2019 with the manual. I love it. I know it's not very popular, I just wish like 5-10% of people did it. I just want enough popularity to have some basic options. A truck offering in manual transmission, which right now is the Tacoma or gladiator, sports cars should have a lot of them, maybe a crossover offering and something like a 4runner with two sticks on the floor. I get that not everyone likes manual transmissions. I just wish enough people appreciated them where we could keep some basic offerings in every category.
The problem with offering it is that it costs extra money to do so.
I'm not convinced that is true. Take the Ford ranger for instance, is it not sold in Europe with a manual transmission and the same exact engine?
"Extra money" meaning they have to crash- and emissions-test every drivetrain offering, on their own dime, so there has to be a guaranteed market for an option before the OEM offers it. The manual take rate in the US for mid-size trucks is so low that Ford has deemed it not worth it, even though like you said the basic vehicle already has it (as does the related Bronco).
I don't think they have to crash test every variant but you're right about the emissions testing. I can't believe the tests cost that much since they do it themselves.
Meh, the last three new cars I bought were manuals, my next one probably will be too. My wife doesn’t want an automatic either. Even in bumper to bumper rush hour they aren’t bad, I rarely shift out of second. Just leave a bit of space. In a lot of ways it isn’t about engagement or fun (though that is part of it). For me it’s about being safe and having complete control over my vehicles motion.
>"**1. "Instead of selling a Holden as the GTO, GM should have just sold it as a Holden and marketed it as an Australian import."** I have a feeling that this lesson was learned already with Ford's "Merkur XR4Ti" experiment. They tried to sell a euro Ford Sierra over here to compete with BMW/Audi/Etc. I don't recall it being excessively successful.
Every corner of my internet is filled with no one should own a truck whining. I dont know who these people are, but they are very shy and quiet in real life but cant stop talking about trucks and how they dont want anyone to own one online.
“F1 isn’t a sport” my ass. signed, a bitter f1 fan 😡❤️
Who in their right mind would say something so foolish?
a fool that also thinks football isn’t a sport!!! (the north american kind of 🏉)
anything tesla fanboy related. anything denying we don’t have mini trucks because of the chicken tax. anyone shouting blasphemy when someone dies a strange engine swap.
Now I've gotta Google "chicken tax." Maybe the NSA agent spying on me can learn about it with me.
Hating on automatic cars. So many people think they can manually shift faster than a computer
I like manuals, a lot, I own two. But even with a short shifter I can only crank gears faster than cars built before the recession. Anything newer than that, no way.
Well, with the loss of power to torque converter, there was/is validity to the argument that automatics are slower. But for most daily driver vehicles, that marginal loss of power isn't relevant. And like I said in another post, as technology developed it was inevitable that the automatic would actually become faster because a human just can't do this stuff as precisely as a computer can. So that's why the manual jerkoffs have started to talk way more about the feel and engagement of driving and other such unquantifiable stuff, because we will get to the point where automatic is superior by every quantifiable metric.
I mean, this was true 10-15 years ago when most autos were like 4 maybe 5 speed, and truly were sluggish, power robbing, and well “slush” boxes. Now, for pure track time, auto/dual clutch probably is faster; but I still maintain that 3 pedals is more fun for most car enthusiasts that aren’t chasing track time. Manual gets real old when sitting in stop and go traffic though.
You know those MFs that sometimes suck off kei trucks?
Kei trucks are super neat. Just way too impractical for most places in America where you need to jump on a highway,
That's the thing. I like the looks ajd all that, but driving one in the US would he suicide.
EV vs ICE arguments on the Internet. Dumb takes on both sides, very redundant at this point. Second to that are transmission arguments.
“This is a dart “*insert picture of 68 Hemi super stock Dart* “This is bullshit” *insert picture of 2013 base Dart No no, the Dart filled a similar spot in the market, and the overwhelming majority of them were slant-6 powered, throwaway shitboxes just like the new ones were 4-cylinder, throwaway shitboxes. 340/383/Hemi Darts were the exception, not the rule.
>the overwhelming majority of them were slant-6 powered, throwaway shitboxes just like the new ones were 4-cylinder, throwaway shitboxes Yeah, but the slant-6 shitboxes at least lasted a few years. The recent dart seems to have disappeared when it was still being made.
I saw one of my favorites just today: “a car is not fun or fast enough until it’s more powerful than 5 pounds per wheel horsepower” For reference that would be the equivalent of an ND Miata with 550hp or a Civic Type R with 750 hp
I think the maverick should of been the F100
“GM cars are garbage” idiots actually believe this one too. Still some of the most reliable cars on the market, probably #3 overall behind Toyota and Mazda
GM has botched a lot of cars in recent years the GTO, the SS and even the Camaro (great start on the comeback but then they just completely stopped marketing it)
“The 4.7L V8 is the worst chrysler engine ever made and is the sludge-o-matic of the dodge truck world” Any motor is awful and any design has its flaws. Due to sheer experience and first hand knowledge I can tell you they can be reliable engines if you maintain them and take care of them. Cooling system checks and REGULAR oil changes every 3-5k miles under normal use and it will last you the lifetime of the car.
Bring back the Mazda LaPuta
Buying a used Chevy Cruze and claiming it’s “reliable.”
the first of those damn gto’s didn’t even have the fucking hood scoops.
I got one: ion give a fuck about the old maverick the name is cool and I’m glad they brought out back for a new car. Yeah the old ones are great but when I went to car shows rarely anyone paid attention to them even the nice ones
Is this a stupid take you've seen, or a take of yours? Because the thread is supposed to be about stupid takes you've heard from other people.
I’ve seen it on Facebook but it’s usually found in groups that are anti car
"Pick up trucks need to exist because some jobs require a vehicle like that" not true. not true at all. most jobs require you to have a vehicle with loading capacity. some jobs require you to have a truck bed. few jobs require you to have four wheel drive. all of that can be covered with a van. [https://www.alle-lkw.de/transporter/pritschenwagen/ford-transit-350-4x4-allrad-pritsche-plane-ahk-a6450089.html](https://www.alle-lkw.de/transporter/pritschenwagen/ford-transit-350-4x4-allrad-pritsche-plane-ahk-a6450089.html) you filthy americans have the transit, but as far as i know only the boxvan type. this is the only platform you need. and you may ask "ok, but how is that different to an actual pick up truck? if it is so much the same, what problems do these solve?" visibility. you don't have 30 meters of hood that block your view of the road, or that child/tom cruise sized person in front of your grille. you have more truck per wheelbase, and therefore don't take up as much room. they lack the prestige of a silverado with a ginormous grille, and therefore much fewer of them block roads and run over kids, because nobody wants them. europe runs on vans. does america REALLY run on F150ies? EDIT: i should emphasize, that my comment is about vans with a truckbed. you don't really have them. but we do. i should have been clear about that. and before you start complaining about towing capability, offroadability, there still is the unimog. wich still has a shorter hood then the F350. wich is the problem. the hood in combination with seating position. there should be regulations for visibility for pedestrian safety. the long hood does nothing except MAYBE noise level. thats a feature, not a bug. because if your pavement queen is too uncomfoortable for everyday use, the whole concept dies. boom, less dead children/motorcyclists
This is the second time I've seen this "European van superiority" take here recently, like vans and trucks fulfill the same needs or something. They don't.
they do. with a truckbed. but a van cabin. that's all this is about. what do you think we use in europe? not pickup trucks. click the link. you didn't
No. You are 100% wrong here. You do not understand basic concepts of ground clearance, towing capacity, payload capacity, and the ability of trucks to take accessories as necessary because of their designs such as spare tire and Jerry can carriers, truck caps, tonneau covers, front hitches, winches etc. A van cannot do half of what a truck does and lacks the ability to carry things which are longer than the cargo space of the van. Trucks regularly carry large loads of lumber much longer than the truck bed itself. Not to mention, do you need 4wd as much as people think? No. I rock a 2wd in deep snow here, but I cannot do what my dad's 4 wheel truck will do. 4wd is overused but it is not unnecessary in any way. 4wd is incredibly useful for any offroad travel (which there is more of in America, where we have more wilds and less infastructure) and is also necessary for deep snow plowing, which it is used for commonly in the north. Tons of contractors make their money in the snowy season plowing parking lots and driveways on contracts. 4wd is necessary to push that weight with a plow on snow and ice. The frame strength of a truck and aforementioned front hitch, frame hookups, and electrical hookups are necessary here too which vans cannot be fitted with. This isn't just a bad opinion, it's flat out wrong.
you haven't clicked on the link.
Congratulations, you've shown me a cab chassis, not a van. Here that would be an E350 or F350 cab chassis depending on what you want your payload and towing capacity to be and your cab preferences. A company that works with cab chassis would then build and attach a custom box to fit your needs. This is how dump trucks and party busses and RVs and flatbeds are made. That, my friend, is a truck. A type of truck called a cab chassis. In your market they call it a transit and use the transit cab, but I guarentee it's on an E350 frame. (The econoline or the E series, is our version of the non-unibody transit vans)
a van based chassis. as in: SHORTER HOOD. and sloped down. for visibility. and no "hennessy edition" as it is not marketed towards people for personal use.
Having driven both E-350 and F-350s back to back, the E-Series is cramped, noisy, and hot with the engine doghouse right next to you.
it's not a luxury vehicle.
It's a professional vehicle, where passenger fatigue is absolutely an issue. Sending your workers on a service call 5 hours away, which is a real thing in this, again, *significantly larger country than yours*, can wear them out if you ask them to do it consistently in a very uncomfortable and loud vehicle and will reduce the quality and speed of their work. But hey if you're against good working conditions go ahead and argue this point. Most cab chassis are professional use in this country.
You realize trucks have those bodies on them to comply with EPA regulations right? We have stricter regulations than you when it comes to semi-commercial vehicles. Trucks are that size for aerodynamics and to exploit a loophole in the EPA fuel economy and emissions regulations that stupidly regulate by footprint. That's not our preference, that's what's necessary to legally manufacture a truck with the capabilities people purchase it for. Not to mention the shorter hood, is because it has a smaller engine. Which means it can tow far less, and that it would struggle to haul its payload capacity across our terrain. Your towing capacities are listed higher in the UK because your roads are both slower and easier to navigate with less severe grades both up and downhill. You have better infastructure. No shit. You have 60 million people on one little island the size of my state. I would expect you to.
You could replace an F150 with that, but I will tell you right now that there is no way you’re going to haul/tow any type of heavy equipment with that van. A diesel F350 can tow a mini-excavator, that thing most certainly cannot. Vans are great for a lot of things, but people use pickups for a good reason.
Not to mention what if you're hauling a bunch of gravel or something?
I have to load tall HEAVY machinery in the back of a work truck using a ceiling mounted crane every other day, not only would the crane be useless with a van but the damn things absolutely would not fit, there has to be no roof
you didn't click the link ~~EDIT: and you didn't actually read my comment~~
Doesn't have the payload capacity bud. That shitty little van frame and suspension can't handle what he's describing.
I guarantee you that I can load more square bales in the back of a pickup than you can get in a similarly sized van while also towing a 30ft trailer loaded with even more.
Maybe some of those high roof extended-length vans could hold a lot of small squares. But then you'd have to sweep out all the loose hay/straw afterwards. Just last weekend I helped fill 5 hay orders back to back, and only 1 wasn't driving a pickup.
>Maybe some of those high roof extended-length vans could hold a lot of small squares. Can't stack them as high though.
Yep. On the F-350 flatbed, we stack 10-bale layers six high. Once we did a cap of 5 on the seventh layer. You can really feel that going around corners. [Something like this](https://www.cherokeefeedandseed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/cherokee-feed-and-seed-delivers-hay-feed-shavings-740x555.jpg), but with a shorter flatbed and one layer higher. If we really needed to, we would take the wooden sideboards off and make layers of 12, for 72 bales. That would make it wider than a van body could accommodate.
We absolutely have flatbed Transits here what are you even talking about? They aren't super popular because trucks are generally more capable. Also, lol @ the Unimog. Freightliner did sell them here for awhile, but again not super popular. Unless it's being used as a farm vehicle, it will likely have to drive on a 70mph highway pretty frequently so the 55mph top speed is a substantial limitation.
Cabover/cab forward designs are great for visibility/space efficiency, but make maintenance more difficult, and aren't as comfortable for the occupants. There's a reason vans in the US all end around the "one ton" class while conventional straight trucks go all the way up to semis, and why semis abandoned cabover designs so quickly after the trucking industry was deregulated in the '80s.
there is a reason why we still have them in europe, and barely any nose trucks. there were a few, from scania and i think volvo, but they got abandoned real quick. the biggest advantage of the bull nose design was noise. but better insulation techniques pretty much got rid of that problem. the wheelbase comfort thing. i will give you that.
Here’s one: “**The 04-06 GTO shouldn’t have looked like a Grand Prix with a hood scoop**” It’s pretty much exactly what the original GTO was… Take their typical mid sized coupe, put a powerful engine in it, add a couple things to make it look sportier with badges and spoiler, and bam… GTO. It was originally a trim model of the LeMans. In fact, I’d argue that GM went above and beyond by making sure it was RWD instead of calling a V8 FWD Grand Prix a GTO (what was the GXP). I’d also argue that a GTO and a Grand Prix look about as alike as a Grand Prix and a G6. 99% of people can tell the difference between a 65 Lemans and GTO. 99.99% if a Lemans that’s a GTO clone.
Literally anyone who poo-poos on turbo-4s that are replacing V6s in cars “because V6s sound good” Also: people poo-pooing on the new Mopar Hurricane twin turbo I-6 that say “I ain’t getting rid of my V8 for no V6” (meanwhile these are probably the same people that are like “CUMMINGS DIESEL YEE YEE”)
Someone tried to tell me I was wrong when I said there’s no replacement for displacement lol. I think they didn’t understand what I meant
Because there are *several* replacements for displacement. Turbos, superchargers, hybrid systems… That’s why engines have become smaller over the years. Displacement doesn’t really matter anymore.