Do rich people actually buy manual cars over 100k? Or do Porsche/Aston/BMW just do it out of stubborness?
Rich people got rich by being smart.
Of course they buy their cars manual
Every single 911R was sold immediately.
yes they do buy them.
They wont sit in traffic with them, but they do track them and use them on weekends.
Ok. How come the 1993 jag xj220 with a twin turbo charged 3.6L produces the same power as a cts-v /z06 while they have a 6.2l? why would u not have smaller engines producing the same HP? (I.e that clip in top gear where a jag xj220 beats a Pagani zonda.) Wouldnt fuel economy increase?
drivetrain tolerances and reliability. this question comes up every day. in layman's terms, you can take a Z06 to 80k miles without any problems but you'd have to rebuild the jag twice in that same amount of time.
>>17727728
>why would u not have smaller engines producing the same HP?
>Wouldnt fuel economy increase?
Ford probably thought the same thing with the new """GT""" and they got blown waaaay the fuck out on that deal.
>11 mpg
I suppose you could also ask why Porsche and Ferrari didn't just boost a V6 up to 800 and 900 HP instead of the heavy V8/V12 Hybrid setup they currently have.
>>17727728
if you have a smaller engine or an engine with fewer cylinders, you have to compensate with higher boost, higher compression, and likely some type of more complicated camshaft(s) and valve design. You end up with more moving parts, and higher loads on the engine from added boost and higher compression.
Big american V8s have always had lower than necessary compression which means while they generate less power than they could, they have much lower engine stresses which improves the longevity of the engine.
>Sophisticated AWD
Predominantly rear-biased in its default setting, the system can also be set to only send drive to the rear wheels, with a rear locking Active M Differential to allow for Ken Block-esque moments.
>600+ HP V8
>0-60mph time: 3.3 sec (conservative numbers)
the real number will be around 2.8-2.5 sec.
>top speed: 215+ mph
>enhanced traction, agility and handling stability
Are you ready /o/?
>>17727547
and no one on /o/ will own one
>>17727547
I didn't realize that M5 is on NFS Payback cover art. Interesting...
My girlfriend won't let me install an aftermarket exhaust to my new motorcycle. I even explained with graphs and all that it would be much lighter and would improve the performance of the bike.
What to do? Buy anyway and let her be mad and possibly break up because I didn't listen to her?
Pic related
>>17727504
>My girlfriend won't let me
is this real?
Grow a pair and do it
>>17727504
>>17727508
I lived with such a GF and moved out after 2 years.
I now live alone with a loaded 3 car garage.
Not gonna lie, there are nights I wish I could go back. Cooking for 1 is a bitch and so is paying the full rent by myself. Travelling alone can present awkward situations too, eaten in a lot of bars on the road.
But for the most part, nah...I do whatever I want whenever I want. Its great. Even if I found a GF who was more flexible I kind of doubt I could ever go back to that kind of life.
Long time 4chan user, never been to auto though I am an enthusiast of sorts. I don't know what topics you guys generally cover but I've got a question Google can't seem to answer for me. In fact, an expert in this particular field wasn't able to give me a definitive answer.
My question has to do with flat plane crankshafts vs cross plane.
For those that don't already understand, flat plane crankshafts are basically what you would find in most racing cars because they do not require counterweights which would add rotational mass. The less rotational mass, the higher the speed, efficiency, and the more responsive the engine is. They also allow for a lower center of gravity for the engine. However, because of the way they function, they are not as smooth/don't feel as refined.
There are also plusses with firing order when using a flat plane crank which helps with scavenging in the exhaust.
My mind intuitively tells me that they should not be as stable.
So, here's the question. Do top fuel dragsters use flat plane crankshafts? Intuitively I should think there's no way, but then, intuitively top fuel dragsters shouldn't exist all together haha.
The expert I talked to is an expert in drag racing in general, he builds record breaking hemis on the regular. He says that he doesn't know for sure about top fuel for sure though. He believes that they use the regular cross plane cranks because he also does not believe a flat plane could withstand the literally immeasurable power these engines produce though.
For those of you who want more information on the difference between these two crankshaft designs, Google does have plenty of information on them. Just nothing on this very specific vehicle class
I intuitively have no idea
>>17727747
Do you for sure have no idea for sure though?
fairly sure top fuel uses crossplane.
probably because merica and no other reason.
Everything can be overbuilt and I don't think either design has more strength than the other.
the best way to describe them is that flat planes have alot lower rotating mass adn good secondary balance whilst crossplane has better primary balance.
crossplanes make good smooth torquey engines that don't have to rev too high
flat planes make great responsive high revving engines
Post your timeline of cars. Here's mine
1. 2006 Scion xB
2. 2007 Infiniti G35 Coupe
3. 2007 Subaru Forester XT
>17 years old - 2003 neon sxt
>19 years old - 95 3000GT
>21 years old - Challenger R/T
i dont acutually own the challenger yet but i will in December
Owned Scion 2007-2010
Owned Infiniti 2010-2015
Owned Subaru 2015-Present
1)1994 740i
2)2010 VW Jetta Wolfsburg
3)EP3 Civic Si
Need a car around 15,000 that's reliable but also fun I think I want either a Boxster or Mustang and I need help narrowing it down. I'm open for suggestions of other cars too.
>>17727133
If you're American the Mustang will be the better choice because you won't get absolutely gouged by parts prices.
>>17727133
Porsche: reliable but high upkeep cost... still chick magnet - "I drive Porsche" sounds coool!
Ford Mustang: semi-reliable but lowest upkeep cost. Redneck car. Dumb ugly obese chick magnet. "I drive Ford" sounds uncool
Why do they bring this dumbass nigger on Jay Leno's garage every episode?
>>17726904
That's rather racist.
>>17726904
I'll assess and caress your mom lmao
back to your cesspit
>>>/pol/
reported
MR2s are neat.
Is that why you don't have one?
@17726871
>>17726871
Interesting picture anon. More backstory?
Wish i had a crew of friends who cared about driving to drive mr2's around town with
every MR2 owner I've met is legit autistic, not even memeing, they're legit awkward and weird
probably the only thing that puts me off of them like with Subaru's and their douchey owners
the face of cheverlot drivers lmao
this is a great threat
10/10
how will gm recover now
>>17726763
Daily reminder, the new mustang is simply tied with the old camaro and the mustang now has down syndrome
hey /o/, just been wondering what makes a good "drift" car.
If there's anything I want to learn how to do its drift. My town is pretty small and I'm pretty sure there's about 0 people in my town that do it, so I could be the one guy leaving skid marks all over the place.
So what does make a good drift car, what are some key things to look out for or essentials in a car that's meant for drifting. As much as I like the idea of fixing up an classic muscle and drifting in that I'm sure its much too heavy to do so unless I make some serious modifications.
one thing to note is that my towns roads are ass and whatever i'm driving has to have a relatively high ride. I know people with lancers and WRX STIs and they've scrapped the bottom of their cars just driving over some rough areas.
halp me /o/utists pic unrelated
>>17726661
Classic muscle is great for drifting. My uncle has a 94 rwd mustang and it drifts amazingly.
boi racer
>>17726661
>one thing to note is that my towns roads are ass and whatever i'm driving has to have a relatively high ride.
Tell me about it. We've got shitty roads, snowy winters, and a complete lack of any windy roads where I live.
Before you buy anything though I'd recommend you practice hard turns and mess around in some parking lots in whatever you have already, so you have an idea of what you're getting into. Assuming you already have a car.
I've now driven a few. Uncles Dodge Caliber. 2014 Sentra. And now a base Impreza. It's not a fucking meme, it's smooth as fuck, and is perfect for a daily driver. Driving a manual doesn't make you some hard ass, it's just a burden. You guys are a meme.
Reply with "Yes I've driven a CVT"
or
"No, I have not driven a CVT"
>>17726570
I've driven a cvt and I hate how they drone. Manual is fun to me, I'm not driving it because of what other people think.
Angry CVT cuck detected. My daily is a manual and is nicer than all those pieces of shit.
>>17726570
I like the concept. In reality they sap power and are short lived. They also somehow make the car less fun to drive, probably because they're mated to gutless cuckmotors.
So what do you goys think of the fourth gen Camaro? I don't like it that much but I think it looks better than the Mustang back then. Is it worth getting one?
trash
>>17726567
I know it's trash, but was it good for it's time?
>>17726563
shitloads of aftermarket, solid transmission(if you got a t56), rear end is shit. swap an lm7 or lq9 in and boost the shit out of it.
regarding good for their time, yes, they run low 13's in the quarter.
I know a lot about cars and some technical shits about spirited driving. That being said i still dont understand something that for some people it should be basic.
How would suspension strenght affect rear grip?
I mean, the tires have the same lateral grip regardless of suspension. I also know that the softer the suspension the more body roll there is, but how would body roll affect the lateral level of the grip?
I mean, if we go from the softest suspension in the world to no suspension at all, just metal bars, what makes the difference in lateral grip for the tires?
>>17726393
In really dum dum terms, if you roll, and put more weight on the outside tires(the ones doing the work) then they have more grip. But this has to be balanced with the fact that bodyroll makes transitioning from one turn to the next difficult.
>>17726393
My basic understanding is that stiffer suspension keeps the tyres in a better position for grip and roll is taking grip away from the inside tyres. Yes the outside tyre does the majority or work but I can only assume that having 4 contact patches is better than 2.
Stiffer suspension probably also loads a well setup tyre and wheel more than when there is a lot of roll
Race car Dynamics, Milliken& Milliken.
Chapter 2 explains everything you want to know.
http://books.sae.org/r-146/
I know they make a killing in other markets, but what made them stop caring about cars so much?
>>17726389
When they realized their customer baser is mostly Filipino with low standards.
>>17726389
Probably when the realization hit them how much they fucked themselves in the early to mid 2000's. They were a great company with good popular cars then just suddenly quit competing and released the blandest rehashes with no marketing behind them whatsoever and lost their momentum. The last lancer was pretty good but that was it, it was the only car that succeeded in the niche it was designed for which was just good cheap econoboxes. Then they kept it going with basically no changes to 2008 until 2015 or 2016 whenever they gave up.
They did it all to themselves.
>>17726389
Their automotive division blew what little money they had on shit like the Outlander Sport and base model Lancers where they'd never be able to compete. I mean, what is a base model Lancer except a shitter Honda Civic or Subaru Impreza?
Also, their CEO fell for the electric vehicles meme.