It: under appreciated cars

File: 96659c4f-a5c3-49c4-a339-426125ea1bf0..jpg (122KB, 450x299px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 450x299px

Underappreciated as fuck.

File: 29592248951_0b88a192e0_b.jpg (197KB, 1024x720px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x720px

>Honda fangirls want a successor to the NSX
>they not only get one but get one that's better in every way
>STILL bitch and moan
Some niggers just can't be pleased. tsk tsk mothafucking TSK!

>>17590829
if anything this car is over appreciated

>>17591010
i think its appreciated exactly as much as it deserves

>>17591026
yeah bro! people should definitely appreciate that it's:
>autotragic
>pigfat
>literally overpriced by $60k
>raped by a GTR from 10 years ago
>muh angery styling
>muh useless r/c car motors

remove yourself from the gene-pool you brain dead faggot

File: 2015-kia-k900-sedan-photos-and-info-news-car-and-driver-photo-553971-s-450x274.jpg (22KB, 450x274px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 450x274px

>>17590829
not all it's cracked up to be - sat in one at NYIAS and it felt cheap and uncomfortable. i would much rather have a Kia K900 or Volvo S90

>>17590829
>shills lincoln every day
Take your shitty chinese ripoff somewhere else

File: 00INGEC2[1].jpg (48KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x375px

>>17591010
Aren't these just genuinely terrible?

>>17591026
The car itself doesn't even matter anymore, it's just 10+ years of expectations.

>>17590829
The car is just a souped up Ford Taurus with a cheap looking center stack that would make the Genesis' center stack look like it came from a Rolls Royce.

>>17591179
K900 and Cadenza (sp?) are very underrated too.

>>17591172
>>autotragic
So best transmission then.
>pigfat
You sound like someone who doesn't like chubby girls.
>literally overpriced by $60k
Original adjusted for inflation would also be overpriced.
>>raped by a GTR from 10 years ago
It isn't. it isn't even beaten by a 2017 unless you are talking about the Nismo.
>>muh angery styling
You mean sexy?
>muh useless r/c car motors
Are you talking about the electric motors? those useless motors that helped it BTFO a GTR at Pikes Peak in a lower class?

File: Taurus-Conti-comparo rears 0101171102a-2_zpsagd0kntu.jpg (105KB, 500x248px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x248px

>>17591201
>Souped up taurus

it is a modified CD4 platform REEEEEEEEEEE

Genesis sells fuck all cars

File: nsx cuck btfo.jpg (50KB, 562x449px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 562x449px

>>17591214
>So best transmission then.
Objectively wrong

>You sound like someone who doesn't like chubby girls.
Not my fault you unironically like fatasses

>Original adjusted for inflation would also be overpriced.
Original NSX started at $60,000 in 1991. Adjusted for inflation that's $108,249.18 in 2017.
The new NSX starts at $156,000. There's a $47,750.82 price difference you fucking mongoloid.

>It isn't. it isn't even beaten by a 2017 unless you are talking about the Nismo.
See pic related

>You mean sexy?
Not objectively wrong, but you're still a dumb faggot

>Are you talking about the electric motors? those useless motors that helped it BTFO a GTR at Pikes Peak in a lower class?
No, I'm talking about the r/c car motors that were useless as the GTR raped it

File: image_for_encouraging_legitimate_discussion_v2.png (262KB, 551x582px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 551x582px

hmmm

File: new trash nsx eternally btfo.png (585KB, 631x717px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 631x717px

>>17591301
kek

nsx shill assmad

>>17591301
>350 lb lighter car with more horsepower is faster

Really made me think

>>17591172
>autotragic
why would you use such a shitty portmanteau?

File: 1491239759749.jpg (49KB, 878x814px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 878x814px

>>17591315
a car that's
>manual
>rwd
>100% combustion powered
>$80,000
fucking rapes a car that has
>dual clutch
>awd
>torque vectoring
>electric assist
>a starting price of $156,000

really makes you think

>>17591290
>Objectively wrong
Objectively right, you even tried using a track where an auto car holds the record as a benchmark.

>Original NSX started at $60,000 in 1991
and ballooned beyond that in just 3 years. here, you actually get more car for your money than what the original was offering.

>See 3rd party test vs manufacturer test
3/10.

>No, I'm talking about the r/c car motors that were useless as the GTR raped it
We must not be talking about the same motors since the GTR didn't rape it.

File: IMG_0401.jpg (249KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1024x680px

Literally the most hated car on /o/

>>17591415
If you had posted the GT86 id be more inclined to agree. if you had posted the C7 you'd be right on the money.

File: 2015_Ford_EcoSport_(BK)_Trend_wagon_(2015-07-03)_01.jpg (182KB, 1200x802px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1200x802px

I needed something small and has taller ground clearance than normal cars.

>>17591424

It's got to be up there though. Hated by everyone that reviews it and forums everywhere for being too old.

Then it beats the RS (the most circle jerked car before the CTR released) to 60 and the 1/4 mile while but no one says anything.

>>17591437
Granted the vehicle still performs well but subaru not improving the platform for nearly a decade is something worth criticizing imo

>>17591309
Thats painful.

>>17591490
The problem is the WRX motor is so much nicer than the 2.5 now. I wish they would just make the 2.0 higher hp and call it a day. i never liked how subaru made the sti 2.5 anyways.

>>17591156
Top gear said that it was the worst car of all time all things considered and when Hammond did a review he said that it was horrible.

>>17591565
Yeah, The 2.0 was in the JDM a lot longer, compared to the USDM, which shows that it was the better engine