Most overpriced, hyped cars?

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
When the NSX was released, it wasn't overpriced nor overhyped. 15 years later... yeah... it got there.

Personally, I'd have to say the Veyron. It's not a bad car, but it got hyped up like it's the world's ultimate car, when there are cars that will handily beat it in many categories.

That may be, but NO other car has the whole package the Veyron has.

When you can snort a line of coke off the dashboard at 250mph, then you have a Veyron competitor.

Yeah, it's so freakishly stable that they even got Captain Slow (an amateur, even if he does review cars for a living), and it was so beautifully solid that there really wasn't any drama involved, just a breaktaking flash of speed.

A heavy contrast to the Saleen SSC that slightly edged it out on a top speed run, but had to abandon several attempts due to high speed instability/wheel spin at 190+. Even with one of the world's top test drivers, it was a hair-raising adventure. It's a fantastic looking machine, but if given the opportunity (chance : none, lol), I probably wouldn't take it over 180 even on the most perfect track imaginable. The Veyron, however, would give me confidence to take it to the top, given the right closed track/weather/etc.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Note: When I say overrated or overhyped, I by no means imply that it's not a great car. I think the S2000 is heavily overrated as well, but I've never considered anyone who has bought one to be an idiot because it is a good package that really does fit well between the $25k Miata and the $45k Corvette. When I call the Civic overrated, it's because of fanboys. Not because of Honda.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Note: When I say overrated or overhyped, I by no means imply that it's not a great car. I think the S2000 is heavily overrated as well, but I've never considered anyone who has bought one to be an idiot because it is a good package that really does fit well between the $25k Miata and the $45k Corvette. When I call the Civic overrated, it's because of fanboys. Not because of Honda.

What exactly is overrated about an S2000 though? It's handling?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Note: When I say overrated or overhyped, I by no means imply that it's not a great car. I think the S2000 is heavily overrated as well, but I've never considered anyone who has bought one to be an idiot because it is a good package that really does fit well between the $25k Miata and the $45k Corvette. When I call the Civic overrated, it's because of fanboys. Not because of Honda.

What exactly is overrated about an S2000 though? It's handling?

Have you ever heard anyone rave about it without saying the car's redline?

...I haven't.


If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I'm not knocking the car at all.

 

[exdeath]

BMW

Not that some of them aren't good cars, but the status symbolism that hasn't gone away even now when anyone can have one. Most people who drive them buy them for the name and bragging rights, and actually don't know anything about the car, but presume to think it's better than anyone else's simply because it says BMW and it cost more. Same thing as cell phones, where they used to be exclusive and expensive, now everyone has one and they cost nothing, but people still thing they are something else flashing around the latest phone.

/gripe because the Cobra is sitting in my garage at the moment on jack stands getting upgraded, and of course all the assholes want to play now when all I have as an old Camry...

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Note: When I say overrated or overhyped, I by no means imply that it's not a great car. I think the S2000 is heavily overrated as well, but I've never considered anyone who has bought one to be an idiot because it is a good package that really does fit well between the $25k Miata and the $45k Corvette. When I call the Civic overrated, it's because of fanboys. Not because of Honda.

What exactly is overrated about an S2000 though? It's handling?

Have you ever heard anyone rave about it without saying the car's redline?

...I haven't.


If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I'm not knocking the car at all.

Oh yes, the redline... Back in the day it was unheard of. Fast forward to today and it is not impressive, especially considering that they lowered it to 8k in 2004.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: mariok2006
What exactly is overrated about an S2000 though? It's handling?

Have you ever heard anyone rave about it without saying the car's redline?

...I haven't.

I don't know why people associate higher red line and F1 engine/exhaust sound with "technology" and "performance"... F1 is restricted to high RPMs ONLY because they have an arbitrary displacement limit; it's not the ideal way to go about making power, and it's not necessary in a street car where you have no such made up rules.

The way these "high rev lovers" talk about how superior a higher red line is, they seriously believe that if the 2.4L limit on F1 was suddenly lifted that Ferrari would stay with a 2.4L that revs to 20,000 RPM because it's better than a 6L V12 that only revs to 8k... yeah I LOLed too.

Some say "revving to high RPM is more fun to drive" and I really don't get it... how is working harder and longer than you need to for arbitrarily constrained results "fun" ? I guess some people don't know what to do without bounds, they need some arbitrary limit imposed on them, and think it's the pinnacle of performance if they can reach that limit, even if it's below many others in the grand scheme of things.

Personally I put emphasis on how FAST the RPM climbs, not what it climbs to. My car red lines at 6,500 but it makes the climb from 3,000 to 6,500 nearly instantly. Though sometimes I wish it went to 20,000 RPM just because it pulls harder and faster the closer to the red line it gets and never seems to peak... but then an engine small enough to rev that high wouldn't have the displacement responsible for pushing it that hard in the first place... catch 22.

I am a fan of square engines (stroke = bore). Equal amounts of torque and horsepower, flat torque curve, linear power curve, and moderate red line. Good balance and real world performance > impressive sounding numbers that don't deliver.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: exdeath
I don't know why people associate higher red line and F1 engine/exhaust sound with "technology" and "performance"... F1 is restricted to high RPMs ONLY because they have an arbitrary displacement limit; it's not the ideal way to go about making power, and it's not necessary in a street car where you have no such made up rules.

The way these "high rev lovers" talk about how superior a higher red line is, they seriously beleive that if the 2.4L limit on F1 was suddenly lifted that Ferrari would stay with a 2.4L that revs to 20,000 RPM because it's better than a 6L V12 that only revs to 8k... yeah I LOLed too.

Some say "revving to high RPM is more fun to drive" and I really don't get it... how is working harder and longer than you need to for arbitrarily constrained results "fun" ? I guess some people don't know what to do without bounds, they need some arbitrary limit imposed on them, and think it's the pinnacle of performance if they can reach that limit, even if it's below many others in the grand scheme of things.

Personally I put emphasis on how FAST the RPM climbs, not what it climbs to. My car red lines at 6,500 but it makes the climb from 3,000 to 6,500 nearly instantly. Though sometimes I wish it went to 20,000 RPM just because it pulls harder and faster the closer to the red line it gets and never seems to stop... but then an engine small enough to rev that high wouldn't have the displacement responsible for pushing it that hard... catch 22.

It's for the same reason people quote HP/l all the time. If the car that they're a fanboy of can't pull out any good numbers that mean anything they make up numbers that don't. IMO, performance per dollar is the important one.

...that's why Mustang GTs and Corvettes are rarely called overrated or over priced. Now, all the special versions of the Mustang that take a 20k car to 40-50k... those you can argue.

 

[Arkaign]

Ex, pretty valid points overall, but I think you have to be more realistic on relative engine size and efficiency.

For Motorcycles with 600-1200cc motors, 10k+ Rpm is necessary to provide the performance/response you need. Ditto for performance 4-bangers of the 1.6 to 2.4 variety, they just don't push ~2750lb cars around very quickly at low revs, so 6500-8000 is good for them. For the 3.0L+ V6/I6 motors, typical in ~3250-3,750lb cars, they are starting to generate some decent torque numbers at lower rpm, so even 5500 redline is no big deal, but with variable valve timing and OHC designs, you see more 6k+ 6 cylinder cars out there. For V8s of the 4.6L+ variety, it's much the same story, with an even more pronounced appearance of usable torque at low rpm.

There is no 'superiority' inherent with large/small displacement, or high/low revlimit, etc, there are only better implementations of each setup to match a particular platform well.

The Mini cooper does good with its little motors, though it would be exciting to see a Supercharged 3800 in one, or perhaps an LS7. The Cummins Turbo Diesels are terrific motors, but something like a Mini (even if you bent the laws of space/time to make it fit) would do horribly with that motor. Same with the Hayabusa motor. Even with a Turbo, and putting out about the same HP as the base C6 motor (commonly done with boost), it would be a terrible setup to run in a Truck, as there's no torque to speak of.

Etc. Match component to proper usage, and all is well.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
...that's why Mustang GTs and Corvettes are rarely called overrated or over priced. Now, all the special versions of the Mustang that take a 20k car to 40-50k... those you can argue.

Expensive body kits that play on the "limited edition, get one before everyone else does, because everyone else will and you won't" marketing scare tactic that did Sony well with the PS3. My favorite example is the PT Cruiser "Limited Edition"... I've yet to see a PT Cruiser that WASN'T "Limited Edition"

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Expensive body kits that play on the "limited edition, get one before everyone else does, because everyone else will and you won't" marketing scare tactic that did Sony well with the PS3. My favorite example is the PT Cruiser "Limited Edition"... I've yet to see a PT Cruiser that WASN'T "Limited Edition"

It is a limited edition. They can only make so many cars per year.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Etc. Match component to proper usage, and all is well.

Exactly my point. The implementation of one method over another for whatever reasons doesn't inherently mean that implementation is superior. Making a F1 engine that is N/A and making 700+ HP with 2.4L is not fun or easy or cheap, but thats the only option they have available. They have no choice. That doesn't mean it's better or "more high tech" than 6L push rod engine of the same weight and less complexity making the same power.

example: People that won't own a car that doesn't say DOHC on the valve cover because everything else is "dinosaur technology"

example: People that think the higher red line and smaller engine or high HP/L is "more high tech", even if it performs less in the big picture

example: People that equate more moving parts (and acronyms) to mean "more high tech" and thus better, regardless of output compared to other methods

etc,

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: exdeath
Expensive body kits that play on the "limited edition, get one before everyone else does, because everyone else will and you won't" marketing scare tactic that did Sony well with the PS3. My favorite example is the PT Cruiser "Limited Edition"... I've yet to see a PT Cruiser that WASN'T "Limited Edition"

It is a limited edition. They can only make so many cars per year.

I've just noticed lately that everything has "limited edition" on it, yet everyone has one... and every time I turn around there is yet another "limited edition, ACT NOW!!!" impulse for some other product that is just the same old pony with new clothes.

Be it a PS3, a Mustang with a body kit for 2x MSRP, the latest RAZR phone, etc.

Just a cheap marketing trick that prays on consumers desire to be exclusive and better than everyone else.

*shrug*

Not that I care, it's just rampant capitalism and the companies making the products and the marketing managers are laughing all the way to the bank at being able to change a color and slap on a "limited edition" sticker and purposely only make a limited supply so as to have people killing each other in line for the honor of paying double MSRP.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I can hardly believe I'm watching someone compare an F1 engine to a road going large displacement V8 and saying it isn't more 'high tech'.

:facepalm:

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: exdeath
BMW

Not that some of them aren't good cars, but the status symbolism that hasn't gone away even now when anyone can have one. Most people who drive them buy them for the name and bragging rights, and actually don't know anything about the car, but presume to think it's better than anyone else's simply because it says BMW and it cost more. Same thing as cell phones, where they used to be exclusive and expensive, now everyone has one and they cost nothing, but people still thing they are something else flashing around the latest phone.

/gripe because the Cobra is sitting in my garage at the moment on jack stands getting upgraded, and of course all the assholes want to play now when all I have as an old Camry...

What is your beef with BMW? Did Daddy run off with a woman in a BMW and leave you and your mom at home, promising you his $40,000 salary? I think that every time BMW has been mentioned in the garage you have made a comment. Are you really that insecure about your Mustang?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I can hardly believe I'm watching someone compare an F1 engine to a road going large displacement V8 and saying it isn't more 'high tech'.

:facepalm:

My point is:

fuel [x]
air [x]
spark [x]

I just don't get why people get so enamored at working 10x more with 10x more complexity to do something you can readily do without breaking a sweat via other methods.

F1 fanboi: "look I have DOHC 1940583 VALVE VARIABLE GHSIT-Z 0.0001L engine that weighs 400 lbs and makes 400 HP"

Me: "look I have a 20 year old brick of iron that weighs 400 lbs and makes 400 HP, ie: same thing"

F1 fanboi: "but mine is better, it's more high tech"

Me: "shrug"

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I can hardly believe I'm watching someone compare an F1 engine to a road going large displacement V8 and saying it isn't more 'high tech'.

:facepalm:

My point is:

fuel [x]
air [x]
spark [x]

I just don't get why people get so enamored at working 10x more with 10x more complexity to do something you can readily do without breaking a sweat via other methods.

F1 fanboi: "look I have DOHC 1940583 VALVE VARIABLE GHSIT-Z 0.0001L engine that weighs 400 lbs and makes 400 HP"

Me: "look I have a 20 year old brick of iron that weighs 400 lbs and makes 400 HP, ie: same thing"

F1 fanboi: "but mine is better, it's more high tech"

Me: "shrug"

Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I can hardly believe I'm watching someone compare an F1 engine to a road going large displacement V8 and saying it isn't more 'high tech'.

:facepalm:

What is more high tech about an F1 engine?

High precision: sure
High degree of metallurgy: definitely.

But look at an F1 engine, and look at a road going DOHC V8. What does the F1 have that the road car doesn't? Variable valve timing? Nope. Street cars have that. Variable runner length? Nope. Street cars have that as well. Street cars do however, have some rather complex emissions systems attached that F1 engines do not.

DOHC isn't high tech, it's 1920's tech.
Fuel injection isn't high tech, it was used on the 1958 Corvette.
Direct injection isn't high tech. It was used on the 1955 Mercedes SL300.
Turbo charging isn't high tech. It was used in the 1962 Chevy Corvair.
AWD isn't high tech. It was patented in 1893.
Superchargers aren't high tech. They were patented in 1860.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

And never will you have an F1 engine that can last 20 years.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

What is your beef with BMW? Did Daddy run off with a woman in a BMW and leave you and your mom at home, promising you his $40,000 salary? I think that every time BMW has been mentioned in the garage you have made a comment. Are you really that insecure about your Mustang?

Last I checked this was a poll on personal opinion, I stated mine along with everyone else, and even elaborated on the aspects of the *people* who make it that way rather than bash the car itself. Why do you take offense? Does the shoe fit or something?

I think BMWs are over rated. That is all. Nice cars, some models. Maybe you live in the UK or something, I don't know. But in the States, BMWs are sought after for bragging rights and image, not mechanical ability.

Just because BMW has a elenty billion dollar super car doesn't mean some fanbois entry level 3 series is the same thing. The commonality ends at the BMW badge.

In fact I feel that any car portrayed as "bling bling" and raved over in pop media or is overrated, and among them are the stereotypical Mercedes/BMW/Lexus; those which in that context are coveted for the high cost alone as a means to flaunt money, not for mechanical merits.

I wouldn't mind a E46 M3. For $25k used, it's a steal, but at $50+k it's overrated. I don't care if I have $100,000 to by the car with, I would still have the same opinion.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I can hardly believe I'm watching someone compare an F1 engine to a road going large displacement V8 and saying it isn't more 'high tech'.

:facepalm:

What is more high tech about an F1 engine?

High precision: sure
High degree of metallurgy: definitely.

But look at an F1 engine, and look at a road going DOHC V8. What does the F1 have that the road car doesn't? Variable valve timing? Nope. Street cars have that. Variable runner length? Nope. Street cars have that as well. Street cars do however, have some rather complex emissions systems attached that F1 engines do not.

DOHC isn't high tech, it's 1920's tech.
Fuel injection isn't high tech, it was used on the 1958 Corvette.
Direct injection isn't high tech. It was used on the 1955 Mercedes SL300.
Turbo charging isn't high tech. It was used in the 1962 Chevy Corvair.
AWD isn't high tech. It was patented in 1893.
Superchargers aren't high tech. They were patented in 1860.

Exactly. Though many of those things may be pioneered in F1 and later brought to mainstream, it is a necessity that is merely as a means to an end to grasp at straws and get every ounce of power you can in the face of imposed limits elsewhere. It's not superior, or more advanced, or "high tech", but merely a means to an end and nothing more.

They could just as easily have said "valves will be limited to 1 intake and 1 exhaust and 1 cam" instead of "displacement will be limited to 2.4L", and we'd have probably seen things we haven't seen yet to get the most out of 2 valves and 1 cam and people would prefer cars with "Pushrod 2V Technology" over the inferior 1920s DOHC. Get the picture now?

When I ask someone "ok what is so high tech about your BMW or Honda or whatever" and the only two things they can ever say are "uh... uh.... DOHC?" and "variable valve timing".

But variable valve timing, is not that fancy, and not that high tech. It's just an oil line and a solenoid feeding an adjustable sprocket. Wow, thats complicated high tech shit.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

And never will you have an F1 engine that can last 20 years.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn?t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

And never will you have an F1 engine that can last 20 years.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn?t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Okay, cut a top fueler's engine in 1/4 and you'll have an engine roughly the same weight using "old tech" that makes more than twice the HP. That better?

 

[nismotigerwvu]

I've never really been a huge fan of the NSX or the S2000 anywhere that wasn't the track. On the street the S2000 just felt like it was dead. On the track however, both are brilliant.

 

[exdeath]

What I mean when I say "F1 isn't high tech" is:

The F1 ruling body could just as easily have said "valves will be limited to 1 intake and 1 exhaust and 1 cam" instead of "displacement will be limited to 2.4L", and we'd have probably seen things we haven't seen yet to get the most out of 2 valves and 1 cam and people would prefer cars with "Pushrod 2V Technology (tm)" over the "inferior 1920s DOHC".

Get the picture now?

What is considered "high tech" by popular culture is really an arbitrary occurrence that occurred based on multiple ways of doing something that HAD to go one way or another.

ie: Betamax vs VHS