Why doesn't any auto company build.....

[MiataNC]

I think you're right... I either need to open my wallet more, or just accept that the dash is going to rattle... I'm going to have to fight a service manager to perform warranty work... and it's not going to be a terribly enjoyable drive.

What do you consider enjoyable to drive?

You can pick up a Honda Accord Sport 6spd manual for $20-22K. It gets stellar reviews, 33+mpg mixed driving, comes very well optioned, and is as bulletproof as any car can get.

Found this on another forum:

 

[Jeff7181]

What do you consider enjoyable to drive?

You can pick up a Honda Accord Sport 6spd manual for $20-22K. It gets stellar reviews, 33+mpg mixed driving, comes very well optioned, and is as bulletproof as any car can get.

Found this on another forum:

Something that handles well and is decently fast. Doesn't have to be Corvette fast... but after getting this 1.6L Ecoboost, I've decided unless I go with something like a Miata, a sub-200 HP car isn't as fast as I want it to be.

I'd really like something that's RWD or AWD (good AWD, like Subaru). Every FWD car I've driven can't accelerate out of a turn without wheel spin or pushing like you're on ice, which is understandable given you're asking the same tires to turn and accelerate at the same time.

If I could have anything I want, I'd want a dual clutch transmission so I can pick my shift points. But I have a bad left knee, and I don't think I could stand to drive 40 miles to work every day in city traffic with a manual and then drive 40 miles home in city traffic.

It should also be driveable in the snow since I live in Michigan.

I've even thought of truck or SUV... wouldn't be carving any canyons, but the "fun" part could be driving offroad.

 

[reallyscrued]

What do you consider enjoyable to drive?

You can pick up a Honda Accord Sport 6spd manual for $20-22K. It gets stellar reviews, 33+mpg mixed driving, comes very well optioned, and is as bulletproof as any car can get.

Found this on another forum:

...so basically a decade and half of engineering, and practically the same performance?

That chart just makes me frown on the accord coupe. It was the Integra/R, not some supercar it was compared against. With a lot more displacement, it should wipe the floor with the Integra.

It's like when I was so excited that the new 328i got a practically flat 240hp/255lb/ft motor, was expecting the car to be a rocketship...but the car is only marginally better than a 2000 330ci.

Ten years, so much more technology, and they add a bunch of crap that makes the car much heavier and marginalize all the advancements. It's quite annoying.

- Edited out the part where I said the accord sport had 2 more cylinders. The V6 accord has a lot more oomph and it *would* wipe the floor with the Teg, but I think my point still stands.

 

[MiataNC]

...so basically a decade and half of engineering, and practically the same performance?

The "engineering" you refer to is mandated safety equipment (Airbags, ABS, ESC, min bumper heights, etc. etc.) and mandated fuel economy improvements. The curb weight of the Integra was @2600lbs. The Accord is @3300. The Integra was rated at 22/29mpg and the Accord is 27/36mpg.

I would say getting the same performance with better fuel economy while lugging around an additional 700lbs is pretty damn good engineering.

 

[tweakmonkey]

Also the Integra is probably WAY more fun to drive and a hell of a track car where the Accord would fail. The acceleration #s could also be compared to a Toyota Tundra, it doesn't make the Tundra more fun than an Integra Type R.

 

[JCH13]

Something that handles well and is decently fast. Doesn't have to be Corvette fast... but after getting this 1.6L Ecoboost, I've decided unless I go with something like a Miata, a sub-200 HP car isn't as fast as I want it to be.

I'd really like something that's RWD or AWD (good AWD, like Subaru). Every FWD car I've driven can't accelerate out of a turn without wheel spin or pushing like you're on ice, which is understandable given you're asking the same tires to turn and accelerate at the same time.

If I could have anything I want, I'd want a dual clutch transmission so I can pick my shift points. But I have a bad left knee, and I don't think I could stand to drive 40 miles to work every day in city traffic with a manual and then drive 40 miles home in city traffic.

It should also be driveable in the snow since I live in Michigan.

I've even thought of truck or SUV... wouldn't be carving any canyons, but the "fun" part could be driving offroad.

A V6 Mustang starts at $23k. That's not close enough?

 

[mmntech]

Why doesn't any auto company build an air cooled driving machine in a minimalist format for a great bargain package?

??

 

[MongGrel]

Dodge should bring back the Stealth. Make it a miniaturized sports car loosely based on the Viper. Give it 200-250 HP and with low enough weight to make it attractive for the Performance minded.

I really didn't think they looked that good the first time around.

*shrug*

 

[Jeff7181]

A V6 Mustang starts at $23k. That's not close enough?

I don't know if I could bring myself to buy a V6 Mustang...

Even if I did, a base model is not what I'm interested in. I spend no less than 2 hours a day in my car driving to and from work, so I prefer to have a few creature comforts and convenience items. A well equipped V6 Mustang is closer to, if not over 30k.

*EDIT* Also, I'm not so sure a Mustang would do well in 6-10 inches of snow like we sometimes get in Michigan. And a 2015 Ecoboost Mustang with the kind of options I want comes in at just over $31k.

 

[Throckmorton]

A small RWD 4 seat hatchback

 

[JCH13]

I don't know if I could bring myself to buy a V6 Mustang...

Even if I did, a base model is not what I'm interested in. I spend no less than 2 hours a day in my car driving to and from work, so I prefer to have a few creature comforts and convenience items. A well equipped V6 Mustang is closer to, if not over 30k.

*EDIT* Also, I'm not so sure a Mustang would do well in 6-10 inches of snow like we sometimes get in Michigan. And a 2015 Ecoboost Mustang with the kind of options I want comes in at just over $31k.

You're just going to have to accept the fact that you have to pay a decent amount of money to get a car that has all of the 'features' that you want. If a car company could do what you want they would, because they would run every other company out of business.

A mustang would do just fine in the snow provided that you got snow tires. DSTC, ABS, etc make driving in the snow a breeze. It's not like you're climbing mountain passes or have any significant hills to get over. You're making a big deal out of nothing. Plenty of people (most of them, actually :awe survived driving in MI winters with old RWD american iron and no electronic aids.

 

[reallyscrued]

The "engineering" you refer to is mandated safety equipment (Airbags, ABS, ESC, min bumper heights, etc. etc.) and mandated fuel economy improvements. The curb weight of the Integra was @2600lbs. The Accord is @3300. The Integra was rated at 22/29mpg and the Accord is 27/36mpg.

I would say getting the same performance with better fuel economy while lugging around an additional 700lbs is pretty damn good engineering.

No. That wasn't the engineering I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that a 4 cylinder inline can pretty much put out as much horsepower and torque that an inline 6 could 15 years ago.

But as for your rebuttal, I've heard that argument before. You're absolutely right, the cars are getting a lot heavier, but I refuse to believe that simply safety equipment can account for that much weight, especially when things like the chassis and engines are getting lighter.

I'm thoroughly convinced that automakers are not concerned with making their lower spec cars fast to order to make their higher tiered sports cars appear more attractive.

 

[JCH13]

No. That wasn't the engineering I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that a 4 cylinder inline can pretty much put out as much horsepower and torque that an inline 6 could 15 years ago.

But as for your rebuttal, I've heard that argument before. You're absolutely right, the cars are getting a lot heavier, but I refuse to believe that simply safety equipment can account for that much weight, especially when things like the chassis and engines are getting lighter.

I'm thoroughly convinced that automakers are not concerned with making their lower spec cars fast to order to make their higher tiered sports cars appear more attractive.

It's okay if you refuse to believe it, that won't make it any less true. Some weight is being added in the form of electronics and other features, but a lot of weight gain is due to more demanding crash requirements. Cars are also getting larger in size as well, which is also related to the crash requirements - a larger car has more volume with which to absorb impact energy. Volvo published something a few years ago (annoyed that I can't find it now) that said that they had added between 600 and 700lbs of safety equipment over the past 15-20 years or so.

So, you're convinced that Honda makes their biggest and most powerful car purposefully slower so that some other car of theirs will be faster. Seriously?

 

[Jeff7181]

You're just going to have to accept the fact that you have to pay a decent amount of money to get a car that has all of the 'features' that you want. If a car company could do what you want they would, because they would run every other company out of business.

A mustang would do just fine in the snow provided that you got snow tires. DSTC, ABS, etc make driving in the snow a breeze. It's not like you're climbing mountain passes or have any significant hills to get over. You're making a big deal out of nothing. Plenty of people (most of them, actually :awe survived driving in MI winters with old RWD american iron and no electronic aids.

I'm not making a big deal out of it, I've been driving in the snow for 15 years with no problem. But the fact of the matter is, a car with 5 inches of ground clearance isn't going to drive through 10 inches of snow very well at all no matter what tires or electronic aids it has.

And, I think you're right. I might have to start looking in the 30-40k range to get a car with the features I want.

 

[JCH13]

I'm not making a big deal out of it, I've been driving in the snow for 15 years with no problem. But the fact of the matter is, a car with 5 inches of ground clearance isn't going to drive through 10 inches of snow very well at all no matter what tires or electronic aids it has.

And, I think you're right. I might have to start looking in the 30-40k range to get a car with the features I want.

When was the last time you actually saw 10in of snow on a road and had to drive through it? My experience is: "essentially never" because plow trucks and road crews are REALLY good at keeping roads clear.

 

[Jeff7181]

When was the last time you actually saw 10in of snow on a road and had to drive through it? My experience is: "essentially never" because plow trucks and road crews are REALLY good at keeping roads clear.

January/February of this year.

*EDIT* Living in Wayne county and having to share road resources with Detroit means if your city doesn't have it's own plows, assume 12+ hours after snowfall to have roads plowed. In the mean time, the best you can hope for is that enough cars keep driving to pack the snow down as it falls. If it snows overnight, or too quickly, that doesn't happen. And even if you can get down main roads, you'll run into 10 inches of snow on side streets all the time trying to get to a residential address.

 

[_Rick_]

Why doesn't any auto company build.....
a 1500 lb micro like the Kei-car with a 1 liter, 120-150 HP turbo and mid-engine, RWD

Renault Twingo. (okay, a bit heavier, rear-engined and only 90 HP, but close enough)

Talking of which:

TwinRun.
That concept which revived the 5 Turbo and Clio V6 should be put into production.
Especially with Renault's Alpine relaunch impending, a RenaultSport/Alpine TwinRun-like with the megane's sport 2.0l turbo 265 BHP engine in the mid-rear (or something bigger still) would make a hilarious, unique vehicle.
Yes, the suspension and packaging would take a bit of an investment to get right, but everything else is right there.

I probably couldn't afford one, but I'd want one so badly....

Also, someone needs to bring back a car like the Z3 (or even Z1). Something cab-backwards, with a huge hood, tiny boot, canvas roof, which can be specced from hairdresser's toy-car to serious speed machine.
The Z4 has grown way too lardy and expensive.

 

[Fritzo]

Something that handles well and is decently fast. Doesn't have to be Corvette fast... but after getting this 1.6L Ecoboost, I've decided unless I go with something like a Miata, a sub-200 HP car isn't as fast as I want it to be.

I'd really like something that's RWD or AWD (good AWD, like Subaru). Every FWD car I've driven can't accelerate out of a turn without wheel spin or pushing like you're on ice, which is understandable given you're asking the same tires to turn and accelerate at the same time.

If I could have anything I want, I'd want a dual clutch transmission so I can pick my shift points. But I have a bad left knee, and I don't think I could stand to drive 40 miles to work every day in city traffic with a manual and then drive 40 miles home in city traffic.

It should also be driveable in the snow since I live in Michigan.

I've even thought of truck or SUV... wouldn't be carving any canyons, but the "fun" part could be driving offroad.

I had a similar dilemma. I had to replace my BMW that died a horrible death, but determined I wanted something that was both fun yet economical. I ended up settling on a Mini Cooper S. It's fast, light, you can drive it in the snow, and I can coax 40MPG out of it. It's also fairly roomy (believe it or not ).

 

[Jeff7181]

I had a similar dilemma. I had to replace my BMW that died a horrible death, but determined I wanted something that was both fun yet economical. I ended up settling on a Mini Cooper S. It's fast, light, you can drive it in the snow, and I can coax 40MPG out of it. It's also fairly roomy (believe it or not ).

A coworker of mine had one... the transmission gave him trouble.

He drove it year round, so I know it can be driven in the snow, just doesn't seem like it'd be great in the snow. The Subaru XV Crosstrek keeps coming into my mind as does the new Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk.

 

[Fritzo]

A coworker of mine had one... the transmission gave him trouble.

He drove it year round, so I know it can be driven in the snow, just doesn't seem like it'd be great in the snow. The Subaru XV Crosstrek keeps coming into my mind as does the new Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk.

He must have had an early model automatic transmission. They fixed those issues with the 2007+ R56 models (the manual is the way to go in these anyway).

 

[Jeff7181]

He must have had an early model automatic transmission. They fixed those issues with the 2007+ R56 models (the manual is the way to go in these anyway).

He had the year that was last to have the center exhaust exit. I remember he bought that particular year because of that, but I don't remember what year it was.

 

[reallyscrued]

It's okay if you refuse to believe it, that won't make it any less true. Some weight is being added in the form of electronics and other features, but a lot of weight gain is due to more demanding crash requirements. Cars are also getting larger in size as well, which is also related to the crash requirements - a larger car has more volume with which to absorb impact energy. Volvo published something a few years ago (annoyed that I can't find it now) that said that they had added between 600 and 700lbs of safety equipment over the past 15-20 years or so.

So, you're convinced that Honda makes their biggest and most powerful car purposefully slower so that some other car of theirs will be faster. Seriously?

Is that so far fetched? Isn't that the 911/Cayman dynamic as well? And not "biggest, most powerful", but to make their V6 feel peppier in comparison, I'm sure they didn't go through any added trouble to spruce up the inline 4 trim, you know, the one that posts nearly identical stats to a car they built 15 years ago.

 

[TheAdvocate]

My efficiency option would be:

Plug-in hybrid with all electric drive system, with a tiny turbodiesel being used as the APU to charge the batteries when needed.

Do not understand why this isnt a top priority. Would sell like crazy, IMHO.

 

[Jeff7181]

Do not understand why this isnt a top priority. Would sell like crazy, IMHO.

I've always said there's a reason trains use diesel engines...

 

[Possessed Freak]

Re-use the old body designs of the 40s - 70s with updated everything else... Instead of all these throwback designs of crappiness, just remake it with better safety, engine, comfort, whatever and the outside is the iconic beauty we all know and love.