by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 05/16/2017 at 20:30
by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 05/16/2017 at 20:30
Tags: Thoughts
STARS: 1
Im a little bit frustrated because I noticed enthusiasts are so broad in acceptance of older cars but pretty superficial with new cars. I can’t figure out what is going on other than it seems as if attractive vehicles are treated better than unattractive vehicles. This is in spite of the fact that a majority of the enthusiast memes involve aspects of cars rather than appearances. You know, manual, RWD, cylinder counts, blah blah blah yerny blerny diesel. No hot takes here but if you take them personally then they may feel a little fresh out the dryer. Let’s get started!
Here are the things that I don’t understand:
Why does everyone love current Volvo so much? They are literally everything most people say they hate. FWD based platforms, 4-cylinder only, giant touchscreens, automatic only, everything gets turned into a CUV (remember the S60 Cross Country). Heck, the current S60 will cost you $47,500 just to get it up to 300 hp. You can get a RWD, 400 hp twin-turbo V6 Infiniti Q50 Red Sport for $1,200 more. That’s a $25 increase on a 48 month loan. But Acura and Lincoln are jokes? A top ten list of the most powerful Honda production cars ever wouldnt be filled with current Acuras, after all Acura has always been a performance brand. I’m honestly not sure what the issue is that people are having with Lincoln, but they sure seem mad about something!
I guess enthusiasts forgive for daytime running lights being the only distinguishing feature of a cars “incredible” design.
Then I look at Mazda. Fantastic design and some how even better handling. But no one is going to say anything about the lack of engines for the price points? Not one word? Over five years they still refuse to crack 190 hp? And the one time they finally toss on a turbo they decide 227 hp was plenty for a 3-row crossover? “But Waffles, the torque is like a diesel engine!” I know, torque is everything whenever the car we like doesn’t make power.
That’s fine though, Mazda is small afterall which means there is no flexibility for them. Small manufacturers are definitely not renown for producing the most ridiculous performance vehicles. “Well Mazda can’t make a 200 hp sportscar until they figure out how to make the wankel work. They have a Skunkworks for it!” You’re telling me that they couldn’t make or borrow ANY engine that can make 200 hp and call the damn thing an MX-7? All I’m saying is that Mazda is making appliances just like everyone else. Great ones at that! Why is everyone pretending that everything they are building is a sportscars, a kind of BMW or Lotus for the common man? I hate crossovers, but that CX-5 though. The CX-5 is an outstanding crossover, you don’t have to pretend it’s anything else. Shift your paradigms, bro!
Being good looking and humble creates a lot of amnesty, no matter the bodystyle I guess.
And then there’s the F-Type. Less of a sportscar than a Camaro but somehow rivals the 718 when it has a V6 and the 911 when it has a V8. I’m going to tell you all something about current Jaguars, they all drive the same way! I’m serious, you drive an XE it feels like an F-Pace, you drive an F-Type and it feels like an XF which feels like an XJ. Yes, you notice the bodystyle differences but this is why current Jaguars are awesome! There is a signature feel to every vehicle no matter the powertrain. But, to me, the F-Type sportscar is the grandest tourer to ever tour grandly with two seats before you get into an Aston Martin so I’m not understanding where these Corvette and Porsche references are coming from.
In my eyes Jaguar makes a two door XK but calls it something that steals heritage from their actual sportscars (which they stopped building decades ago). Everyone claps. I mean the AMG GT is what an actual F-Type should be including in the design! Then they give the F-Type AWD and more weight. Everyone claps, definitely sportscar. Then they say they’ll put a 4-cyl engine into it and drop the price by two floor mats and a speaker. Everyone claps. Finally a 4-banger sportscar from Jaaag may drive like a 430i, get me a scotch! All the weight of a vehicle that would come with four seats without the trouble of having them in the car. *solitary clapping resumes*
I understand, beautiful and stick. I love Wayne Gretzky too. If any cars are praised for the excellence of their manual gearboxes it’s definitely portly British cars. Totally characteristic of the class I dare say. All I’m getting at is one of the greatest grand touring values and innovative market ideas to ever grace our lack of money. But just because we love it doesn’t make it a sportscar. If this had two unusable rear seats then all of sudden we would compare it to M4, C63, Mustang, Camaro and you know what...the value is lost.
But look at it! Im not saying it isn’t a sportscar, I’m just saying it makes perfect sense as a touring car and should get credit for being one of the best around at any price point.
Just small points of confusion since I’m not an enthusiast, I just find the automotive world intriguing. I had another question about why US enthusiasts view Audi the way they do. I understand from a European perspective but considering what we got in the US you would think Lexus at best. But comparing those two brands from a US offerings perspective would definitely be a bit too much. Mostly because Lexus isn’t attractive. But maybe it’s OK now since Audi isn’t quite so cute currently...
Hmm, I guess it isn’t unconditional if the only condition is be attractive .
"TheTurbochargedSquirrel" (thatsquirrel)
05/16/2017 at 20:43, STARS: 0
Lol when the airbag goes off and launches baby right into mom’s face.
"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
05/16/2017 at 20:47, STARS: 4
I think there’s a weight sensor thingy for passenger airbags. Mine are always off since I drive alone...that light makes me cry a little.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
05/16/2017 at 20:52, STARS: 10
It’s the attention to detail. Volvo has the best seats, the best interior, innovative design and technology, they are incredibly handsome. Current Volvo is usually at the forefront of car development, be it in safety and most other aspects.
Infinity has cars from 2009.
And the F-Type is compared to sports-cars because it has sports-car figures, it can indeed rival 911s and AMG GTS and the plastic fantastic Corvette.
Also, Mazda is not just some pretty face, Mazda builds appliances that have better driving dynamics than most other appliances, that is why it is praised. Because you can buy a somewhat common car that is not mind numbing to drive.
"smobgirl" (smobgirl)
05/16/2017 at 20:53, STARS: 2
If my laptop bag can set it off that baby doesn’t stand a chance.
"Dusty Ventures" (dustyventures)
05/16/2017 at 20:55, STARS: 0
Yup, this. My backpack will set it off. Usually in a corner when I’m least prepared for the car to suddenly sound its air raid siren.
"nermal" (nermal)
05/16/2017 at 20:57, STARS: 3
Ever hear the adage “It’s not what you say to somebody, it’s how you make them feel that matters.”?
Same thing applies here.
For the overwhelming majority of buyers of (new) cars in the $50k+ range, they will never see a track or otherwise operate in an environment that showcases the full potential. So, why spend $70k on an F-type when you could get a Mustang for half that, which will be close enough or even better from a driving perspective?
It’s because of the way the Jaaaaaag makes you feel. The designers aren’t dumb, they made it that way on purpose. Buying a Jaaaaag is an exclusive experience. Any jagoff with a job can go to the closest Ford store and get loan for a Mustang. Not every jagoff with a job can afford an F-type. It provides a feeling of both achievement and superiority. It has presence when you pull up somewhere, and projects the image of success.
If nobody cared about how cars make them feel or the image they project, and just bought the reasonable choice, everybody would drive off-lease Camrys.
Of course attractiveness matters.
"LongbowMkII" (longbowmkii)
05/16/2017 at 20:57, STARS: 1
I like Volvo because Volvo is Volvo. It’s not BMW being a Mercedes, or Caddy being a BMW or Mercedes being AMG. Same could be said for Jaguar. Certainly they’re both foreign owned now, but they’ve really re-built and modernized an identity. The E-type was a GT as well, defintely softer than its rival 911 (if you could consider them rivals in the 60-70's). The Mk2 was arguably more important to jaguar’s identity of the gentleman’s hotrod.
If Volvo had an economical way to build a crossover 240 they would have, so I’m not going to fault playing the crossover game now. I’m not going to lie, an AMC eagle fighter 240 sounds Bad. Ass.Once again, the modern ones aren’t, but I’m now distracted by the dream of slaughtering snow and moose in the Scandinavian wilderness. Yeah. Turn up the black metal.
Brb going to Craigslist.
Ahem. ANYWAYS....
Your overall point of being pretty is correct. If any of those brands were ugly we may be singing a different tune. But I’d like to pretend I like them for deeper subjective reasons.
Still need to test drive a Jaaaaaaag. Come down used F-types!
"fintail" (fintail)
05/16/2017 at 21:10, STARS: 0
I look at Volvo for some value - I think there’s no chance they are coming close to turning a profit with their premium prices at mostly undercutting prices, so there’s value. It’s being subsidized by an insane kleptocracy that I don’t want to support, but the cars as cars don’t seem to have a lot of negatives.
Same for Jag in a way, without the insane kleptocracy. Jag and Volvo are big in my area with people who have Indian and Chinese backgrounds, respectively.
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
05/16/2017 at 21:23, STARS: 4
This doesn’t apply to most of your written points, but in terms of enthusiasts being open to ugly old cars and being closed to ugly new cars, it’s pretty simple:
I can’t afford a Bentayga or a G Wagon. The Bentayga may be a better SUV than a G Wagon, but that doesn’t matter, because I’ll never own one. If you ask me which is better, I’ll say G Wagon, because I think it’s the better looking car. At a certain price, the car’s actual merits stop mattering.
By extension, enthusiasts are enthusiastic about the merits of older cars because it’s a lot more realistic for them to own and drive those cars.
Mazda love is probably similar as well. Is a Mazda as good as a BMW or Lotus? No. But many more people can afford to buy a new Mazda than can afford a new Lotus. In my experience, no one denies that most Mazdas are appliances, but they do say “amongst appliances in this price range, this is the only one that attempts to put a smile on your face.”
"CobraJoe" (cobrajoe)
05/16/2017 at 22:08, STARS: 0
Speaking as someone who has owned a modern Volvo and a slightly older Mazda (‘07 V50 and ‘02 Protege5), the difference in build quality and maintainability are staggering.
The Mazda P5 was fun, one of the most eager cars I’ve owned, but it was a nightmare to work on. Rust, siezed bolts, impossible to reach fasteners... even changing the acessory belts took forever because of a threaded tightener that was utterly impossible to access.
But the V50, it was an absolutely solid car, inside and out, was extremely easy to work on, and was the most reliable car I’ve ever owned.
That’s why i want to own a new Volvo, and not a new Mazda (even though they’re both rather old platforms by now).
"DrDDay" (drdday)
05/20/2017 at 11:01, STARS: 0
If it makes you feel any better I hate Volvo. And not just now either. I’ve hated Volvo’s since the beginning of time, and I will hate them until the end of time.
Also, it would be nice if Mazda did offer more engines. My girlfriend probably would have been interested in a CX-3 late last year, except when she drove it, it was laughably slow.
The F-Type is a nice GT car in the V6 model, and a sportscar with the V8.