"pauljones" (pauljones)
09/09/2013 at 13:49 • Filed to: None
2
14|
"pauljones" (pauljones)
09/09/2013 at 13:49 • Filed to: None | 2
| 14 |
This image was lost some time after publication.
The truth is, Wyllis, they just ain't that bad anymore. With the exception of the last few, any one of them is better by far than a swift kick in the ass, or the daily beaters most of us drove just five years ago. Hell, those first few are just downright flirty, and I'd sure as shit take them for a dance on a curvy old back road. Having driven two of the above, I'm actually confident that they can make a solid showing of themselves, too.
Seriously, all those little hot hatches from the 80s, 90s, and early aughts that we claim to love so much aren't half the car that some of these are. In fact, like the the Baby Boomer generation and their muscle cars, Millenials like myself are starting to get once-upon-a-time-get-the-fuck-off-my-lawn syndrome. We keep thinking that cars like the original Civic Si, B16 Sentras, T200 Celicas, etc. were all great cars that were way better than anything that is put out today. And the truth is, they were the best; but only of their time. Ten or more years later, midsize family cars relegated to Starbucks runs can keep up with those old buckets.
I'd actually be curious to see Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Road & Track, Automobile, etc. (or even Jalopnik or Top Gear UK) put a contemporary family sedan like the Fusion or the Mazda 6 against sports cars from the late 90s that we all claim to know and love. I think the results would surprise many a reader and many an enthusiast.
I don't know about you lot, but there are definitely a few picks above that I wouldn't necessarily kick out of bed. Unless, of course, the following came along:
For Sweden
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 13:55 |
|
Having driven an Avenger, it actually is that bad.
|
pauljones
> For Sweden
09/09/2013 at 14:02 |
|
Hence the following statement above:
"With the exception of the last few, any one of them is better by far than a swift kick in the ass, or the daily beaters most of us drove just five years ago."
Most of the others, however, are actually impressively good for being FWD )or FWD-biased) family sedans. A fair few of them could probably keep up with sportier cars from just a generation (or less) ago. I've driven both the Fusion and the Accord, and I walked away impressed. I'm thinking the Fusion in particular (and the Mazda 6, if reports that its better than the Fusion are true) are capable of providing thrills equivalent to some of our older perennial favorites. I'd particularly like to see how they stack up against an E39 5-series.
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:06 |
|
I would love to see that 5 series comparo.
Leadbull
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:07 |
|
|
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:08 |
|
I agree with you.
I think the mid-sizers these days are pretty impressive for their cost. I love the performance I get out of my bone stock 07 Mercury Milan. IT is a sub 7 second 0-60 time and if I turn off traction control it spins the tires all the way down the street.
Yet also gets 28/29 on the highway with a great sized trunk and a good back seat.
I want the new Fusion bad if I stick Ford. I'd love to grab an ATS for the next car though.
|
For Sweden
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:09 |
|
It's been attempted.
|
pauljones
> For Sweden
09/09/2013 at 14:22 |
|
You're going to have to tell me the result, as I can't play videos.
|
For Sweden
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:26 |
|
A Ferrari 308 GTS quattrovalvole loses a drag race to a Toyota Sienna.
|
Leadbull
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:27 |
|
Well, of course cars are going to improve substantially in 20 years. I'm sure a 2003 V6 Camry could handily outperform a 1983 RX-7. That's just how technology evolves...
But I do agree that the current midsize sedans are especially good. I don't really care, myself since I'm not looking to buy one anytime soon (or ever). But it is pretty cool that average, boring cars aren't so average and boring anymore.
STEP UP YOUR GAME, BMW.
|
pauljones
> For Sweden
09/09/2013 at 14:28 |
|
That's actually pretty fucking funny.
duurtlang
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 14:39 |
|
It really depends on what you're looking for. Modern cars have become more comfortable and less engaging. If comfortable is what you're looking for, than yes, modern cars have become much better.
As a European who sees little use in a large vehicle with limited practicality I would've used a slightly different pictorial:
|
pauljones
> duurtlang
09/09/2013 at 14:51 |
|
I like wagons, don't get me wrong. I simply like sedans better. They are more attractive in most cases, and have an element of practicality all their own that can't be found with a wagon: a completely enclosed storage area without any way to see what's inside. Trust me, that can be a very, very useful thing.
As for being more engaging, I would disagree with that. I think that cars simply engage in different ways. People here like to bash automatics, and I don't understand why. Selecting your own gears an a paddle-shift gear, assuming the car isn't programmed to be able to override your inputs, can be very engaging. On a car without a paddle-shift ability, you can actually still have almost complete control of what gear your in. It just takes a little time to learn the transmission shift points, and once that happens, you can completely adjust your driving style to make sure that the cars stays in the gear you want at all times. If I was able to figure how to do that in a 1999 Saturn SL2, others should be able to figure it out in one of the cars above.
There's also this concept that it's a clutch pedal that determines whether or not a car is engaging - and that's simply not true. There is much, much more to being involved in driving your car than simply using a clutch peddle. Control over vehicle speed, inertia, traction, braking force, throttle modulation, road knowledge, and many other things all contribute to being involved in the driving process. And not one of those things requires a manual. I understand, and appreciate, that many people like manuals for a slightly elevated feeling of control. But at the end of the day, the people who claim that manuals are the only things give then control are either vastly over-exaggerating or completely clueless.
|
duurtlang
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 15:19 |
|
I wasn't talking about manuals though. Every single one I pictured comes with one anyway. I think effortlessness has replaced engagement throughout the years. Compare a European vintage prewar family car to one of the 70s and to a new one. All three are worlds apart in many ways. And that's a good thing, as a commuter I much rather have a recent car than a vintage one. But I personally don't want to be lulled to sleep either. I think there's a personal optional equilibrium between engagement and effortlessness. To many it's brand new cars, to me it's not.
The relatively recent EU Corolla hatchback my now ex drove was a better car in every way than my old and relatively boring 80s model mk2 Golf. Despite being roughly the same size and thus comparable it was much faster, more comfortable, much newer, 1/6th the mileage (50k km vs 300k km), you could go on. It even had a 5-speed manual (the Golf a 4-speed). Yet I very strongly preferred to drive that Golf. Why? It's difficult to explain, but it was simply more entertaining. I guess it had something to do with feeling what was going on and not being completely without character. Still, rationally the Corolla was the easy winner. Cars are more than ratio to me though, that's why I frequent this site. And that's why I, and that's purely personal, strongly preferred that old Golf. I mean this in the most respectful way possible, I can understand others coming to another conclusion.
About the practicality of wagons; you can't see what you store in a wagon either, it's completely enclosed if you want it to. Wagons have a sturdy fabric, somewhat like horizontal roll down curtains, covering the trunk. You can only see what's below if you open the trunk, which is similar to a sedan. Only larger items that can't be covered by that thing on rails are visible, but those wouldn't fit in a sedan so that's a moot point I guess.
At the moment I drive a midsize sedan myself. It's a coupe to be more precise, but that basically means it's a 2 door sedan and has a sedan trunk. The amount of and especially the size of the crap I could haul in that much smaller Golf compared to this much larger 'sedan' is incomprehensible. I really do miss the practicality of that old hatch. Washing machines, fridges and even a cross trainer, it could take it all. And that's a hatch, not even a wagon. Now with the coupe I have to call a friend to haul the smallest stuff, which is frustrating.
King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider
> pauljones
09/09/2013 at 22:03 |
|
Facts.
Hell, an Altima with decent tires, brakes, and suspension upgrades will haul ass around an autocross course regardless of the CVT.