It's a great time to be a gearhead

"Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To" (murdersofa)
03/25/2015 at 22:20 • Filed to: None

Time for some mind-dump because I just realized how bonkers new cars are nowadays. You can get a direct-injected 2.0 liter turbocharged 4banger that makes 270hp and 295 ft lbs of torque... in a Buick .

That's a pretty ludicrous amount of power for a pedestrian-looking FWD car, or AWD if you go with a slushbox. It has the highest hp per liter of any Buick engine ever made. I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this thing. I personally keep forgetting it exists (I blame marketing).

And it doesn't stop there.

Want more bonkers? Ford has it. 2.3 liters, direct injection, and a snail gets you 310hp and 320 ft lb of torque . That's similar to the 320hp and 310ft lb of torque that rumbles from the 4.6 liter planet-moving powerplant in the Cadillac XLR and contemporary STS. And this stupidly potent little 4-banger comes wrapped in a damned attractive package.

Four-banger. I4. Four cyl. These used to be words of disdain among gearheads, usually referring to some soulless econobox, a Geo Metro, or hondabros with their farty cans and snaping backs and wrap music. Now four thrashing cylinders and complex technology (turbos) have found their way into two of the most recognizable performance car marquees to come from America. The Buick GNX, once a 3.8l fire-breathing turbocharged lambo-beater, now gets more horsepower per liter while sipping fuel. The Mustang, an automotive icon and wall poster car of twelve year old boys everywhere now sports an engine the same size as the 150hp LD2 from the 90s, but making twice as much horsepower and even more power than the NA V6 version .

It's a weird time. No longer are cylinders synonymous with greater power. It's strange.

But it's great. And I love it.

DISCUSSION (24)

Vicente Esteve > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 22:23

Cars right now offer amazing limits no one will get up to. We pretty much give the same level of use we gave cars 30 years ago, but cars have let us do more and more and more through that time.

PS9 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 22:27

That's all great. Too bad that you posted this on the internet though, where you're not allowed to like things other people don't like.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 22:44

Ya we get double the horsepower compared to what we got 15 years ago but cars are also double the weight of their 15 year old counterparts. So when speaking of power to weight terms, it evens out. I blame safety features for this

qbeezy > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 22:46

after driving my car I totally changed my mind about 4 cylinders. I'd still rather have the v8 though, with its almost instant response, but my 2.0 turbo is no slouch. The only problem u can see is that these direct injections with get massive amounts of built up carbon in 4-5 years and that response is still kinda laggy

deekster_caddy > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 22:49

There is a slow but steady shift towards smaller forced induction engines due to stricter efficiency requirements. The direct injjection and VVT tech has been in development for a long time. It's nice to see it all coming together. That Buick is one of the top underrated cars on the market today IMO. Underrated or unkown... Maybe unknown is more appropriate.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s
03/25/2015 at 23:00

You... what? The 2015 Regal GS is 3710 lbs. The GNX was 3472. Yes, the GNX is lighter, but you get so much more on the modern car. The new Mustang ecoboost? 3,532lbs (the same as the Murdersofa, actually). A '67 mustang is somewhere in the 3200lb ballpark. Again yes, it's heavier, but you get so much more bang for your buck. More speed. More power. Crumple zones. Sound dampening. A good set of speakers. Airbags. Comfy-ass seats that heat your buns.

For a penalty of ~300lbs, I will *gladly* accept all of that.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > deekster_caddy
03/25/2015 at 23:01

GM's marketing is award-winningly poor. It's a pity, really. So many great cars that were flops because of poor marketing.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 23:04

The difference between you and me: I dont like being cocooned when I drive, I prefer being able to hear, see and feel the vehicle interacting with the road. I'd rather sit on a welded metal seat with music played on speaker from my phone in my pocket than have a pillars the size of hulk hogans forarms and so much sound dampening that I can hear myself breath.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s
03/25/2015 at 23:23

That's a cool opinion and all, but cars have gotten objectively better, and will continue to do so. That's just how things work.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/25/2015 at 23:31

I think the market's a bit over-saturated with two-point-something turbo fours.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent
03/26/2015 at 00:22

It used to be over-saturated with anemic huge V8s. Then there was a period of 'lol whatever' where cars had everything from V12s to supercharged V6s in them between 1995 and 2012, now we have turbo4s

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 00:40

what continually impresses me is the cornering ability of the ordinary car. It has become somewhat extraordinary, if you ask me!

Take my mom's very normal 2.5 SE jetta. Performance wise, it would stack up to an early 80's V8 Camaro in terms of hp and 0-60. on a twisty road though, the Jetta would trounce a stock early 80's Camaro, and is way more comfortable!

with a set of higher-performance all seasons, it'd be a REAL beast!

Axial > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 00:40

Four-banger. I4. Four cyl. These used to be words of disdain among gearheads, usually referring to some soulless econobox...

No, they are still words of disdain. It has nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with romance. Four-pots are small, simple, and ubiquitous. Higher cylinder counts are larger, more complex, and less common. That makes them more exotic and more alluring. The size necessitated by these larger engine configurations is also directly responsible for the shapes we associate with traditional beauty in automobiles. Long hood, short rear deck? That comes from the days of big ol' I6, I8, and V12 engines.

So, when the large cylinder count engines disappear under the relentless pursuit of efficiency, it will be an incredibly sad thing. It's not something to celebrate.

And, just to touch on performance, the small-displacement engine will never, ever, under the laws of physics, offer as much potential as the larger displacement. Strap on turbochargers, and you are admitting defeat because a turbocharger effectively increases the displacement to get power and it brings with it the nasty (and sometimes nastier) fuel consumption that all-big-all-the-time engines have. The proof is in the pudding when a Corvette is in spitting distance of the economy afforded by something like a Focus ST by EPA ratings and trading blows with it in real-world application. Turbocharged anonymous tiny engines can, with all due respect, go eat a great big bag of pickled dicks, and that goes double if your turbocharged anonymous tiny engine displaces 2.0 liters.

With that out of the way, cars today are the best they have ever been. They absolutely crush older cars in every objective category, and the fierce competition among marques has benefited us greatly. Unfortunately, we've been sacrificing the romance associated with cars to get there, and I find that most unfortunate. It does, however, make the likes of Ferrari and Aston Martin even more important today than they were 60 years ago.

JasonStern911 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 00:41

First off, the idea that cylinders = power was shattered with the Grand National. What we're seeing is auto manufacturers finally seeing the light and making old ideas new again, with obvious technological advances that have occurred since.

I have to admit that I have been impressed with recent cars, but I'm old so I reflect fondly on a different era. To me, the mid 90s were the pinnacle of enthusiast cars.

Just look at the lineup that the beigest of beige auto makers, Toyota, had. MKIV Supra, a turbocharged MR2, ST185, 20v 4AGEs in JDM trim vehicles, etc.

And that's not getting into exotics - Porsche had the 993, universally heralded as the greatest of the air cooled Porsches!

The domestics were no slouch, either. Dodge had the Viper, Ford finally redesigned the fox body Mustang into something contemporary, and even the C4 had the ZR1 trim and the C5 right around the corner...

But by the early 2000s, the era of fun cars effectively ended. Sure, there were outliers. But overall... The recent product offerings have brought back hope, though. Hope that has been lost for well over a decade. The Koreans are making respectable cars, the Japanese are being forced to step their game up in order to not lose market share, the Americans have hopefully learned from the mistakes that hurt them during the Great Recession, the Germans continue to try to push the envelope, and even the Italians have tried to sell a mass market vehicle. So while I am skeptical to call this an automotive hey day, it's definitely looking like the start of one.

(buzzkill: it gets ended by autonomous cars)

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 01:02

Exactly. Why can't we have the 'lol whatever' back? A turbo four is great, but I don't want it in my hatchback, my family car, my truck, and my muscle car all at the same time! Spaghetti and meatballs is a great meal but you don't want to have it for every dinner for the rest of your life, do you?

tl;dr, Variety is the spice of life.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s
03/26/2015 at 01:33

And this is exactly why I prefer driving the POS Echo that's falling apart at work over the pair of 2013 Focii. The only other car I enjoy driving at work is the no-options 2015 Micra. The Focii just have too many things that get in the way of being a car. Sure, it's a nice place to sit... but I need to do more than just sit!

pip bip - choose Corrour > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 02:47

Kinja'd!!!

Opel!

duurtlang > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
03/26/2015 at 04:38

Yesterday I picked up a 1.5 year old Focus that had been sitting on a lot, unused for 1.5 years. So it's a new car. It's my new company car. It's a titanium edition wagon with a mid market diesel (yes I live in Europe) and a manual six speed. It's supposedly among the best to drive in its segment. Anyway, I'm not impressed. It's comfortable enough on the highway and despite having the same amount of hp as my bone stock subcompact 1988 Peugeot but with literally 50% more weight it's not even overly slow either as long as you downshift 2 gears. But that's it, it's a bit like my fridge and microwave. A product with no soul . It's not even a nice place to sit in as the seats suck (in a titanium, so the loaded version!)

duurtlang > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 04:46

It's a great time to be a gearhead as you can buy a reliable enough old car for next to nothing. New cars, despite being rather quick sometimes, have lost their appeal. To me at least. They're almost all highly computerized rolling sofas, indistinguishable from each other when you scrape away a shallow facade. I think it's one of the reasons younger generations aren't as much into cars anymore.

If, ignoring the engine, that Buick Regal Opel Insignia is anything like the Buick Verano 2009+ Opel Astra I drove it sucks . Comfortable, quick depending on the engine, no steering feel, no road feel, overweight, cramped interior compared to outside dimensions, unattractive interior and just no character. I'll pass.

Shady Balkan Subject, Drives an Alfa > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 05:14

GM can have good advetrisement when they want. Two of my favorite ads ever are for the last CTS-V. And this was a car I couldn't get where I live officially.

Jayhawk Jake > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s
03/26/2015 at 08:43

Have you spent a lot of time in a modern car not designed for comfort?

I can see, hear, feel, taste, smell, whatever sense the road just fine in my Sonic. And when it settles down on the highway it's fairly comfortable, something I can't say about my CRX.

I'm with Jake on this one: cars are better these days. I'll take new if I can every time.

Jayhawk Jake > Shady Balkan Subject, Drives an Alfa
03/26/2015 at 08:44

Well if they're advertising to somewhere they don't sell, that's pretty poor marketing...

Shady Balkan Subject, Drives an Alfa > Jayhawk Jake
03/26/2015 at 10:30

I mean, the ads were aimed at the US marked, I saw them on YT and just wanted to go trow money for a car I can't easily get.

deekster_caddy > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
03/26/2015 at 15:25

They sure do advertise the crap out of their trucks though... I guess you put your ad dollars where the profits lie.