"Burrito de EJ25" (alexcarrillo01)
04/11/2015 at 11:41 • Filed to: None
4
29|
"Burrito de EJ25" (alexcarrillo01)
04/11/2015 at 11:41 • Filed to: None | 4
| 29 |
But it's okay. They're probably pre-production models that are headed to the scrap yard anyway.
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 11:48 |
|
Are you sure that they are pre-production? I would think that, at the very least, the Viper would be production spec by now.
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 11:49 |
|
It's still part of the journalist fleet and probably on its way out.
Effef
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 11:49 |
|
I dunno if they are pre pro, but i know the Viper at least is the one that has been lent out to auto-journos since the beginning of time, and i think the Hellcats are too. Doesn't much matter what happens to them now, they have served their purpose, and this is a really fun way to send them out.
CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist)
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 12:01 |
|
"sends the car to demuro after this for testing"
|
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 12:02 |
|
Not necessarily. Due to the fact that most cars in the test fleet are production spec, they actually are sold to the general public afterwards in a good number of cases. Please, don't make broad generalizations.
In addition, even if these vehicles are potentially going to be scrapped, I still fail to see how it is acceptable to, as you put it, "destroy" them. I can understand the hosts wanting to have fun with the cars but is such destructive behavior really necessary?
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 12:04 |
|
I crinedged a bit, but fuck it. In the name of fun.
|
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 12:06 |
|
So, they couldn't have had just as much fun doing something else with the cars?
SlickMcRick
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 12:13 |
|
They gave you a disclaimer before you watched the vid. When you saw the dirt should have just turned away. But you know you just couldn't quit it. Had to see it through to the end just like myself.
PS9
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 12:51 |
|
It's totally acceptable if it means I can now buy a salvage title hellcat for 90% off MSRP.
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 12:57 |
|
It's metal and plastic (but mostly plastic). Live and let live. They served their purpose
Honestly, what could they have done? Track racing? Drag racing? Shit that everyone has done with these things?
Pretend you're watching a rally stage. Those cars are worth more and get trashed even worse.
tromoly
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 13:30 |
|
Destroy? Hardly, some dirt in the interior, plastic damage, and killed tires does not constitute destruction.
|
Burrito de EJ25
> tromoly
04/11/2015 at 13:43 |
|
Dont forget the bumper cover carnage! I imagine the clutch on that Viper is done as fuck, too.
wunderwagen wants a longer roof
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 13:54 |
|
I'm not going to bitch and nitpick. I just really enjoyed the pure carnage and fun that this was, so much that I pulled it up on my tv to watch. Thanks for enlightening me to Roadkill, they're awesome and did with those cars what they should.
|
tromoly
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 13:56 |
|
Um, a bumper cover is plastic. And a clutch is a wear item and easily replaced, though I doubt it's trashed, as Fred drove off with the car no problem.
Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 14:35 |
|
they were just beating on them harder than anyone else has, and I'm glad they did that, its like frieburger said, Dodge will make more hellcats and vipers, its not a limited run car, there are other new ones. Plus its roadkill!!!
|
Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 14:35 |
|
MIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNT!!!!
they didn't take the hood off :(
|
CAcoalminer
> PS9
04/11/2015 at 15:18 |
|
That's one way of looking at it. Haha
|
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 15:22 |
|
I'm fairly certain that their purpose wasn't to be damaged doing ridiculous things that they weren't designed for.
I would have enjoyed seeing a road trip with them.
Yes, but they are also designed to do that. Or as you put it, that's their "purpose." In short, the damage that rally cars receive is justified because it serves a purpose of trying to win a race. The damage to the three Dodges is unwarranted in my opinion because it doesn't serve any purpose other than to be dramatic and different, as you reference in your "Honestly, what could they have done" statement.
|
CAcoalminer
> Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
04/11/2015 at 15:25 |
|
I don't know. I just don't see the point in needlessly destroying things. Take for instance their episode with the tank and Prius. What's the point of crushing a perfectly good Prius that someone could have enjoyed?
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 15:55 |
|
Okay. Let's never have fun with a 700 horse power sedan or a $90,000 sports car. Because a poor upper middle class man baby could have had one.
While we're at it let us never destroy cars for movies ever either.
|
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 16:15 |
|
I guess your definition of "fun" is much different than mine. In addition, I'm not advocating giving away things to people. I'm simply stating that giving the Prius to someone would have been a better use for it than simply crushing it. It was a perfectly good vehicle that still could have been used by someone. In short, as I've already mentioned, I don't respect destruction just to be different or provocative.
As for movie cars, most, at least if they are new, are provided by the manufacturers because they understand that action movies will need cars that will be damaged or destroyed and rationalize that they will get publicity out of it. Therefore, the cars serve two purposes- providing attention for manufacturers and serving as props for directors.
In addition, I find it telling that you decided to reply to this comment rather than the one that I sent to you directly.
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 21:24 |
|
This video was sponsored by Dodge. This video WAS advertising.
|
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/11/2015 at 21:48 |
|
It was advertising but I highly doubt that Dodge would have consented to the way in which their vehicles were used. In my example of the manufacturers providing cars for action movies, the manufacturers provide the cars knowing that they will be damaged or destroyed. In this case, I highly doubt Dodge expected, let alone knew, that their vehicles would be damaged or used in the manner that they were.
In addition, am I to assume that by not providing a counterpoint to my first paragraph, that you agree with it?
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/11/2015 at 23:19 |
|
Literally, Roadkill Presented by Dodge .
And no. I don't agree. At all. They purchased the vehicle with the intent of destroying it. It was theirs to do with what they please. The Prius was destroyed for entertainment purposes which generated views which generates money. It was a business decision in which the only thing that came to harm was a bunch of metal and plastic cobbled together over some wheels and tires. Don't give me this sob story about someone out there needing a vehicle. It's not food. It's not shelter.
They didn't run out and steal a single mother's Prius and trash it. They went out and bought a cheap, dumpy Prius and wrecked it. It's no different than when Top Gear totally trashes second hand cars in their challenges.
|
CAcoalminer
> Burrito de EJ25
04/12/2015 at 00:12 |
|
I understand that Dodge now sponsors Roadkill. We have established that. I'm simply pointing out that I highly doubt Dodge enjoyed the fact that their vehicles were damaged in a deliberate manner.
Concerning the Prius, reread my response again. I'm not saying that they have to give it to someone else, I was simply using that as an example of an alternative use for it that would have been more productive than destroying it. In addition, I'm all for allowing others to do as they please with their possessions. I'm just saying that I don't agree with damaging or destroying things for a senseless and unnecessary purpose. You have to realize that growing up, I never had much, so acts like this just seem wasteful to me. In my mind, its like someone igniting $100 bills just because they can or to "generate views," as you put it. In addition, the "it's alright because it's entertaining and generates money" rationale is a dangerously slippery slope.
Also, I found this quote by you quite insightful:
It was a business decision in which the only thing that came to harm was a bunch of metal and plastic cobbled together over some wheels and tires.
So, are cars only "a bunch of metal and plastic cobbled together over some wheels and tires" to you? If so, then why did you admit to cringing in your second response to me? If cars really are only a collection of various materials, then why would you experience a physical reaction to seeing them damaged?
Concerning your third paragraph, I'm once again simply stating that I don't agree with damaging or destroying things for a senseless and unnecessary purpose. As for your Top Gear rationale, so just because they do something then it makes it alright? In my mind at least, no, it doesn't. In addition, it's interesting that you bring up Top Gear due to the fact that you made these statements:
Don't give me this sob story about someone out there needing a vehicle. It's not food. It's not shelter.
Top Gear has destroyed quite a few caravans over the years and I think we can both agree that those are classified as shelter. Keeping this in mind, do you view these actions as shameful?
|
Burrito de EJ25
> CAcoalminer
04/12/2015 at 01:07 |
|
Caravans are shelter in the same way a tent is, so no. And it's irrelevant. I didn't reference those two to mean that I think food fights are morally repugnant.
And I still don't see any difference between smashing a second hand Prius and the countless vehicles wrecked for films, new or used. They're wrecked for entertainment. The only difference between this and James Bond's DBS was that the Prius had a life before it was turned into a YouTube video prop.
My initial reaction is entirely irrelevant. I reacted negatively to it before I realized that they were rallycrossing two land barges and an underperforming, overpriced, archaic sports car that nobody really owned. Had I found out that they did this without Dodge's blessing and truly did a no-no then this would be an entirely different discussion.
It's a car. A thing. It, like other things, had a purpose. Some are built with the expectation that they'll eventually smash into some trees on a rally stage, others are smashed by tanks on Yotube.
If you feel we shouldn't break anything ever for the sake of fun, fine. There's no argument to be had, but what they're doing is in no way different than what any television or movie studio has been doing for decades.
|
Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
> CAcoalminer
04/12/2015 at 02:58 |
|
its not exactly perfectly good as described here, I understand your point for a new prius, but for a car with 289 THOUSAND miles (even a Toyota) it would probably be scrapped soon anyway.
CRider
> CAcoalminer
04/13/2015 at 03:53 |
|
Dodge knew who they were giving those cars to. You can also safely assume that the cars have no VIN # and were destined to be crushed when their life in the press fleet was over. The point is, dodge got more value in advertising from that video than the cars cost them to build, and there's nothing wrong with any of them that can't be fixed. It's mostly cosmetic damage. It is exactly the same as a movie car. If you know Roadkill, you know they thrash cars until they die, then fix them just enough to get them back on the road. These cars aren't done yet, you can bet on that.
Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo
> Burrito de EJ25
06/10/2015 at 02:24 |
|
I really like Road Kill, but I couldn’t watch this episode. Just too much carnage. Now, that 454 pickup truck...