oldshurst442

This phenomenon... because of the chip shortage where there is a shortage of new vehicles to sell and long wait period for one a reason?

The new mid-engine Ferrari. I love this lineage of Ferrraris! And this one is no exception. (Minus some models in different eras here and there) V12 mid-engine and front engine Ferraris also rule!

A commentator stated that the fun starts at 14:59. True...the enthusiastic driving does start there. All for a glorious 2 minutes and a half about. Another commentator wrote: The_Larson Family 2 weeks ago I love how this shows the pure reality of driving. I'd be wanting to go faster, but we can't always go as fast as we'd like...ty for the pure, unadulterated reality of a super car. And not just trying to drive fast, but for shifting gears... Maybe where you guys live, you still have open roads where one could enjoy shifting and matching revs with the curves and the straights and the spirited driving etc... Where I come from, traffic and pot holes negate all the joys of driving. Including cruising. Not to say you shouldnt buy a manual JUST because a doofus (sorry David) on the internets said manuals are overrated. Buy a freakin' manual if that is your fancy. But on the flips side, let us not be blind to the fact that manuals ARE overrated for many many modern reasons... Traffic is one. Speed and high horsepower is another (on PUBLIC roads).

I might be just a tad too harsh on the Fusion look-alike comparison, but the little details that should have been on the Continental did cheapen the effect of it being a TRUE Continental. The one problem I do have though, and why I will not retract my statement of gussied up MKZ as I did with the Fusion statement is that I am miffed at Lincoln for giving the Continental's nose on the MKZ BEFORE the Continental even came out. That new face now is Lincoln's new corporate face, which is a pretty face. Not only is it a pretty face, but a commanding, true luxury face. But Lincoln should have left that face unique to the Continental if only for a year. Then Lincoln could have made it their corporate look and placed it on the MKZ.

The bolded parts contradict to what you are saying in this post. A true enthusiast is one who enjoys manuals. THAT is what you are saying. I do NOT enjoy manuals therefore that makes ME NOT a true enthusiast... A car enthusiast who enjoys manuals is just that...an enthusiast who enjoys manuals... And an enthusiast who hates on manuals is just that...an enthusiast who hates on manuals. You got a passion for the car crazy world, then you are an enthusiast. BUY the car of your dreams and we may have a real definition of a TRUE enthusiast And us arguing about manuals, is what you said above: Its arguing about stupid shyte! Like I said above: And there is NOTHING wrong with that... We must not get too caught up with the superlatives... We must be able to call a spade a spade though but that shoudnt take away from what we like either... PS: I dont want to call you anything other than an internet friend. I just want to discuss stupid shyte with you.

Um...yeah they are. Manuals are over rated... Facts are just that...facts. In fact...manuals became over rated as soon as Oldsmobile invented the automatic transmission waaay back in '39. One could like over rated things. I like the Star Wars franchise for instance. I LOVE the Star Wars franchise to be precise. But seeing how Episodes 7, 8 and ESPECIALLY 9 turned out...Star Wars is COMPLETELY over rated. I even LOVE the Terminator franchise. This franchise is TOTALLY over rated. I enjoy a Quarter Pounder with Cheese and a Big Mac. Talk about over rated... its the CLASSIC case of something being over rated... And there is NOTHING wrong with that... We must not get too caught up with the superlatives... We must be able to call a spade a spade though but that shoudnt take away from what we like either...

Answer: All the bold parts that you made state otherwise that no one claims you cant be an enthusiast... And THAT statement would be EQUALLY as true about AUTOMATIC transmission-ed sports cars... @David made an ludicrous statement about manuals being a distraction. But his statement of him saying that manuals are overrated do ring true. Maybe a tad on the overdramatic side and its certainly a divisive statement, but if we are honest about it...manual transmission cars on crowded public streets full of traffic with gobs and gobs of horsepower that modern sports cars make upwards of 450 HP and more, where even when the streets ARE empty, no one could possibly use ALL the gears safely at a safe speed...yeah...Id have to AGREE with him, and you should too, that manual transmissions on a modern sports today IS overrated... EVEN on a Porsche 911 that you mentioned. The Turbo 911 makes 570 HP. 0-60 in like 2.5 seconds. All in the first gear. By the time you switch to second, you are blasting around at 100 MPH. Only in 2 gears... Shyte...the Viper GTS of 1997 could get you to 60 practically in first gear, you had to shift to second to actuallly attain 60 MPH all with JUST 450HP... Even in your Mustang... you hit those numbers as your Mustang has 450 HP. You have to feather the throttle in order for you to row all the gears. And where is the fun in that...feathering the throttle on a sports car just to row the gears? In order for one to TRULY enjoy manual shifting on public roads on the Pacific Coast Highway for instance, one has to buy a Subaru BRZ or Mazda Miata....anything more powerful than that...on today's crowded roads, its just OVERRATED... On a track? Sure! All that you said about manuals. On public roads...its a different matter all together. So...I wanted to make it a point that there ARE car crazy people that enjoy fast cars, sports cars but not necessarily like to shift gears. For many reasons they do not like shifting gears and yeah...sometimes, manuals ARE over rated. Not to you. You like shifting gears. But to me...as I have opined my opinion, you at least understand as to why I do prefer automatics over manuals and why I might think they are over rated... For David...ask him more directly as to why he thinks they are over rated.

There are many different types of automotive enthusiasts. BECAUSE one is not enamored with manual transmissions and one does NOT enjoying shifting gears does not lessen that person's credibility of being an automotive enthusiast. The video above...shows how awesome it is to shift one's own gears...on a wallowing muscle car. No doubt...its AWESOME!!! 1. In the context of these past posts, the conversation is leading us to believe that changing our own gears makes for faster cornering as we control the gear we want entering and exiting corners. While true... a) in the video...there are no such corners. Making me question why in the world would we want to row our own gears on relatively straight roads? On public, traffic filled roads...kinda useless shifting our own gears... b) the Trans Am in question above wallows like a bastard. Its hardly a track car... Me thinks an automatic would do wonders for it on the track as BOTH hands would be on the steering wheel possibly eliminating the possibility of wallowing off track all the while concentrating on where to actually steer the car instead of fighting the wallowing... 2. Although it is awesome that we can row our own gears in THAT Trans Am, especially with the awesome aural sounds we get as we change those gears up and down, we actually DO get the SAME awesome sounds with an automatic... 3. Is it more engaging to shift one own's gears? Quite possible. Yes...Id say even. But if a car enthusiast is more of a cruising type of guy, driving becomes of a DIFFERENT type of engagement with your surroundings... Instead of "driving" on the Pacific Coast Highway shifting gears enjoying the drive, one is DRIVING on the Pacific Coast Highway enjoying the scenery... Instead of racing the engine and hearing the revs while shifting gears on a boulevard, one could be cruising, listening to the engine sounds anyway, but CRUISING down a boulevard enjoying the drive. I would be the one to be cruising...and when I need to make a pass on some dipshyte, I just mash the peddle and my incredibly low RPMed, high torqued muscle car could do the rest...and I could STILL enjoy the sounds the engine makes... Yeah...I do not like shifting my own gears either. But THAT does NOT make me less of a car enthusiast...

Lincoln as with Cadillac, are on a mission to capture their glory days. And are truly manufacturing great vehicles. Their interiors are for the first time in 50 years, truly in the realm of what they were building 50 years ago. The engineering prowess will be shown in their EVs. FoMoCo has to one-up the Mach-E with a Lincoln product. And THAT must come shortly. Cadillac on the other hand is truly on its way.

The problem with the Continental was that FoMoCo didnt use (didnt have at their disposal and didnt have the time to engineer) a proper platform for it. They just used the CD4 platform. The Fusion/MKZ platform albeit the LWB version. It made the Continental look small especially as compared to the concept they unveiled. It wasnt majestic enough 1. in actual looks 2. to actually compliment the namesake of Continental. Also, there were small exterior detailing that missed the mark that were on the concept that made the concept stand-out. Small details that were omitted that made the difference between wannabe luxury to truly greatness. A longer wheelbase than the LWB CD4 is one. Body panel lines on the concept made the Continental look like a handcrafted uber machine. On the production version, the Continental looked like a badge engineered Fusion...or a more gussied up MKZ... On the interior though, THAT would be Lincoln's FIRST step in addressing the issues that American luxury cars had...which would be the perception that American luxury makes cheapen out their interiors. The Continental put an end to that and proved that Lincoln was not messing around anymore and the result is truly shown in Navigator and Aviator SUVs.

24 gals would initially take me to heaven. Right after, those same 24 gals would lead me take me straight to hell. A lot further than 544 miles I think... 24 gals would also lead me to bankruptcy. In a shorter distance I might add...

I didnt want to respond in this now derailed thread... Yet again, the bullshyte arises... @smk4565 The PHOQUE are you talking about? Mercedes Benz West-Island. West of the Island of Montreal... Google maps. Just click on the link.... https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4848789,-73.8465411,3a,30.4y,25.29h,91.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sufnCpBfbldHYWCcHUt0b0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US Mercedes Rive-Sud South Shore borough just south of the Island of Montreal. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4833736,-73.465463,3a,47.4y,282.53h,89.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5jEcQOWJrypmtzLG49__qQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US Mercedes Laval. Just to the north of the island of Montreal. Laval is a city-suburb of Montreal on another island RIGHT ABOVE Montreal... https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5718446,-73.7606766,3a,15y,212.39h,90.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb4tWRSpcbsmTBz0IAq8lWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US Older pic I think the one in Laval...and the one in Laval has a specific and separate area for the vans... Centre des Fourgons . Fourgons is short for fourgonette which is French for mini-van. Mini-van center... But there are 2 vans in front of the MAIN entrance front and center... It doesnt matter...the Google car captured all 3 locations, (there are others in and around Montreal...I just dont feel like posting ALL locations...) where the Mercedes vans are sold FRONT AND CENTER at the dealership where Maybach S Class versions are sold... The funny thing is that at the West Island location...the vans are presented outside under an AMG banner sign... LMFAO ????? 3 different locations on 3 different days...a google car captured and proved SMK wrong... LMFAO ?????

I do not know what the automotive world would think of a RWD/AWD roadster EV of the likes of a modern S2000 or if Toyota and Subaru would join in and make their 86/BRZ into a Honda competitor. What I do know is what I think of it. And THAT rendering above is quite an appealing package. Its niiiiiice! Now...imagine if GM could also offer one as a new Solstice/Sky as a Buick...or as a baby Corvette?! Ill use the coupe from Pontiac and the roadster from Saturn as the Sky was never offered that coupe style...

Nah...its about chemical warfare. And ze Germans (Mercedes) know a thing or two about that from their recent but past history... ☠️ Sorry @David Stay safe everyone! Get your HEPA filters to compliment your masks now! ?

Was watching the hockey game last night. A commercial is playing and the song used is a new cover of we will we will rock YOU! I wake up this morning with it in my head and I still cant seem to shake off the guitar solo. So, here (hear)... a whole hour of it!

I get what you are saying. And yes, you are not arguing against what Balthy and I are saying, but only correcting the information at hand...which is cool. And necessary for mis-information not to be reproduced. Thank-you. It is quite recent, this rule, I believe. I think 2018? But even before 2018, sometime between the 1980s when it was carefree and 2018, the engines had to last 4 engines per driver for the whole season or 5 races per engine. In other words, some sort of durability was and is applied to F1 engines and gearboxes. Which is nice to know. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/promoted-how-f1s-engines-survive-the-punishment-of-a-long-season-5285414/5285414/ The relevant sections of the Formula 1 technical regulations written by the FIA (motorsport's governing body) decree, in short, that each driver may use only three engines per season to cover every practice session, qualifying and race. Article 23.3 (a) of the 2018 FIA sporting regulations states: "...each driver may use no more than three engines (ICE); three motor generator units-heat (MGU-H); three turbochargers (TC); two energy stores (ES); two control electronics (CE) and two motor generator units-kinetic (MGU-K) during a championship season. Long gone are the carefree, spendthrift days of the mid-1980s (pictured below), when the likes of BMW specialised in producing 'qualifying grenade' motors, capable of pushing out around 1500bhp... before internal components melted and the engines were scrapped. Now, with only three PUs permitted per driver, each of them has to last seven races, whereas previously it was four per driver, or five races per engine. The requirement for PUs to last an extra two race weekends was "a significant step", in the words of one engineer, but the change was made to help reduce the cost of supply to the customer teams.

I watched my son's first baseball game of the year. He had a 50/50 game. He went 2/4 with 3 RBIs. A single, a double and a walk. He came in all three times he made it to base. No strike-outs. He played shortstop. He made 2 fantastic plays to first ending 2 innings with the 3rd out ending threats of the opposing to to score. He also played 3rd base. He overthrew to first on the last inning to make the opposing team tie the game with 1 run in with 2 outs. Easy play and the game would have been over and they would have won... They eventually lost the game 8-7. (we were the away team) He didnt feel too bad for losing. He had fun. His teammates were having fun. It will be a great year for him, I think!

Actually... Racing cars are built ONLY to last THAT race... Balthy already stated that. Engines, transmissions...are all rebuilt after EVERY race. Tolerances are soooooo tight, that after running hard for a full race, the wear and tear on them in soooooo great that a rebuild is necessary because after a race, the tolerances are no longer in spec, wear and tear... therefore the engine is not making the full amount of horsepower that was engineered into it and the transmission will fail... The aeropackages on a race car are engineered to be just strong enough to do its job, but not as strong as to be too heavy.... In other words: aeropackages and even the chassis, are NOT overengineered to last a lifetime, just strong enough to be as light as possible to accomplish the task at hand in that one race. Which is to be as light as it could possibly be... Even the tires...are not pretty durable... Durable means they last 50-60 thousand miles, right? Well...we all know that racing tires do NOT last but a handful of laps... The only race cars I know that HAVE to be durable, are the ENDURANCE race cars that race for 12 or 24 hours... But even THOSE...all THEY have to do is just outlast the competition and for only...that 12 or 24 hour period... However, race cars are built sturdy...to handle high G Forces and high speed impacts to protect the driver. But being built sturdy does NOT equal being built durable. Being built to high tolerances does NOT equal to being built durable. Race cars are NOT built to be durable. Passenger cars are built to be durable. They are built to last a couple of hundred of thousand of miles... and there is a usual warranty from the manufacturer of 5 years or 50 000 miles. If only a race car could get 5 months and 5 000 miles...

True...but I wasnt questioning you or your stance REGARDING 400 mile range either... I was just stating that there might NOT be a need for 400 mile range and COMPLIMENTING your post rather than questioning it... But YOU are quite defensive there... Is it because you are sooooo comfortable if phoquery posts? Like you want to mess with my mind because I cant take an adolescent joke about a phoquing your mother joke when my mom passed away just a few months prior. When we are ALL NOT adolescent's anymore and chances are at OUR age, a parent might pass away because...parents DO get older and DO NOT live forever? I mean....sex with your momma jokes... do they EVER get stale? Like never? Stop the phoquery!!!

EXACTLY! You just throw FALSE information at EVERY turn trying to DENOUNCE. The thing is...you cant FOOL and LIE your TRUE intentions concerning EVs... Just ADMIT it that you dont like EVs and STOP trying to insult MINE and everyone elses intelligence with phoquery! There is NOTHING wrong with you NOT wanting to adapt to EVs. JUST STOP being a COWARD and ADMIT it. It took several posts...but I got you to admit it when your phoquery wouldnt go any further... I had to insult your country to do so even...before I got the TRUTH out of you... Why do you feel the need to lie about your view on EVs? If its really about the information regarding EVs, then STOP reading the MISINFORMATION and INFORM yourself CORRECTLY and use your brain... But if its because you are so dead set about EVs...then there is NOTHING wrong with that! Just stop the phoquery.... yeah...well...the article didnt make that clear, did it!? THAT article would be an example of MISINFORMATION... A lot. PLENTY of examples in just the last few days posted in these threads. If you MUST know...do your own analysis. Just stop the phoquery...

but...BECASUE technology in battery tech is changing pretty quickly and charging times and range is also a problem that engineers WANT to address and ARE doing so.. THAT survey that was done in 2018 really has no teeth in 2021... It got OUTDATED. Charging times in 2018 were longer BECAUSE not all public chargers had level 2 charging. Not ALL BEVs had level 2 charging capabilities... Going forward...is THAT STILL a problem for 2021? For 2024? A new problem HAS arose: FUNCTIONAL charging stations... Will THAT be a deterrent in 2021 for folk that dont have access to level 2 charging at home? In 2024? I know one thing, if finding working charging stations CONTINUE to be a problem in 2021 and 2022...then the United States of America is one useless dump of a country... And yes I mean it that way... NO APOLOGIES. If Greece could manage a working EV system...then there is NO phoquing excuse for the US...

I read a comment somewhere where a poster was commenting on range for EVs... He said: "there is no need for a 400 mile range battery and more in an EV" why? "A gasoline powered car lugs around 400 plus mile of range in the form of gasoline. gasoline is heavy, but ONLY when the tank is full. When its empty, it aint heavy. We also dont drive with a full tank of gas all the time. Its only full once. We drive the first mile and its no longer full and its 1 mile less heavy. And we dont rush to fill 'er up the next day either. Some of us dont even fill 'er up all the way. Some of us wait until we squeeze the last fume out of the gas tank before we gas up again. A battery powered car lugs around that heft ALL the time REGARDLESS if on a full charge or a 0% charge. When charging times drop to the levels of gasoline fill-up times, there wont be a need to lug around all that heft." Think about that for awhile...

Whether there will be or not... THERE IS NO PHOQUING NEED FOR 400 MILE RANGE...(if one has a charger at home...if and WHEN charging times drop....when there are ENOUGH charging stations at every street corner...) gasoline powered cars barely have over 400 mile range... But...gasoline powered cars cant be filled up at HOME... Its the SAME old tiring argument...