Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

ccap41

New Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,678

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    86

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ccap41

  1. ccap41
    Nice to see the expansion of their 8spd getting put to good use. I heard the epa ratings are more stringent for 2017 but even if this doesn't change, that's an improvement.
  2. ccap41
    I read this the other day and I see no reason for any commercial use truck to not attempt EV or at least hybrid-ness. The only one that I didn't understand was the top one where they replace the bed with solar panels..but then it's basically just a useless single cab truck.. I would really like to see large companies like FedEx, UPS, USPS going more and more electric if their routes allow for it. I think that would be a big push in going more and more electric and on top of the vehicles themselves just getting more humans behind the wheels of them will benefit the other civilian EVs like the Bolt.
  3. ccap41
  4. ccap41
    ^ It's so glorious! If only it had a V8 to go with the awesomeness of it all.
  5. ccap41
    I would somewhat disagree.. It depends how/where you're driving. 99% of the time the low to mid range is all we use but if you're an aggressive driver and take your car to the track you actually utilize the peak hp negating almost all benefit of having a torque monster. Once you're out of first gear on a track, be it drag racing or road course, you largely don't benefit from torque. Gobs of torque would help in minimizing downshifts though, which would be nice. I personally am a driver that suites EXACTLY what you say about hp/tq. I like the low end power and not having to rev the piss out of the vehicle to get it to go anywhere.
  6. ccap41
    I definitely agree with you, pretty much across the board. It's really a power(tq) to weight ratio that we're looking for but if I'm being honest I don't know what a good ratio is. It really is more about acceleration rather than the power itself. Wouldn't about 225hp in a 3000lb car be more like a 14.0 car? Just thinking because of GTIs. They're 3200-3300lbs and 220hp/258tq and tested at low 14's(14.3 from C/D). Gearing plays a huge factor. Period. I'm glad it was brought up(not sure if I mentioned it in the op). That's one reason the Miata is such a great car. It isn't geared for commuting but geared to DRIVE.
  7. ccap41
    If this wasn't a sports car and one of the tests was a very realistic 30-50mph run I would agree with you. But as a sporty car it should be able to hoon fairly well. I personally enjoy the looks of the Fiat quite a bit. I like the longer body than the Miata. When this was first shown I thought it looked hideous but it's grown on me really quick. I just wouldn't want the Fiat brand on the hood of my car over Mazda. It looks good but not that much better to buy it over a Mazda..let alone trying to find a dealership for it.
  8. ccap41
    I definitely stole this from Autoblog but I thought it was a great little topic. I know it GREATLY varies based on the vehicle itself because a 5500lb SUV/Truck will need more power than a sub 3000lb car. With that said.. For the "average" 3000-4000lb vehicle I think I would want minimum 200-250hp as a daily. Something that can achieve nothing less than a 15.5 second quarter mile. I know that involves more than just hp but as it's been stated hp isn't everything. I will always want something a little fun even though a slow 15.5 isn't anything special it is quick enough to pass on demand, have a little fun with hard launches, and not aggravate me. As the vehicle weight grows I feel it is safe to assume more power is necessary to maintain the same goals listed above. The numbers probably jump to 300-350hp but it also is dependent on gearing. There are just so many variables when I stop and really think about this but that's why I thought it would be a great discussion piece. So, what is it? What's the minimum horsepower acceptable to you?
  9. ccap41
    If they could cut the price in half on the ATS, I'll buy one. 2.0T, Performance Package, black/grey/white, please.
  10. ccap41
    Ahhhhhh now THAT makes sense. HA. @surreal1272 no jokes, brother?
  11. ccap41
    No. No jokes from here on out apparently. Enjoy the seriousness.
  12. ccap41
    Stuff is already gettin' deleted? Can't a brother joke around anymore?
  13. ccap41
    I actually think the half ton trucks are starting to push this. I'm pretty sure the F150 commercials talk up their 420 torques while GM still talks about horsepower in their Silverados/Sierras.
  14. ccap41
    I honestly don't think it is some marketing ploy. I think it has waaaaay more to do with how the driver drives because if the driver is actually cruising at a certain speed or not flooring it at stop lights you really shouldn't be in the boost and it's almost like a n/a smaller engine. I can't imagine the CAFE regulations would have a loophole to where they can built smaller turbo engines that are just as inefficient as the older, larger n/a ones. That just doesn't make sense. I do think that the way manufacturers are trying to eliminate boost and produce gobs of low end tq is hurting mpg as boost is coming on so early and often now. I actually think a little lag would improve mileage to stay out of the boost for a tad longer. Show me a video of a 4 banger sounding like a V8, V10, or V12...
  15. ccap41
    @Drew Dowdell Holy sh!t, I love that we can do this now! (the @name thing)
  16. ccap41
    LOL You're joking, right? Have you heard of these vehicles called the Volt, Prius, or ANYTHING CHEAPER THAN 70k!
  17. ccap41
    Why would they need a V8 to do what the V6 did? This kind of goes against everything CAFE related downsizing. I think we would have liked to HEAR a V8 in the ATS-V but that's nothing more than noises because it isn't like the TT3.6 needed anymore power or tq.
  18. ccap41
    Some of those look good/great/acceptable and some of those look terrible as an actual truck. I mean if people buy the Ridgeline they'll buy the ones I don't like...so there's that... I like number 1 I don't like number 2(the split pictures) Number 3 looks okay but the hood seems like it starts very low and climbs up an awful lot. Number 4 isn't bad, I might just like it because it is black Number 5 I don't like. I don't like all of the plastic pieces going on(although I realize they are purposeful) Number 6 looks awesome but unrealistic, imo. Number 7 is my favorite. I think it looks realistic and still truck-like without being overly soft like the above mentioned ridgeline-like shape. Number 8 looks dumb Number 9 is the same as Number 5 Number 10 looks pretty good as well. Probably my number 3 choice in design behind #7 and #1.
  19. ccap41
    I saw that but every time I click and save it I don't know how to get back to "my stream" . Edit: Nvm, I found it!
  20. ccap41
  21. ccap41
    Not 100% sure how I feel about gettin the newest posts. Looks great! But I really really found the "new content" button before to be convenient. This is only my experience on the mobile version though as I haven't used the desktop one yet.
  22. ccap41
    Awwww dang.. lol I actually thought I had a good idea goin for them. I didn't think about the sports teams. I just thought it was good because it was 100% American and had some actual value behind it other than a random name or just another old name being reused. I don't care that they've had foreign names, bring $h! back to AMERICA! Why NOT bring names back to America? Is there any other form of naming that could/would represent America? Gotta pass on the city naming thing, after all we are trying to build and sell a global brand. We need more global planet wide names. Course I am sure ganges in various cities would love it. You can see it now, I drive a Cadillac Dallas North Side Edition! Rollin Rollin dang.. lol Why does it have to be global names just because the brand is global? It's an American iconic brand. I mean if that is the case we could go with globally powerful cities but that just seems awkward.. Ohhhh well, just an idea that I thought was actually awesome. Apparently not so much.. lol
  23. ccap41
    Mercedes has always put out crazy concept cars that never make production but get great headlines. That's all it's about it getting people to talk about them more. No way would a production car look anything like this. If they do it'll basically be an AMG GT already but longer.. Blend an AMG GT and an SLS.
  24. ccap41
    No opinions on my city/historical landmark idea?!?
  25. ccap41
    MB is just going to copy Tesla's naming scheme?? ?Why? BMW is still using 'i' for 'injected' 45 years later! lolLol I hadn't really realized that's almost exactly what Tesla does.. But they kind of mimicked what MB has been doing just with battery size instead of engine size. I mean they could always add an extra zero like they already have. I mean they were 3.5L but still added a "0" for 350. They could do the same with batteries.. But then it's basically the same they have now again..
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search