OT - For Car Lovers: Some Recent Exotic Spottings

nolaegghead

WeberWho said:

saluki2007 said:

Road and Track has got this covered. 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a38758411/2022-performance-car-of-the-year/

Hard to beat a manual GT3

An automatic GT3, unless you are a superhuman driver.

I love driving a manual transmission (note the lack of "tranny" abbreviation here).  But that split second when you are shifting is a split second without power and a disruption to the weight balance dynamics. 

I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

Ozzie_Isaac

alaskanassasin said:

Either you can't afford it, or you can afford it and can't find one.

Exactly, very frustrating.  Been trying to find a Vacheron Constantine Overseas Everest Dual Time, but only 140 were made.  Haven't been able to track one down for a reasonable price.

nolaegghead

Ozzie_Isaac said:

alaskanassasin said:

Either you can't afford it, or you can afford it and can't find one.

Exactly, very frustrating.  Been trying to find a Vacheron Constantine Overseas Everest Dual Time, but only 140 were made.  Haven't been able to track one down for a reasonable price.

Damn elitists are grabbing all the ripe, low-hanging fruit.  What's the solution?  Knee pads?  Regulation?

GrateEggspectations

alaskanassasin said:

Either you can't afford it, or you can afford it and can't find one.

Sadly, I’m in the former camp. Some people know how to live!

WeberWho

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

saluki2007 said:

Road and Track has got this covered. 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a38758411/2022-performance-car-of-the-year/

Hard to beat a manual GT3

An automatic GT3, unless you are a superhuman driver.

I love driving a manual transmission (note the lack of "tranny" abbreviation here).  But that split second when you are shifting is a split second without power and a disruption to the weight balance dynamics. 

I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

I completely agree with you that any dual clutch transmission is going to be way quicker than any manual. With Porsche being such a driver's car I couldn't ever imagine owning one in anything other than manual transmission. Tracking one is a different story. 

https://youtu.be/ajSuTIRqW9o

I've always owned manual transmission vehicles. I might be biased. 

nolaegghead

WeberWho said:

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

saluki2007 said:

Road and Track has got this covered. 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a38758411/2022-performance-car-of-the-year/

Hard to beat a manual GT3

An automatic GT3, unless you are a superhuman driver.

I love driving a manual transmission (note the lack of "tranny" abbreviation here).  But that split second when you are shifting is a split second without power and a disruption to the weight balance dynamics. 

I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

I completely agree with you that any dual clutch transmission is going to be way quicker than any manual. With Porsche being such a driver's car I couldn't ever imagine owning one in anything other than manual transmission. Tracking one is a different story. 

https://youtu.be/ajSuTIRqW9o

I've always owned manual transmission vehicles. I might be biased. 

That's a beautiful car, except for that tint job which pisses me off.  You need to be able to see, wear sunglasses when needed.

On that car and many modern manuals, the throttle is computer controlled and matches the engine speed on downshifts which is hard to do without a lot of practice.  Probably does on upshifts too if your rpms are too low.   Sweet car.

Ozzie_Isaac

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

saluki2007 said:

Road and Track has got this covered. 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a38758411/2022-performance-car-of-the-year/

Hard to beat a manual GT3

An automatic GT3, unless you are a superhuman driver.

I love driving a manual transmission (note the lack of "tranny" abbreviation here).  But that split second when you are shifting is a split second without power and a disruption to the weight balance dynamics. 

I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

I completely agree with you that any dual clutch transmission is going to be way quicker than any manual. With Porsche being such a driver's car I couldn't ever imagine owning one in anything other than manual transmission. Tracking one is a different story. 

https://youtu.be/ajSuTIRqW9o

I've always owned manual transmission vehicles. I might be biased. 

That's a beautiful car, except for that tint job which pisses me off.  You need to be able to see, wear sunglasses when needed.

On that car and many modern manuals, the throttle is computer controlled and matches the engine speed on downshifts which is hard to do without a lot of practice.  Probably does on upshifts too if your rpms are too low.   Sweet car.

Can you disable the throttle aids?  I prefer the joy of executing a perfect speed matched no clutch shift.

Eoin

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

saluki2007 said:

Road and Track has got this covered. 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a38758411/2022-performance-car-of-the-year/

Hard to beat a manual GT3

An automatic GT3, unless you are a superhuman driver.

I love driving a manual transmission (note the lack of "tranny" abbreviation here).  But that split second when you are shifting is a split second without power and a disruption to the weight balance dynamics. 

I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

I completely agree with you that any dual clutch transmission is going to be way quicker than any manual. With Porsche being such a driver's car I couldn't ever imagine owning one in anything other than manual transmission. Tracking one is a different story. 

https://youtu.be/ajSuTIRqW9o

I've always owned manual transmission vehicles. I might be biased. 

That's a beautiful car, except for that tint job which pisses me off.  You need to be able to see, wear sunglasses when needed.

On that car and many modern manuals, the throttle is computer controlled and matches the engine speed on downshifts which is hard to do without a lot of practice.  Probably does on upshifts too if your rpms are too low.   Sweet car.

A lot of bikes have quickshifters now too. You move the lever to change the cogs 'manually' but keep the throttle pinned and the electronics manages the power drop for the minimum off power time. Not necessarily more fun, but wins the drag race.

nolaegghead

Ozzie_Isaac said:

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

nolaegghead said:

WeberWho said:

saluki2007 said:

Road and Track has got this covered. 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a38758411/2022-performance-car-of-the-year/

Hard to beat a manual GT3

An automatic GT3, unless you are a superhuman driver.

I love driving a manual transmission (note the lack of "tranny" abbreviation here).  But that split second when you are shifting is a split second without power and a disruption to the weight balance dynamics. 

I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

I completely agree with you that any dual clutch transmission is going to be way quicker than any manual. With Porsche being such a driver's car I couldn't ever imagine owning one in anything other than manual transmission. Tracking one is a different story. 

https://youtu.be/ajSuTIRqW9o

I've always owned manual transmission vehicles. I might be biased. 

That's a beautiful car, except for that tint job which pisses me off.  You need to be able to see, wear sunglasses when needed.

On that car and many modern manuals, the throttle is computer controlled and matches the engine speed on downshifts which is hard to do without a lot of practice.  Probably does on upshifts too if your rpms are too low.   Sweet car.

Can you disable the throttle aids?  I prefer the joy of executing a perfect speed matched no clutch shift.

Yes.  Looked it up.  You can disable PSM and maybe get on one of those Idiots in Cars fail videos too.

lousubcap

I have been a three pedal car owner since my first buy in 1969 (old here). MG-GT,  240Z, 911, BMW 540 sport pack. However as @nolaegghead posted, the electronics today are so efficient, the three can't touch the performance.  At my age that piece is not a decider-you want the car or hold out for a different rig with three pedals.  The three pedal build is quickly moving into very scarce territory.  Sad times for sure. 

Wolfpack

The new Raptor Bronco came out and it’s over the top and unnecessary. I really want one…

TEXASBGE2018

Wolfpack said:

The new Raptor Bronco came out and it’s over the top and unnecessary. I really want one…

As soon as these are available to the public I give it 3 weeks before some douchey soil stain in my town picks theirs up from the dealer and totals it on the way home. That seems to be relatively common where I live. Rich morons that don't know how to drive. Having said that. I am intrigued by this.

ColbyLang

Wolfpack said:

The new Raptor Bronco came out and it’s over the top and unnecessary. I really want one…

Starting sticker of $70,000. Availability will be sparse at best. You can start reserving them next month. $100 is all it costs 

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Wolfpack said:

The new Raptor Bronco came out and it’s over the top and unnecessary. I really want one…

As soon as these are available to the public I give it 3 weeks before some douchey soil stain in my town picks theirs up from the dealer and totals it on the way home. That seems to be relatively common where I live. Rich morons that don't know how to drive. Having said that. I am intrigued by this.

maybe if you’re lucky he’ll take out his bass boat in the same wreck 

Botch

nolaegghead said:
I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

There's more than a couple car reviewers who state the most-fun-to-drive sports car available today is the lowly Mazda MX-5/Miata.  Its underpowered, not totally settled suspension-wise, but with a Manual you're working it to the best of your ability, and can be closer to the edge of its abilities on public roads without endangering your license.  
If I could get my right shoe into it (much less the rest of me) it'd be sitting in my driveway (especially in that gorgeous, deep-metallic-red color that Mazda has!).  

Ozzie_Isaac

Botch said:

nolaegghead said:
I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

There's more than a couple car reviewers who state the most-fun-to-drive sports car available today is the lowly Mazda MX-5/Miata.  Its underpowered, not totally settled suspension-wise, but with a Manual you're working it to the best of your ability, and can be closer to the edge of its abilities on public roads without endangering your license.  
If I could get my right shoe into it (much less the rest of me) it'd be sitting in my driveway (especially in that gorgeous, deep-metallic-red color that Mazda has!).  

Most fun car I have owned was a 1996 4cyl. 2wd Std. Cab Dodge Dakota.  I raced everybody I saw.  Best part?  Nobody knew I was racing.  I revd the **** out of that and raked the gears as fast as I could and nobody knew.

WeberWho

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Botch said:

nolaegghead said:
I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

There's more than a couple car reviewers who state the most-fun-to-drive sports car available today is the lowly Mazda MX-5/Miata.  Its underpowered, not totally settled suspension-wise, but with a Manual you're working it to the best of your ability, and can be closer to the edge of its abilities on public roads without endangering your license.  
If I could get my right shoe into it (much less the rest of me) it'd be sitting in my driveway (especially in that gorgeous, deep-metallic-red color that Mazda has!).  

Most fun car I have owned was a 1996 4cyl. 2wd Std. Cab Dodge Dakota.  I raced everybody I saw.  Best part?  Nobody knew I was racing.  I revd the **** out of that and raked the gears as fast as I could and nobody knew.

My Dad's first car was a manual 1966 Chevrolet Corvair Monza. His second car was a 1970 Dodge Charger 440 RT. He said the Charger was awesome as long as you went straight and didn't need to turn or brake. He misses and wishes he still had the Corvair. Far from fast but was small, light, and could corner. 

Eoin

Botch said:

nolaegghead said:
I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

There's more than a couple car reviewers who state the most-fun-to-drive sports car available today is the lowly Mazda MX-5/Miata.  Its underpowered, not totally settled suspension-wise, but with a Manual you're working it to the best of your ability, and can be closer to the edge of its abilities on public roads without endangering your license.  
If I could get my right shoe into it (much less the rest of me) it'd be sitting in my driveway (especially in that gorgeous, deep-metallic-red color that Mazda has!).  

We have the Fiat 124 on the Miata platform and it's a very nice traditional sports car. I can just fit wearing Merrill Barefoot shoes - the thinnest sole possible. It looks possible to mess with the pedal positions to gain some room, the clutch is way too high, but it's Anne's car really so I can't start modifiying it!

JohnInCarolina

I don’t want to derail this thread given that it’s now gotten back on topic with (checks posts) discussion of the Valhalla that is a manual transmission, but in line with the earlier EV discussion I thought this news was kind of interesting:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-7-billion-investment-intensifies-ev-battle-with-ford-tesla-2022-01-25/

Carry on.  

WeberWho

JohnInCarolina said:

I don’t want to derail this thread given that it’s now gotten back on topic with (checks posts) discussion of the Valhalla that is a manual transmission, but in line with the earlier EV discussion I thought this news was kind of interesting:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-7-billion-investment-intensifies-ev-battle-with-ford-tesla-2022-01-25/

Carry on.  

GM would probably be my last option with anything EV. Their Chevy Bolt has been a complete failure. I want to say they have $1.3 billion in recalls so far. They've had 13-14 car fires due to their batteries. The last quarter they sold something like less than 25 Bolts and all of them but one had to be brought back in or returned for warranty issues. I can't confirm but I've heard about businesses putting up restricted parking signs for Chevy Bolts in California. 

Ford is miles and miles ahead of GM at this point. I think it was smart of Ford to buy into a 10% of Rivian. 

If anyone is interested in EV's, look into the channel "Munro Live" on YouTube. He literally takes apart electric vehicles and goes over the overall build quality that goes into them. 

fishlessman

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Botch said:

nolaegghead said:
I'm not crazy about stating this, but if your end game is performance, the automatics are the top performers.  Less fun, maybe hold less value in today's market, but the computer controlled automatics, or dual clutch manuals (which are really automatics) are vastly improved over what used to be made.   We will have to redefine what a "purist" is because it can't be both fun/ultimate performance when you can only pick one.

There's more than a couple car reviewers who state the most-fun-to-drive sports car available today is the lowly Mazda MX-5/Miata.  Its underpowered, not totally settled suspension-wise, but with a Manual you're working it to the best of your ability, and can be closer to the edge of its abilities on public roads without endangering your license.  
If I could get my right shoe into it (much less the rest of me) it'd be sitting in my driveway (especially in that gorgeous, deep-metallic-red color that Mazda has!).  

Most fun car I have owned was a 1996 4cyl. 2wd Std. Cab Dodge Dakota.  I raced everybody I saw.  Best part?  Nobody knew I was racing.  I revd the **** out of that and raked the gears as fast as I could and nobody knew.

i drove an 89 dodge dakota sport for 30 years, i got passed going up a hill by an old milk truck once

nolaegghead

I don't know what it is about Dodge trucks, but they get the absolute worst mileage.  I get about 13mpg in mine, 7 when I'm towing and it has a V6.  The V8 actually gets the same mileage.  My buddy had a couple Dakotas and they barely got more than mine.

That said, I love my 1500 Ram truck because it was cheap ($3200 with a blown motor) and it's reliable and a comfortable, quiet ride (for a truck).

Gulfcoastguy

nolaegghead said:

I don't know what it is about Dodge trucks, but they get the absolute worst mileage.  I get about 13mpg in mine, 7 when I'm towing and it has a V6.  The V8 actually gets the same mileage.  My buddy had a couple Dakotas and they barely got more than mine.

That said, I love my 1500 Ram truck because it was cheap ($3200 with a blown motor) and it's reliable and a comfortable, quiet ride (for a truck).

I drove: Ford, GMC, and Dodge trucks provided by my employer. By far my favorite was the GMC, very few maintenance problems and decent mileage. The Ford had good mileage but rode rough(one of my former employees still drives it over 5 years later). The Dodge had the worst mpg and the body rolled in crosswinds.

fishlessman

nolaegghead said:

I don't know what it is about Dodge trucks, but they get the absolute worst mileage.  I get about 13mpg in mine, 7 when I'm towing and it has a V6.  The V8 actually gets the same mileage.  My buddy had a couple Dakotas and they barely got more than mine.

That said, I love my 1500 Ram truck because it was cheap ($3200 with a blown motor) and it's reliable and a comfortable, quiet ride (for a truck).

with the dakotas the gas pedal is basically an on/off switch, my 89 4x4 v6 was rated at 125 hp, absurd in a 4x4. i saw 80 mph a couple times on down hills. mpg went down with winter gas big time as it just didnt move. get stuck in 6 inches of mud and it stopped the wheels from spinning........

nolaegghead

I only drive my truck to the local stores and my shop.  Maybe average 2 or 3 miles a day.  My buddy uses it to tow my boat twice a week, about an hour and a quarter each way if he's going off-shore.  The majority of miles now are while towing.  Which reminds me, I need to replace my transmission fluid and filter.  It's been 5 years and almost 40k.

fishlessman

Gulfcoastguy said:

nolaegghead said:

I don't know what it is about Dodge trucks, but they get the absolute worst mileage.  I get about 13mpg in mine, 7 when I'm towing and it has a V6.  The V8 actually gets the same mileage.  My buddy had a couple Dakotas and they barely got more than mine.

That said, I love my 1500 Ram truck because it was cheap ($3200 with a blown motor) and it's reliable and a comfortable, quiet ride (for a truck).

I drove: Ford, GMC, and Dodge trucks provided by my employer. By far my favorite was the GMC, very few maintenance problems and decent mileage. The Ford had good mileage but rode rough(one of my former employees still drives it over 5 years later). The Dodge had the worst mpg and the body rolled in crosswinds.

with my f550, you use the seatbelts, not cause its the law, more in that you will knock yourself out hitting your head with the roof of the cab. most trucks will do a three point turn, the fords ive owned will do it in nine

Mark_B_Good

nolaegghead said:

JohnInCarolina said:

nolaegghead said:

Kayak said:

Strictly in the emissions-to-the-air department, the total emissions from a powerplant are lower than the emissions from all the cars that could burn the same amount of fuel. That doesn't consider all the other aspects, of course, but maybe keeps us alive long enough to be buried in solid wastes.

True, and the power plants burn fossil fuels more efficiently than cars can because of their scale and a more efficient Carnot cycle that utilizes waste heat (energy).   Although that is partially offset by inefficiencies of the grid moving the power, it is still more efficient overall.

The EPA actually has a handy little calculator that will let you compare estimates for CO2 emissions for your choice of electric vehicle compared to what you would see for a standard gasoline-powered car:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2

For where I live, it cuts it in about half.  That's great, but it's not zero.  

It takes more energy to move electricity and gasoline from their sources where you fill-up.  Sources are coal mines, oil wells, refineries, pipelines, power plants, etc.  They had this handy graphic on your page:

Unless you use nuclear power ... than it makes a big difference

nolaegghead

Mark_B_Good said:

nolaegghead said:

JohnInCarolina said:

nolaegghead said:

Kayak said:

Strictly in the emissions-to-the-air department, the total emissions from a powerplant are lower than the emissions from all the cars that could burn the same amount of fuel. That doesn't consider all the other aspects, of course, but maybe keeps us alive long enough to be buried in solid wastes.

True, and the power plants burn fossil fuels more efficiently than cars can because of their scale and a more efficient Carnot cycle that utilizes waste heat (energy).   Although that is partially offset by inefficiencies of the grid moving the power, it is still more efficient overall.

The EPA actually has a handy little calculator that will let you compare estimates for CO2 emissions for your choice of electric vehicle compared to what you would see for a standard gasoline-powered car:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2

For where I live, it cuts it in about half.  That's great, but it's not zero.  

It takes more energy to move electricity and gasoline from their sources where you fill-up.  Sources are coal mines, oil wells, refineries, pipelines, power plants, etc.  They had this handy graphic on your page:

Unless you use nuclear power ... than it makes a big difference

Nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydroelectic....they all have much much smaller footprints.  I'm pretty sure the reason that calculator wanted your zipcode was to figure all of that in.

On the other hand, some fuel takes more fuel to make than it's BTU content.  (all fuel has an energy cost, but this is different)

Ethanol

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says

From that:

• Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."
• Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline.

Pretty effed up, right?  Also, ethanol absorbs water and water and gasoline polymerize and ruin carbs, fuel injectors, filters, etc.

lousubcap

Gubmint subsidies right there.  ^^^^^

nolaegghead

lousubcap said:

Gubmint subsidies right there.  ^^^^^

Yep.  Not only does it make us spend net more money on energy, it breaks engines (which I suppose is good for engine/parts manufacturers) and takes a big chunk of work-force out of doing something more productive.  I honestly don't know who benefits...the farmer?  

We could be using all that cropland to grow food to feed people and animals.  Or forrest for lumber.