BF2S Forums Bought a new car \o/ Tell me what you think.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

What about AWD isn't that supposed to be the best of both worlds or something?

Yes. It is. Higher maintenance and fuel consumption, but it's so much better, especially in the winter. I can never get enough of flooring it around bends just to go sidways in the snow without spinning out.

@Nismo: I have an aversion to automatics. I don't care how advanced they are, I don't care if they shift faster than me, I don't care if they have rev-synching. They make you lose the most important thing: feeling of your car. There is nothing like it; I think you know what I mean. The youngest car my family has is a 2002; we all hate that electronic stuff which does the driving for you.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Yeah, but most RWD cars are heavy 'luxury' cars, like BMW and Mercedes. Thus, if you get a FWD car, if it's any GOOD, it's likely to be small and nippy. Fast to accelerate, good handling, sharp turns.
Sports cars aren't generally 'nippy', they're powerful and very good cars, made to go fast out on the open road, not nip in to cut off larger, heavier cars in traffic.

And yes, RWD can catch you out, but it's so damn infuriating when I put my foot down and the steering wheel tries to move, or I hear the front wheels scrabbling for grip.
(But, then again, perhaps I just have a heavy foot for driving a small car. I HAVE only recently passed my test, after all.)

OMG ... I don't even know where to begin with this post. I bet you drive a Civic or some other kind of Honda, yes? Maybe a Toyota? Less likely to be a Nissan, but that only leaves one possibility there. Not likely a Nissan. Possibly a Toyota. Almost definitely a Honda.

RWD cars accelerate MUCH faster than a FWD car (if we're comparing similarly powered vehicles). It's pure physics that one. Sports cars aren't "nippy". OMG. Clearly you've never been behind the wheel of a "sports car". Sports compact maybe, but not a sports car. If you want the entry level, go jump into an MX5 (Miata). 1st or 2nd gen will get across the idea better of what I am trying to imply here. Honda S2000? Mazda RX-7? Nissan 240SX? Ford Mustang? Chevrolet Camaro?

The problem is that in the past 10 years, cheap RWD cars all but left the market. Why? Again, safety. They're making a come back, though.

If you knew much of anything about cars, you would know that factory RWD handle better than a comparable FWD car (there are, I am sure, exceptions). FWD cars are for the masses. RWD cars (in the current market) are more for purists.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

What about AWD isn't that supposed to be the best of both worlds or something?

Depends on how the system is set up. Nissan's system, for example, has a rear wheel bias to it. Others (I think Mitsubishi and Subaru are like this), are on all the time. Mitsubishi cars also have a FWD layout in the engine bay, same as an Audi, even though it's an AWD car. Not all Mitsus are AWD, mind you, but their AWD systems have ALWAYS had a FWD engine layout. The Nissan? RWD layout.

And AWD is not just for off-roading and super cars. OMG. Skorpy, you come from the UK. It snows there. How can you talk so dumb about AWD? AWD certainly is more complex, but it's not just for super cars and off roading. How many super cars actually have AWD? Lamborghinis (2), Porsche 911 (1), Nissan GTR (1), and the Audi R8 (1). I am honestly struggling to think of any others that have AWD and having a hard time. That might be the marijuana, though.

TSI wrote:

@Nismo: I have an aversion to automatics. I don't care how advanced they are, I don't care if they shift faster than me, I don't care if they have rev-synching. They make you lose the most important thing: feeling of your car. There is nothing like it; I think you know what I mean. The youngest car my family has is a 2002; we all hate that electronic stuff which does the driving for you.

I can certainly understand your point. I'm coming from a performance standpoint (racing) and what nets the fastest times on track. Kinda my background as an amateur racer - what nets the most time.

TSI wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

What about AWD isn't that supposed to be the best of both worlds or something?

Yes. It is. Higher maintenance and fuel consumption, but it's so much better, especially in the winter. I can never get enough of flooring it around bends just to go sidways in the snow without spinning out.

@Nismo: I have an aversion to automatics. I don't care how advanced they are, I don't care if they shift faster than me, I don't care if they have rev-synching. They make you lose the most important thing: feeling of your car. There is nothing like it; I think you know what I mean. The youngest car my family has is a 2002; we all hate that electronic stuff which does the driving for you.

true true, just like all the 2007+ luxury cars, all controlled by computers and such

CapnNismo wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

I'm sure someone just released a manual/automatic DCT system i.e. option for automatic or sequential manual gear change, may even have been BMW, I don't take much interest in that kind of thing, just remember coming across it not long ago.  I'd still prefer a proper manual though.

BMW has had their SMG transmissions around for what? 9 years now? Longer? VW has one. Porsche has one (when the new 911 Turbo came out, the automatic shifted faster than a 5 speed could and that's before THEIR double clutch transmissions came out), Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. Quite a few have similar systems. Like I said, it's the future.

I drove the VW GTi right after it came out with the double-clutch gearbox and it drives pretty nice. The shifter is bang on, both with the paddles and the shifter. It works very nicely.

I just remembered where I saw it now, Youtube suggested this for me last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmaAxzTqh8g I wont embed as its not that interesting

If its not a BMW dont buy it

CapnNismo wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Yeah, but most RWD cars are heavy 'luxury' cars, like BMW and Mercedes. Thus, if you get a FWD car, if it's any GOOD, it's likely to be small and nippy. Fast to accelerate, good handling, sharp turns.
Sports cars aren't generally 'nippy', they're powerful and very good cars, made to go fast out on the open road, not nip in to cut off larger, heavier cars in traffic.

And yes, RWD can catch you out, but it's so damn infuriating when I put my foot down and the steering wheel tries to move, or I hear the front wheels scrabbling for grip.
(But, then again, perhaps I just have a heavy foot for driving a small car. I HAVE only recently passed my test, after all.)

OMG ... I don't even know where to begin with this post. I bet you drive a Civic or some other kind of Honda, yes? Maybe a Toyota? Less likely to be a Nissan, but that only leaves one possibility there. Not likely a Nissan. Possibly a Toyota. Almost definitely a Honda.

RWD cars accelerate MUCH faster than a FWD car (if we're comparing similarly powered vehicles). It's pure physics that one. Sports cars aren't "nippy". OMG. Clearly you've never been behind the wheel of a "sports car". Sports compact maybe, but not a sports car. If you want the entry level, go jump into an MX5 (Miata). 1st or 2nd gen will get across the idea better of what I am trying to imply here. Honda S2000? Mazda RX-7? Nissan 240SX? Ford Mustang? Chevrolet Camaro?

The problem is that in the past 10 years, cheap RWD cars all but left the market. Why? Again, safety. They're making a come back, though.

If you knew much of anything about cars, you would know that factory RWD handle better than a comparable FWD car (there are, I am sure, exceptions). FWD cars are for the masses. RWD cars (in the current market) are more for purists.

If you knew much about reading comprehension, this would be a non-issue. My point is that small, light front-wheel drive cars accelerate faster over very short distances than heavy, powerful rear-wheel drive cars. By the time your heavy american or german gas-guzzler has gotten two tons of metal moving, my Fiesta has gotten into the space.

And sports cars do NOT 'nip', in the sense I used it in. Not designed for city driving. Yes, a Corvette or an MX5 would feel great on the open road when you put your foot down, but I bet you'll wear your knee out on the clutch trying to navigate a one-way system in britain.

And no, I don't drive a japanese piece of plastic crap. Currently, I drive a mk4 fiesta belonging to my mother, but I'll soon be upgrading to my own mk3 Fiesta when I have a job and can afford to insure it.
Small, front-wheel drive car, light, good handling. Jerky, lurchy piece of crap at speed, but very good for twisty uneven streets as long as you're careful not to hit the power band of the engine at the wrong time.
(And yes, I know the mk4 is a newer model. You'd consider it an upgrade if you saw what my mother does to a gearbox.)

@ M3. I miss my 3series

Skorpy-chan wrote:

mk4 fiesta belonging to my mother ... nippy ... By the time your heavy american or german gas-guzzler has gotten two tons of metal moving, my Fiesta has gotten into the space

lol no

Great score. I'm a fan of BMW and I don't care what others think. I saw a '95 540i V8 6-speed for sale near where I live. It has 178,000 miles and they want $4800 for it (To much imo) but when I went to go look at it, the dick did NOT let me test drive it. Really wanted to drive that car...

I do prefer the sport sedan, so I like your choice with the 4-door M3. You got sport and business right there. I'm still in the market for a new car because I will not buy a BMW with 178,000 miles!

Edit:

Although to be completely honest with you Mac, I would take an E30 M3 over that any day

Last edited by Mr.Dooomed (2009-11-15 23:44:47)

DrunkFace wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

OMG ... I don't even know where to begin with this post. I bet you drive a Civic or some other kind of Honda, yes? Maybe a Toyota? Less likely to be a Nissan, but that only leaves one possibility there. Not likely a Nissan. Possibly a Toyota. Almost definitely a Honda.

RWD cars accelerate MUCH faster than a FWD car (if we're comparing similarly powered vehicles). It's pure physics that one. Sports cars aren't "nippy". OMG. Clearly you've never been behind the wheel of a "sports car". Sports compact maybe, but not a sports car. If you want the entry level, go jump into an MX5 (Miata). 1st or 2nd gen will get across the idea better of what I am trying to imply here. Honda S2000? Mazda RX-7? Nissan 240SX? Ford Mustang? Chevrolet Camaro?

The problem is that in the past 10 years, cheap RWD cars all but left the market. Why? Again, safety. They're making a come back, though.

If you knew much of anything about cars, you would know that factory RWD handle better than a comparable FWD car (there are, I am sure, exceptions). FWD cars are for the masses. RWD cars (in the current market) are more for purists.

If you knew much about reading comprehension, this would be a non-issue. My point is that small, light front-wheel drive cars accelerate faster over very short distances than heavy, powerful rear-wheel drive cars. By the time your heavy american or german gas-guzzler has gotten two tons of metal moving, my Fiesta has gotten into the space.

And sports cars do NOT 'nip', in the sense I used it in. Not designed for city driving. Yes, a Corvette or an MX5 would feel great on the open road when you put your foot down, but I bet you'll wear your knee out on the clutch trying to navigate a one-way system in britain.

And no, I don't drive a japanese piece of plastic crap. Currently, I drive a mk4 fiesta belonging to my mother, but I'll soon be upgrading to my own mk3 Fiesta when I have a job and can afford to insure it.
Small, front-wheel drive car, light, good handling. Jerky, lurchy piece of crap at speed, but very good for twisty uneven streets as long as you're careful not to hit the power band of the engine at the wrong time.
(And yes, I know the mk4 is a newer model. You'd consider it an upgrade if you saw what my mother does to a gearbox.)

Ohhhhh dear. You know nothing about cars (or physics for that matter).

Yes, I do. YOU, however, must not know anything about it because you think you can actually shift a few tons of metal easily.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

If you knew much about reading comprehension, this would be a non-issue. My point is that small, light front-wheel drive cars accelerate faster over very short distances than heavy, powerful rear-wheel drive cars. By the time your heavy american or german gas-guzzler has gotten two tons of metal moving, my Fiesta has gotten into the space.

And sports cars do NOT 'nip', in the sense I used it in. Not designed for city driving. Yes, a Corvette or an MX5 would feel great on the open road when you put your foot down, but I bet you'll wear your knee out on the clutch trying to navigate a one-way system in britain.

And no, I don't drive a japanese piece of plastic crap. Currently, I drive a mk4 fiesta belonging to my mother, but I'll soon be upgrading to my own mk3 Fiesta when I have a job and can afford to insure it.
Small, front-wheel drive car, light, good handling. Jerky, lurchy piece of crap at speed, but very good for twisty uneven streets as long as you're careful not to hit the power band of the engine at the wrong time.
(And yes, I know the mk4 is a newer model. You'd consider it an upgrade if you saw what my mother does to a gearbox.)

Ohhhhh dear. You know nothing about cars (or physics for that matter).

Yes, I do. YOU, however, must not know anything about it because you think you can actually shift a few tons of metal easily.

Power to weight ratio, that's what it's all about.

burnzz wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

Power to weight ratio, that's what it's all about.

well, in that case

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/21025 … ded0a2.jpg

Yes please.

CammRobb wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Ohhhhh dear. You know nothing about cars (or physics for that matter).

Yes, I do. YOU, however, must not know anything about it because you think you can actually shift a few tons of metal easily.

Power to weight ratio, that's what it's all about.

Yeah. And for short distances like I was talking about, say about 10 meters or so, the smaller car wins. Because it's not JUST power to weight, it's inertia as well, and the power curve and rotating masses of the various engines. A V8 or V6 will never spin up as fast as a smaller engine, because it just takes time to move the pistons and everything attatched.

Yeah but the V8's you find in BMW's/Mercs etc aren't big lumpen engines like old US muscle cars... they're generally fairly light free-reving jobbys.

I've driven fiestas, and i've driven BMW's, and BMW's pull much much faster. A fiesta can give the impression of being quicker to go because of it's size, but it isn't true.

And if you want to feel weird acceleration, check the engine in the Focus ST/RS