With some of the best engines of their type on the market.

But what are you pointing out?

I haven't seen you say anything accurate about the brand so far.

[5:41 PM] Rat Attac: The quality control aint that good

I mean unless you make your own brand that beats them, it's literally the industry leader.

and has been for decades in that regard.

Well, I mean there's nothing beating them at any price.

So what does that mean>?

If something has the best quality control on the market, how is it "not that good for the price?"

That's like saying the fastest car ever made is "not that fast for the price"

It makes no sense.

I mean you can get an SC400 for 4k, I don't think someone is gonna pay you 6k to give you a car that's better.

That seems like a totally crazy attitude for a car enthusiast, used cars give you more for your money in every case.

Well in that case why are you even concerned about quality control and reliability? The older a car gets that's when that stuff really comes into play.

Well I still don't understand the idea that the best quality control at any price is not good for the price.

Well in the price range of the car you actually did buy, you could get a used IS300 with a NA 2JZ and rwd, or three SCs or Porsche 944s.

I mean there are plenty of people using 20 and 30 year old cars as point A to B cars who are not car enthusiasts, just because they don't see cars are something you need to dispose of or replace after an arbitrary amount of time.

In fact a non-enthusiast who isn't that into cars is probably less likely to replace one.

What I don't understand and haven't seen you really explain is this arbitrary 10 year cutoff, what lead you to decide on that?

Well what is his reasoning for it?

The US is actually one of the largest markets for manuals globally, but manuals are less efficient for gaming those city and highway MPG numbers because they can't program a shifting map to make the most of them. That's actually a big reason for manuals dying out.

So basically the opposite of what you said in both areas.

No

How big do you think the population of the US is?

3% of cars having manual transmissions isn't gonna be higher than any given EU country by volume, let alone all of it.

I mean you just need to have a basic idea of the populations of these countries to figure out how that would not add up.

I mean about 150 million more people live in the EU than in the US

The point was that US market demands are keeping manuals in certain cars, because enthusiasts in the US won't be interested in buying them otherwise. What you said about manuals existing in economy cars for the sake of fuel efficiency is completely ass backwards though. For someone only interested in buying cars made in the last 10 years you're holding onto a view about manual transmissions that is so antique it has not even been accurate within your lifetime.

Modern automatics being better at fuel consumption and emissions test cycles is exactly why a lot of brands are trying to ditch manuals in every car they make.

Because they can just program them to basically cheat the cycles.

The Cruze is not an example of a car with an advanced modern transmission.

I'm talking about cars that are using current technology.

The M5 that has already been mentioned is a perfect example, BMW didn't wanna make a manual M5 at all because it's harder to hit those emissions targets with one, but the US market demanded it.

Really low output cars are not at risk of failing these tests.

Get your head out of your ass about the Cruze, it's not relevant to any of this honestly. It is not an example of why manuals are disappearing or sticking around.

I'm talking about the overall trend across all brands, the fact that it doesn't apply to your Cruze specifically does not make it less true.

In cars using the best of what current automatic technology offers, the auto versions of cars will do better in these test cycles, it's very simple. The US still gets manual versions of some of these cars that the EU doesn't because they demand it.

You were originally talking about sports cars in the context of manuals.

Agreed that a diesel is the gayest type of car to own.

I mean it's not best on any type of car, trucks sure, RVs, anything towing a trailer, good, terrible on a car.

I mean pulling from any gear would work with any car that has a decent power to weight ratio and proper gearing. There's nothing magical about diesels, especially the ones found in cars, which are often reverse engineered gas engines rather than dedicated diesel designs.

Name one current production diesel car, not truck, which is really good.

Since this chat is called cars, not trucks and vans.

Yeah, the whole point of that link is real world fuel economy.

Why would that annoy me?

My friend gets about the same mpg in his gasoline Focus.

Are you telling me you're getting worse than that in your car?

If so you're doing something wrong.

I don't think you're using those words wrong either, I was saying bring up the Cruze is dumb, it doesn't make me angry, it just had nothing to do with the topic.

Ok, well you just argued that manuals get better mpg in an economy car like the cruze.

So you having a manual should be an advantage.

Yes I did, thank you.

My point is, what kind of mileage are you getting in your cruze with a manual if you think 38 is good for that type of car?

Let's go back, your argument for diesel cars existing was that you like a car that will "pull in any gear", and I asked you to name a good example.

You name the diesel Cruze, a car with a 0-60 time of 8 seconds.

Base price 24k

So, let's just be clear here, if you were to choose your idea diesel car on the market today, a car that would represent diesel cars against all gas cars, it would be the diesel Cruze with manual transmission?

LOWS
Nobody-home steering feel, not cost effective, only for dedicated diesel nuts.

This is definitely no Cruze missile. With only 137 horsepower on tap, all the torque in the world won’t thrust a 3000-pound family sedan to the top of your gotta-have-it list.

Well if you were a salesman trying to convince me to buy a diesel vehicle I am not sold.

It's the GTR 50 by Italdesign, you're a few weeks late, they showed that at goodwood.

So you would never consider the 944 or Miata, two classic examples of cars for people who actually want to enjoy driving.

But you want the diesel Cruze?

Does the idea of a light nimble car that can fly around corners with a high revving engine have no appeal to you?

How large are you?

Well then how is it too small?

What does that have to do with it?

I mean you just said your reason for not wanting it is that it's uncomfortable and too small, your size would have everything to do with that.

You do not see that as being related to your own size?

Well that's no taller than plenty of reviewers of all these small sports cars, and I haven't seen that issue come up with the Miata.

Ok, well if it's not an issue of fit, what about it is uncomfortable?

I mean, if something fits, it is generally not gonna be uncomfortable.

Well you just said you've never been in one.

So how do you know it doesn't feel right?

I have not been in my cars that I have considered noticeably small inside.

many*

Civic Si? yuck.

I mean, if you like diesels and awd, and pulling from low rpm, it seems like what you really want is a truck.

You don't like small cars, you don't like sports cars.

Seems like a truck would just be a better fit.

I mean the best thing is to just accept your own taste.

and be open about it.

I know this chat is about cars, but I think what you really need to do is find a truck enthusiast chat, so you can talk to your own kind.

It would be a better fit.

Or just talk about trucks here, no one is gonna hate you for saying you like trucks more.

But you don't seem that into cars.

Well diesel and awd muscle cars are not a thing.

and that seems to be what you want.

Which is actually a description of a truck.

Not any kind of muscle car.

I haven't seen you talk about loving muscle cars as they are at all. I've mostly seen you say you wish they were awd, and that you would put different engines in them.

Nothing about how what they are is great as is.

I haven't seen you talk about either of those engines.

Also the MB turbo V12 is the shittier of their V12s, the naturally aspirated M120 was the good one.

That's the one that established them as a company that could make a great V12.

The 3 valve per cylinder SOHC engine that followed the M120 was a step backwards, and not even as powerful when introduced.

Muscle cars at their peak were not especially low revving for cars at the time, and muscle cars today are not especially high revving, so I don't know what your point is with that.

Wait, you said why you talk shit on current muscle cars is because they rev higher than old ones? At the peak of its performance in the mid 60s the GTO was producing peak power at literally the same RPM as the current Hellcat.

So why you talk shit on current muscle cars is a reason that literally is not real.

Muscle cars at the height of muscle cars had plenty of top end power.