Wednesday, September 17th, 2014



- It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:32 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Jump to:  


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7847 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 262  Next
Author Message
Stephon.
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:16 pm 
Offline
TriniTuner 24-7
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:50 pm
Posts: 10853
I think acesinghit works for Neal and Massy, remember his Mazda 3 VS Elentra comparison? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:34 am 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
acesinghit may not say it in the right way but just cause it causes chestbun doh mean you should just dismiss it as fanboyism.

Jetta sedan trunk volume - 510 litres
Mitsubishi lancer trunk volume - 292 litres
Suzuki swift hatchback trunk volume: 211 litres
jetta wagon trunk volume - 505 litres with seats upright, 1495 litres rear seats folded.

Jetta sedan 1.4 litre 0-60: 8.3 sec
Mitsubishi lancer 2 litre 0 - 60: 9.6 sec (10.5 sec with auto tranny)
Jetta wagon 1.4 litre 0 - 60: 8.3 sec


Jetta sedan fuel consumption: hiway - 5.2, city - 7.5, combined - 6 litres per 100 km
lancer 2.0 gt fuel consumption: hiway - 5.8, city - 8.4 litres per 100 km

Jetta sedan front - boring/conservative
lancer front - sporty
jetta wagon looks - if u studying looks and buying a wagon bess u get a legacy wagon

Jetta sedan cost - $230,000 (with sunroof and 17's - $240000)
Lancer 2.0 GT cost $255,000 (automatic - $266,000)
Jetta wagon cost $227,000 (dealer run arounds included free of charge)

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/jetta-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/

http://www.guideautoweb.com/en/specifications/mitsubishi/lancer/

http://www.diamondmotors.co.tt/brochures/10_lancer_ex_gene.pdf

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/jetta/saloon-2011/50808/

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/suzuki/swift/hatchback-2010/54045/

One could go like top gear and argue that the stats doh mean much but thats subjective unlike figures and you know we on tuner like to go with figures like cost and fuel consumption blah blah. Based on the figures mostly it seems like the jetta sedan and jetta wagons are cheaper initial purchases and are more practical than the lancer 2.0 GT


Attachments:
File comment: jetta
crisv.jpg
crisv.jpg [ 94.15 KiB | Viewed 819 times ]
lancer.jpg
lancer.jpg [ 153.05 KiB | Viewed 819 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
DSM_05
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:19 am 
Offline
Riding on 16's
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:23 pm
Posts: 1131
Cheaper? yes.

Practical? I don't see how one is more practical than the other.


Again, I still am waiting to hear how a Jetta TSI makes a Lancer GT seem as slow as a 1.2 march.

Also, looking at the swift's trunk, I cannot see how the lancer's trunk can even be classed in the same category. It's an odd and flawed comparison.

Quote:
Jetta sedan 1.4 litre 0-60: 8.3 sec
Mitsubishi lancer 2 litre 0 - 60: 9.6 sec (10.5 sec with auto tranny)
Jetta wagon 1.4 litre 0 - 60: 8.3 sec


If 0-60 times were all that mattered, I'd get a swift sport. Pulls a 0-60 around the same brack as the TSi (the new sport does it in 8.4-8.5 sec, old manual one did it in 8.7), and it costs around 50k less than the TSI (180 vs 230k)


I see your angle Allergic2BunnyEars, but that wasn't my point.

No don't get me wrong, the Jetta TSI is still a fantastic piece for the price. It's unparalleled in it's price range! It's a good car, quick, and fuel efficient, and has good looks in the new body style, and good tech.

What grinds my gears however, it's when it's made out to be something it's not. It's not a sports car, it's not a rocket (0-60 in 8 second range? The new swift sport does similar times). If I wanted a VW sports car, I'd get a Golf GTi, or the old Jetta GLi if they still offer that now (do they?)

In almost every instance that acesinghit posts in this thread, it's about how superior the Jetta is and it's the only thing worth buying. e.g.

"Want to buy swift sport" - bai JETTA tsi better bai. Is only 50k more an' it have turbo

"Want to buy koup"? - bai JEtta TSI better bai - is only 40k more an it have turbo.

Then if that were the case, I would recommend the Fiato Bravo turbo. It ha' turbo turbo, is quick-ish, handles better, and costs LESS than Jetta TSI by a MILE!!!


Last edited by DSM_05 on Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Stephon.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:26 am 
Offline
TriniTuner 24-7
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:50 pm
Posts: 10853
I see no lies!


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:21 am 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
Well I agree it's not a sports car. If acesinghit really says buy a jetta tsi over a swift then he on his own with that one.

Practicality wise I think a bigger trunk goes a long way in determining what is more practical. I was going from that perspective in saying the jetta is more practical than a lancer but it depends on what you would use d car for anyway so it's not the final decider. acesinghit prolly means that the jetta is faster than the lancer for less money and hence his march statement. Again over the top but I would say doh shoot d messenger cuz I think his main argument is within its price range the jetta is hard to beat and well you saying the same thing.

What grinds my gears is that options are limited in the price bracket that you sorta forced to compromise in what you getting. What ends up happening is that we forced to talk about the same cars over and over. You really think acesinghit likes only talking bout d jetta? :lol:

We should be able to argue about cars with figures comparing the entire car to another entire car as opposed to cherry picking the best of features of several cars to discredit one car.

I haven't seen a 2 litre turbo jetta offered in Trinidad yet so can't say if the jetta gli is sold here. Only seen it offered in Australia, us and some Latin american countries under different names.

If meh post doh make sense I on d road.


Top
 Profile  
 
scotty_buttons
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:36 am 
Offline
I LUV THIS PLACE
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 1046
Location: Point Of No Return
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
Mitsubishi lancer 2 litre 0 - 60: 9.6 sec (10.5 sec with auto tranny)



EH!? I highly doubt eh.. where u got that info from :?

caranddriver.com has a 0-60 time of 7.8 with 5 spd manual and I myself (although not at all entirely accurate) timed 0-60 just short of 9 seconds with the auto tranny..


Top
 Profile  
 
DSM_05
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:30 pm 
Offline
Riding on 16's
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:23 pm
Posts: 1131
Quote:
You really think acesinghit likes only talking bout d jetta?


Actually, yes I do.

Quote:
Again over the top but I would say doh shoot d messenger cuz I think his main argument is within its price range the jetta is hard to beat and well you saying the same thing.



Yes I am saying the same thing - the Jetta is hard to beat. But some of the comparisons made by acesinghit are again, like you said, over-the-top for the Jetta (1.2 march comment etc)....and sound like sound logic, tainted by fanboyism because he drives one.


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
scotty_buttons wrote:
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
Mitsubishi lancer 2 litre 0 - 60: 9.6 sec (10.5 sec with auto tranny)



EH!? I highly doubt eh.. where u got that info from :?

caranddriver.com has a 0-60 time of 7.8 with 5 spd manual and I myself (although not at all entirely accurate) timed 0-60 just short of 9 seconds with the auto tranny..


If you bothered to check the links in my post u would you would see the PDF file for the lancer from DIAMOND MOTORS TRINIDAD that shows the 0-60 times for all the engines and trannies for the lancer here.


Top
 Profile  
 
scotty_buttons
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline
I LUV THIS PLACE
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 1046
Location: Point Of No Return
Didn't see them first time around. Now seeing it..My bad..
Still very odd for diamond motors to have those stats.


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:20 am 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
Why is it odd? The stats you quoted from car and driver are for their lancer gt which is a 2.4 litre na engine which would explain the shorter 0-60 times.

Diamond motors 0-60 lancer stats are pretty much inline for a 2.0 litre na vehicle. Nothing at all strange.


Top
 Profile  
 
nemesis
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:47 am 
Offline
3NE2NR is my LIFE

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 887
Location: Colorado
Yeah that seems about right.


Top
 Profile  
 
manager
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:19 am 
Offline
Riding on 13's

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:02 pm
Posts: 14
Welcome to Trinidad.....where the '10 seconds' in a 10 second car refers to 0 to 100km times.


Top
 Profile  
 
acesinghit
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
18 pounds of Boost
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 2391
epic chessburn in here oui..........dsm calling me a fanboy. Dude let me give you a lil automotive ownership background of myself:

owned the following:

323, 626, civic, galant, legacy, wingroad, almera, sentra, elantra, tercel, corolla, swift, focus

Not because I own/owned a particular brand I'll be all patriotic about it. Despite owning a vw product up to this very day i maintain every past vw b4 my version was nonsense including the most recent bora. I argued against the bora so much I had the top vw boys in this forum calling me a mazda fanboy.

When I started giving credit to the nissan boys, the honda crew called me a fanboy. When I had my ek4 and argued against the nissan and mitsu boys again I was labelled a fanboy. Then I bagan to appreciate the koreans and thus got labelled yet again.

Truth is, you pay for what you get and 2012 is the best year yet for auto makers since all products are pretty much up to very high standards. We have so sort out exactly what we like in terms of looks in concert with what we can afford.

Best value SUV's in the market continues to be the:
Terios, Grand Vitara, Sportage and Tucson

Best pickups are:
hilux, navara, ranger, sportero etc.

best value sub compacts:
rio, accent, fabia, polo, fiesta

best value compacts:
tiida, jetta, elantra, sx4, cerato, octavia, focus

best value mid size:
optima, sonata, passat, mondeo

you get the point. The Yaris gives us so little for so much, I cannot endorse it especially having a 1.3 engine which means less mvt. by default the yaris should be better priced.

the lancer, corolla, civic, 3 and impreza are all good but I simply cannot endorse it because they got so expensive today especially the corolla and civic.

no need to beat up stephon, the elantra gives u more for less vs the mazda. I who use to be a "mazda 3" fanboy at one time realize we must give credit where its due. Hey the said elantra got the NA COTY award for crying out loud. Are the experts fanboys?

I cannot recommend a camry, accord and teana for its lackluster designs and high price per feature ratio when cars like the sonata and optima exist!

WRT SUV's, how can I buy a 400k crv when I can 'settle' for the sportage and tucson?

Granted the cheaper vehicles sometimes does not have the nicest interior because they have to cost cut somehow. It's the level of compromise we are willing to accept. To me, the jetta gives you the best of both worlds and that is why I rate it #1 amongst local compacts. Not everything for me is about performance because the octavia is easily overlooked and believe me, for the price, it is hard to beat.

When we combine all elements of security and safety, the europeans are hard to beat. WRT fuel economy and resale value, the top japanese brands are hard to beat.

When it comes to vehicles that are pure fun to drive, nothing beats a mazda and despite all of the above, somehow when you sit in a new corolla and drive it you somehow say to hell wit d turbo jetta. There is a way toyota builds an automobile that defines exactly what a car should be and despite the lack of technology features and power, its an investment you can count on for years to come until the day it is ready to be sold, a used car value that is hard to beat up to this very day. I drove a 2012 rav4 2.4 and I told myself damn, if money was never a problem, I would buy this over the tucson because the quality of overall construction in a toyota product is superior and that is why TTTL still sells practically everything in their showrooms because it is evident, buyers are willing to spend. I settled for my 220k trouble free no resale value jetta 2 years ago.

Cheers


Last edited by acesinghit on Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Rory Phoulorie
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:09 pm 
Offline
punchin NOS

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 3701
Location: On the Fairgreen
acesinghit wrote:
...I drove a 2012 rav4 2.4 and I told myself damn, if money was never a problem, I would buy this over the tucson because the quality of overall construction in a toyota product is superior and that is why TTTL still sells practically everything in their showrooms because it is evident, buyers are willing to spend...


I haven't driven the latest RAV4, but I have driven all the previous models and honestly, I was not at all impressed with them. The interiors looked and felt cheap, even in comparison to the offerings from the Koreans. They also did not have that Toyota bulletproof reliability and the vehicles I drove only used to be serviced by TTTL.


Top
 Profile  
 
scotty_buttons
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline
I LUV THIS PLACE
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 1046
Location: Point Of No Return
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
Why is it odd? The stats you quoted from car and driver are for their lancer gt which is a 2.4 litre na engine which would explain the shorter 0-60 times.

Diamond motors 0-60 lancer stats are pretty much inline for a 2.0 litre na vehicle. Nothing at all strange.


Erm no eh.. It from the 2008 2.0 GT. check it yourself and the car performs much much better than that from personal experience.
And really, which 2.0 engine of this age doing a 0-60MPH in more than 9s :?

and Manager, im pretty much aware of the units involved.
To be exact 0-100km/hr is 0-62mph


Top
 Profile  
 
NorStar2K
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline
3NE 2NR Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:01 pm
Posts: 1512
Location: Onboard my 2.4L 4WD Limited
acesinghit wrote:

Best value SUV's in the market continues to be the:
Terios, Sportage and Tucson

I see the Grand Vitara has fallen off of this list. You listed the SGV previously if I recall correctly. Any reason?


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
scotty_buttons wrote:
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
Why is it odd? The stats you quoted from car and driver are for their lancer gt which is a 2.4 litre na engine which would explain the shorter 0-60 times.

Diamond motors 0-60 lancer stats are pretty much inline for a 2.0 litre na vehicle. Nothing at all strange.


Erm no eh.. It from the 2008 2.0 GT. check it yourself and the car performs much much better than that from personal experience.
And really, which 2.0 engine of this age doing a 0-60MPH in more than 9s :?

and Manager, im pretty much aware of the units involved.
To be exact 0-100km/hr is 0-62mph


If u want to prove it you post d link nah. I show u where Mitsubishi themselves show 0-60 times in high 9s to 10s and you just bumping yuh gum just cuz it "felt" fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
DSM_05
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:51 pm 
Offline
Riding on 16's
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:23 pm
Posts: 1131
acesinghit wrote:
epic chessburn in here oui..........dsm calling me a fanboy. Dude let me give you a lil automotive ownership background of myself:

owned the following:

323, 626, civic, galant, legacy, wingroad, almera, sentra, elantra, tercel, corolla, swift, focus

Not because I own/owned a particular brand I'll be all patriotic about it. Despite owning a vw product up to this very day i maintain every past vw b4 my version was nonsense including the most recent bora. I argued against the bora so much I had the top vw boys in this forum calling me a mazda fanboy.

When I started giving credit to the nissan boys, the honda crew called me a fanboy. When I had my ek4 and argued against the nissan and mitsu boys again I was labelled a fanboy. Then I bagan to appreciate the koreans and thus got labelled yet again.

Truth is, you pay for what you get and 2012 is the best year yet for auto makers since all products are pretty much up to very high standards. We have so sort out exactly what we like in terms of looks in concert with what we can afford.

Best value SUV's in the market continues to be the:
Terios, Sportage and Tucson

Best pickups are:
hilux, navara, ranger, sportero etc.

best value sub compacts:
rio, accent, fabia, polo, fiesta

best value compacts:
tiida, jetta, elantra, sx4, cerato, octavia, focus

best value mid size:
optima, sonata, passat, mondeo

you get the point. The Yaris gives us so little for so much, I cannot endorse it especially having a 1.3 engine which means less mvt. by default the yaris should be better priced.

the lancer, corolla, civic, 3 and impreza are all good but I simply cannot endorse it because they got so expensive today especially the corolla and civic.

no need to beat up stephon, the elantra gives u more for less vs the mazda. I who use to be a "mazda 3" fanboy at one time realize we must give credit where its due. Hey the said elantra got the NA COTY award for crying out loud. Are the experts fanboys?

I cannot recommend a camry, accord and teana for its lackluster designs and high price per feature ratio when cars like the sonata and optima exist!

WRT SUV's, how can I buy a 400k crv when I can 'settle' for the sportage and tucson?

Granted the cheaper vehicles sometimes does not have the nicest interior because they have to cost cut somehow. It's the level of compromise we are willing to accept. To me, the jetta gives you the best of both worlds and that is why I rate it #1 amongst local compacts. Not everything for me is about performance because the octavia is easily overlooked and believe me, for the price, it is hard to beat.

When we combine all elements of security and safety, the europeans are hard to beat. WRT fuel economy and resale value, the top japanese brands are hard to beat.

When it comes to vehicles that are pure fun to drive, nothing beats a mazda and despite all of the above, somehow when you sit in a new corolla and drive it you somehow say to hell wit d turbo jetta. There is a way toyota builds an automobile that defines exactly what a car should be and despite the lack of technology features and power, its an investment you can count on for years to come until the day it is ready to be sold, a used car value that is hard to beat up to this very day. I drove a 2012 rav4 2.4 and I told myself damn, if money was never a problem, I would buy this over the tucson because the quality of overall construction in a toyota product is superior and that is why TTTL still sells practically everything in their showrooms because it is evident, buyers are willing to spend. I settled for my 220k trouble free no resale value jetta 2 years ago.

Cheers



I was about to say "tl;dr", but I stopped and read this post.

This is the first sensible non-fanboy post I've seen from you in this thread for a while.

Like I said, reading back to earlier pages in this thread, you had some good insight and solid/reliable input. Then it seemed to deteriorate to "Jetta or nothing" or "VW or nothing" (take a glance at around 5-8 pages back, sometime after you got rid of that SiR of yours). But if you post solid arguments like what you did up there^^, you'd have alot more people actually taking you seriously.


scotty_buttons wrote:
Erm no eh.. It from the 2008 2.0 GT. check it yourself and the car performs much much better than that from personal experience.
And really, which 2.0 engine of this age doing a 0-60MPH in more than 9s :?

and Manager, im pretty much aware of the units involved.
To be exact 0-100km/hr is 0-62mph


Hate to break it to ya bub, but Allergic2BunnyEars is right. I also have the same brochure (hard copy) and the times he quoted are spot on.

Also, C&D magazine has a 0-60 time tested ONLY for the 2.4L Lancer GTS. The USDM market does not get a 2.0 GT lancer, but has the 2.0 as their base model engine.

That 7.6 time was quoted for the 2.4L engine. I'm surprised it's that much faster though.


Top
 Profile  
 
acesinghit
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:34 pm 
Offline
18 pounds of Boost
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 2391
NorStar2K wrote:
acesinghit wrote:

Best value SUV's in the market continues to be the:
Terios, Sportage and Tucson

I see the Grand Vitara has fallen off of this list. You listed the SGV previously if I recall correctly. Any reason?


the SGV definitly deserves to be in that post as well, it has been amended. i am eager to learn of your replacement. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
scotty_buttons
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:08 pm 
Offline
I LUV THIS PLACE
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 1046
Location: Point Of No Return
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
scotty_buttons wrote:
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
Why is it odd? The stats you quoted from car and driver are for their lancer gt which is a 2.4 litre na engine which would explain the shorter 0-60 times.

Diamond motors 0-60 lancer stats are pretty much inline for a 2.0 litre na vehicle. Nothing at all strange.


Erm no eh.. It from the 2008 2.0 GT. check it yourself and the car performs much much better than that from personal experience.
And really, which 2.0 engine of this age doing a 0-60MPH in more than 9s :?

and Manager, im pretty much aware of the units involved.
To be exact 0-100km/hr is 0-62mph


If u want to prove it you post d link nah. I show u where Mitsubishi themselves show 0-60 times in high 9s to 10s and you just bumping yuh gum just cuz it "felt" fast.


Alright here it is..

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test

and it not only 'felt' fast. I timed it as well. roughly late 8s auto.

Have nothing else to say concerning this :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:48 am 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
scotty_buttons wrote:
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
scotty_buttons wrote:
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:
Why is it odd? The stats you quoted from car and driver are for their lancer gt which is a 2.4 litre na engine which would explain the shorter 0-60 times.

Diamond motors 0-60 lancer stats are pretty much inline for a 2.0 litre na vehicle. Nothing at all strange.


Erm no eh.. It from the 2008 2.0 GT. check it yourself and the car performs much much better than that from personal experience.
And really, which 2.0 engine of this age doing a 0-60MPH in more than 9s :?

and Manager, im pretty much aware of the units involved.
To be exact 0-100km/hr is 0-62mph


If u want to prove it you post d link nah. I show u where Mitsubishi themselves show 0-60 times in high 9s to 10s and you just bumping yuh gum just cuz it "felt" fast.


Alright here it is..

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test

and it not only 'felt' fast. I timed it as well. roughly late 8s auto.

Have nothing else to say concerning this :lol:


Clearly car and driver mixed up their timing data as they are the ONLY one to claim those figures from the 2.0 litre NA. C&D are clearly quoting specs for the 2.4 litre engine but listing them under the 2.0 litre data sheet.

"The GTS with a manual transmission accelerates from zero to 60 mph in a quick-for-its-class 7.7 seconds. The base engine (2.0 litre) with the five-speed does the same sprint in 8.8 seconds, while the CVT gets there in 9.1. The Ralliart dispatches with the 0-60 dash in a sizzling 5.8 seconds."

http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/lancer/2010/#fullreview

At the end of the day I would take the manufacturer's word on product info vs one website and an excited tuner with a stopwatch. Makes no sense for Mitsubishi's own product info to sell their cars proclaim them to be slower than they really are. None.


Top
 Profile  
 
nemesis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:48 am 
Offline
3NE2NR is my LIFE

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 887
Location: Colorado
Well look at that. Wonder how they got such different numbers from the manufacturer's claim.
Anyway, I still think you should stop saying it 'felt fast'. 8.7 or 7.8 ain't fast. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
scotty_buttons
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:05 am 
Offline
I LUV THIS PLACE
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Posts: 1046
Location: Point Of No Return
:lol: excited tuner and 'felt fast' oui!
Yal misunderstanding me.. I meant that it's much faster than the figures given by Diamond Motors...
Look at forums as well who own 2.0 lancers.. Users claim around the same 0-60 times as carandriver.com!
And pretty much every other site that ever gave the 2.0 lancer a review gave times around the same thing as well
So...if EVERYBODY (who actually drove the vehicle or gave it a legit review) saying something else, allyuh choose to believe whatever yes.. And call whoever 'excited' or what not :lol:
Besides, if any of you have experience driving any vehicle that not super heavy like a 2003 cefiro with a 2.0 engine, would know that those kinda figures kinda odd. Heck even my 2006/7 model rav4 with a slightly lower powered 2.0 engine in a much heavier vehicle (approx 500lbs heavier) 4WD does a 0-60 in around 10s everytime :?
Good Morning fellas :D


Top
 Profile  
 
DSM_05
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:26 am 
Offline
Riding on 16's
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:23 pm
Posts: 1131
Quote:
At the end of the day I would take the manufacturer's word on product info vs one website and an excited tuner with a stopwatch. Makes no sense for Mitsubishi's own product info to sell their cars proclaim them to be slower than they really are. None.




Actually, displacement issues aside, it is possible that C&D got a faster 0-60 time. Manf'rs claim 0-60 from idle rpm w/o a launch (or so I'm thinking). C&D and other mags "launch" the car (high rpm, drop clutch etc) and sometimes pull quicker times. I believe C&D pulled a faster 0-60 time than claimed for the Evo iX and the STi when each first came out in the US. Motortrend also pulled a faster 0-60 for the GTR when it first made it to the US as well.

Quote:
"The GTS with a manual transmission accelerates from zero to 60 mph in a quick-for-its-class 7.7 seconds. The base engine (2.0 litre) with the five-speed does the same sprint in 8.8 seconds, while the CVT gets there in 9.1. The Ralliart dispatches with the 0-60 dash in a sizzling 5.8 seconds."



Seems legit to me. And it makes sense.

It's a bit harsh to call S_buttons an excited tuner.


Top
 Profile  
 
acesinghit
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:44 am 
Offline
18 pounds of Boost
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 2391
back to new car prices:

I saw the Audi A6 2.0T is now reduced to $563k from $575k now how unexpected is that? It's now a better bargain than the MB E250 and the overpriced bimmer 523i

now the Passat 2.0 TFSI Highline is below $400k, would you all say the A6's price is justified over its lesser sibling?


Top
 Profile  
 
Allergic2BunnyEars
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:05 am 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:32 am
Posts: 3622
Off the bat I would always expect the equivalent Audi to be more expensive than its VW counterpart just based off of Audi being the upscale brand in the VW group. that said I eh check out the A6 yet so I dunno what it has apart from possibly more luxury to justify the price difference between that and the Passat.

A6 looks nicer for sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
MadCrix
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:36 am 
Offline
3NE 2NR Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:46 pm
Posts: 3464
Location: Missing the ride
so gonna test drive the elantra today at lunch.... i have high hopes and darren ( newbs eh goh know who this is) highly recommends them.

i looked at the gt lancer at carmax and while they are good. they have nicks and dents and cosmetic work to be done on them which for that money i cna get a brand new elantra which woudl last me 4-6 years comfotably before i need to sell.

elantra also looks damn sweet


Top
 Profile  
 
noshownogo
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:46 am 
Offline
punchin NOS
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:51 am
Posts: 4425
Location: heavy petting!
The Elantra is good kit for the money but I still iffy about the interior material quality used in terms of how well it wears and the electronics hold up over the years.

Let us know your take when u get back.


Top
 Profile  
 
nemesis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
3NE2NR is my LIFE

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 887
Location: Colorado
acesinghit wrote:
back to new car prices:

I saw the Audi A6 2.0T is now reduced to $563k from $575k now how unexpected is that? It's now a better bargain than the MB E250 and the overpriced bimmer 523i

now the Passat 2.0 TFSI Highline is below $400k, would you all say the A6's price is justified over its lesser sibling?


A6 is quieter, rides better, smoother shifting, better quality leather, more features, significantly better looking and is a more upscale brand. That's basically some of what you're paying for. Considering that it's also cheaper than the Merc/BMW I'd say it's not so bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
aidan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:58 am 
Offline
Shifting into 6th
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:09 am
Posts: 2006
Location: Saving the world.
anyone has info on 'work horse' model 4x4 pickups (base models with the black bumpers). Looking for one for work use. Looking at the Frontier, BT50, Ranger and maybe Mahindra. Any input is appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7847 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 262  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Registered users: 5onDfloor, ABA Trading LTD, adesh72, Allan8635, alloywheel, almera2, andy111, apool69, applecake, Avinash1, Bimmerhead, Bing [Bot], bOOsTmaN, Brandon101, branstarsigns, bryan5, chadvieira, Cid, cinco, clone101, Conrad, cookieman, crackshut, death365, Dizzy28, dozer, drdre96, Dwain GTM, dyne, ed1234, Exabot [Bot], FD3S, Google [Bot], gtiracer, Habit7, Halfbreed07, herbclan, iamelray, ilove3, jaggie, jamesnewton, JangSpeed, jattsrobby, jblCROWN, killersinc., kl122, lost to all, MADMAN1, marvin23, Matrix35, megadrunkard, mitisubishiboi22, nere, PariaMan, Patman, pete, Proaudio, R.P.J, RapToR, rattyboy, rawCpoppa, redeyez, rfari, Roaddog, Rota fan, ryansk, Shannon, sigz, Smurfy1, stev, street vision, streetpunk, tallman7, Team Loco, Titan Procurement Ltd., toybago, TRAE, trinidrifter, TriniVdub, turbosingh, twistedboi, VexXx Dogg, Viresh05, Virus, ward one, wigman_1, Xplode, Yahoo [Bot], zameerauto, zerohearted, Ziyaad, zoom rader


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
3NE-2NR