Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
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
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Mitsubishi lancer 2 litre 0 - 60: 9.6 sec (10.5 sec with auto tranny)
You really think acesinghit likes only talking bout d jetta?
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.
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..
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...
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.
acesinghit wrote:
Best value SUV's in the market continues to be the:
Terios, Sportage and Tucson
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
"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."
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?
nemesis wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests