On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 3:48:47 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/24/2015 11:23 PM, Username wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/23/2015 11:51 PM, Username wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/23/2015 6:44 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 5/23/15 1:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 5/23/15 11:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:45:49 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
Got talked into a test ride today in a 2015 Corvette
convertible (don't
ask) at a dealership while I was waiting for something else
and was
impressed and disappointed. I was impressed with the car's get
up and go
and its cornering abilities...very nice. I was disappointed
with the
seeming hugeness of the car from the exterior and the
relatively tiny
passenger space inside. I was disappointed with the garishness
of the
interior, and the fit and finish of some items. I didn't like
the seats
all that much, and I thought the car rode, well, hard.

The sticker price on the car was $80,000. Dunno what it might
sell for...

Be this has what to do with boating?

Hey it is an overpriced chunk of fiberglass, with an oversized
engine,
sold to people with an over riding desire to boost their self
esteem.
Sounds like a lot of "performance" boats they sell.

Lots of cars are overpriced. At least the Corvette is fun
to,drive. Have
a friend with a new vette. Says ease up to 90 mph and it goes in
to 4
cylinder mode and averages 46.5 mpg. Car ride hard? How many
soft riding
cars handle worth a crap.



I know you won't understand this, but there is a difference
between a
firm-riding car and a hard-riding car. Also, there are plenty of
cars
that are fun to drive. Oh, and your friend is bull****ting you
about
getting 46 mph at 90 mph while the car is running on four
cylinders and,
even funnier, you believe it.

Of course you know all. Very aerodynamic vehicle. Does not take a
lot of
power to maintain speed.


Oh, I wasn't disputing that half a Corvette engine could drive the
car to
90 mph. That's still more than 200 hp, right?

The bull**** is the miles per gallon claim. I suspect the car's
computer
is confused by the shutdown of four cylinders and is reporting three
times the MPG the drivetrain is actually producing.

I think it measures fuel flow, so hard to be confused.



I don't understand why anyone would be interested in 48 MPG running on
half the engine in a performance oriented car like a Corvette. Then
again, I wouldn't want a Corvette. I've driven three. The first (and
probably the best that I can remember) was an early 1950's model ..
can't remember if it was a '54 or '55, but I know it had a six
cylinder engine. I was only 16 years old and the owner of the garage
I worked at
in the summer had it in storage. He got it out one day and let me
take it for a spin.

The second was a mid 70's model. Horrible. Handled terribly, shook,
quaked and knocked the fillings out of your teeth.

The third was a new one that I test drove about 3 years ago when half
thinking of getting another toy. Much improved but still did nothing
for me.

By far the best performance orientated vehicle I've ever owned was a
2002 Porsche 911/996 twin turbo. 450 hp, six speed manual
transmission, all wheel drive and still got 18 mpg around town and
22-24 mpg on the highway. The ride was firm but not harsh
and it handled like it was on rails. Best engineered automobile I've
ever driven.

I had to get rid of it though. If I had kept it much longer I would no
longer have a driver's license.



Wasn't the M5 easier to run too fast?


Both the Porsche and the M5 were too tempting to run too fast. That's
why I wouldn't have a license today if I still had either of them.

The M5 was fast (500 hp) but lacked the "feel" of the Porsche and was
far too complicated and computer dependent for it's own (and the
owner's) good.

For sports/performance cars of this type I am not a big fan of
automatic, sequential transmissions. The M5 would shift automatically
or you could control shifting manually using the stick or the paddles.
Still wasn't the same as the Porsche with a conventional 6 speed and
clutch. As far as pure acceleration the Porsche was faster.

The biggest difference was in normal, around town driving. The M5 felt
like a stiffly sprung BMW 535 but at 30-40 mph the Porsche still felt
like a sports car.




My current tow vehicle is an ML550. The X5 50i I replaced was like your
Porsche and the new car like the M5 - a very different "feel". It's the
only thing I don't like about it but there is a significant difference.
I notice it immediately if I hit an off ramp just a little faster than
I'm used to.

As far as speed, I'm lucky to be in an area where 80 is the norm so as
long as I'm not the fastest on the road, I'm fine. The police here seem
to really like to target the new-generation pony cars anyway.


Speaking of pony cars ... I had a new (in 2008) Mustang "Bullitt" for a
while. Long story as to how I happened to acquire that one. It was
a surprisingly fast and good handling car. Not in the same league of
the BMW M5 or the Porsche but at about 1/4th the price not bad at all.

I was satisfied with my two Lincoln Mk. VII LSC's one was an 89 and the last was a 92. Way cool for what they were.