First Cars Thread
-
@Polygeekery Already on it.
-
@Jaloopa said in First Cars Thread:
@kt_ said in First Cars Thread:
It's also one of the ugliest cars ever made!
Nowhere near. That crown would be the Fiat Multipla or Nissan Juke IMO
The Pontiac Aztek is pretty high up on that list also.
-
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
@dcon said in First Cars Thread:
@HardwareGeek said in First Cars Thread:
I can'twon't answer this, because it's a "security" question on at least one web site I use.
You give real answers to those questions?
He just doesn't want to say that his first car was a Ford Model A. Brand new.
Seriously, my dad would have been about the right age for that (the 1927–31 Model A, not the 1903–04 Model A), but I rather doubt his family could have afforded a brand new one, much less given it to him. (And no, I'm not as old as you might calculate from that knowledge; my dad was middle-aged when I was born.)
-
@HardwareGeek said in First Cars Thread:
but I rather doubt his family could have afforded a brand new one
Not many families could have, but my joke only really worked if the car was brand new. ;)
-
@Polygeekery The AMC Gremlin won a spot on that list too
And, let's not forget the Davis D-2 Divan (1948)
A toaster on 3 wheels
-
I read that the translation of that was "hack them to pieces!"
Grumble grumble. Never trust your old history teacher when wikipedia is available.
The swedish translation here (which isn't the same as in the swedish wikipedia page
) is more literaly translated as "hack on", which pretty much sums up Nokias approach to software development.
-
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
Not many families could have
But certainly many more than could have afforded the '33 Pierce Arrow I posted in the other car thread.
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
but my joke only really worked if the car was brand new
That is true.
-
@HardwareGeek There's another car thread??
-
@Polygeekery Yeah, it's about your dream cars, although it's actually titled simply "Cars Thread".
-
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
The AMC Gremlin won a spot on that list too
You can just add in all AMC cars that did not make the transition to Chrysler receivership.
With the exception of the AMX/Javelin, the only good looking car they ever really made:
Which to me has always looked like a 3/4 scale Challenger.
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
And, let's not forget the Davis D-2 Divan (1948)
Looks like a Jetson's car, and as though it should make the Jetson's car noise as it moves. And no, I have no idea how to translate that noise to onomatopoeia.
-
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
Rotary is about performance, not fuel economy.
Fuel economy is a measure of performance. Maybe not one you value, but.
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
Fuel economy is a measure of performance. Maybe not one you value, but.
You can have fuel economy, or high performance.
You could make a fuel efficient Rotary engine, but you would not get high-performance out of it.
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
Fuel economy is a measure of performance.
It's a particularly relevant measure when you're going long distance.
-
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
You can have fuel economy, or high performance.
As long as that's a non-exclusive "or", than yes.
My hybrid sedan has high performance (or at least performance on-par with its peers) and great fuel economy.
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
My hybrid sedan has high performance (or at least performance on-par with its peers) and great fuel economy.
Your hybrid can do 0-60 under 5 seconds ?
You want fuel economy AND high-performance ?
Get a Tesla Models S P90D
-
-
@accalia said in First Cars Thread:
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
Your hybrid can do 0-60 under 5 seconds ?
<abbr title="if the start happens to be at the top of a 30 degree decline and i'm carrying a fair whack of cargo">Yes</abbr>
Technically, mass of the vehicle has no effect on its acceleration due to gravity, barring any potential side effects from the extra mass such as tire contact area and wheel bearing efficiency.
-
@mott555 said in First Cars Thread:
@accalia said in First Cars Thread:
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
Your hybrid can do 0-60 under 5 seconds ?
<abbr title="if the start happens to be at the top of a 30 degree decline and i'm carrying a fair whack of cargo">Yes</abbr>
Technically, mass of the vehicle has no effect on its acceleration due to gravity, barring any potential side effects from the extra mass such as tire contact area and wheel bearing efficiency.
true, but the extra mass equates to extra downforce which....
look it was a joke okay?!
i was making a funny!
you didn't have to ruin it with your technicalities!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
-
-
@mott555 said in First Cars Thread:
Technically, mass of the vehicle has no effect on its acceleration due to gravity, barring any potential side effects from the extra mass such as tire contact area and wheel bearing efficiency.
Except that those "potential side effects" end up making a non-trivial difference under actual road conditions.
-
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
Good plan. Now pay yourself that car payment in to a savings account and forget about it until you need it and you will be way ahead of the game when it comes time to replace this car.
That's what I did after I bought my Impala and used that money to buy my Corolla. I also used that money to pay for "larger" fixes and maintenance (brakes, radiator flush, etc). My thinking was it was adding to the life of the current car. Just make sure to keep putting money in to whatever goal you've set.
@Polygeekery - Something I thought about doing was getting a partial loan and having that cash "available" in easy to get out of investments. My main problem was that money was allocated towards a car which to me means any investment would need to be "safe" over the typical 3-5 year car loan term. Any investment I could think of would either be too unsafe or wouldn't beat my likely loan rate. Any thoughts on this? Seems many people think like that about loans. Seems to make sense for a business with cash flow needs, but doesn't seem to make as much sense for personal finances.
-
http://imganuncios.mitula.net/fiat_128_super_europa_cl_8280135440109368242.jpgFiat 128. a nifty little flea, with a 1.5L, way too big for that car.
it was no sports car in any measure, but it beated bigger cars in the first 100m.it endured a 6K Km road trip with me and three friends, we barely managed to fit inside :P
-
Seeing what a lot of people have posted, I'm left wondering if European car companies have been running a couple contests:
- Who can make the ugliest car?
- Who can be the most creative with a box?
-
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
Your hybrid can do 0-60 under 5 seconds ?
I honestly don't know. Let me look.
8.5 compared to 6.9 for the non-hybrid + AWD version.
-
@mikehurley said in First Cars Thread:
That's what I did after I bought my Impala and used that money to buy my Corolla. I also used that money to pay for "larger" fixes and maintenance (brakes, radiator flush, etc). My thinking was it was adding to the life of the current car. Just make sure to keep putting money in to whatever goal you've set.
Yeah, we tend to track a lot of the bigger expenses and just allot them in to the budget as an ongoing thing. Put a cutoff on it though, or else you can end up micromanaging everything, and that is a silly way to do things. But, as an example, I know that a set of tires lasts my wife and I about two years. With two vehicles that works out to about a set a year. A set of tires runs just a bit North of a grand, so I figure $100/month for tires for our daily drivers.
All of those larger expenses get lumped together and added up and we know that we need to allot $X/month towards those expenses.
@mikehurley said in First Cars Thread:
@Polygeekery - Something I thought about doing was getting a partial loan and having that cash "available" in easy to get out of investments.
Meh, I personally would not do it that way. If you can pay cash (and not spend your last dollar to do so), just buy the car.
@mikehurley said in First Cars Thread:
My main problem was that money was allocated towards a car which to me means any investment would need to be "safe" over the typical 3-5 year car loan term. Any investment I could think of would either be too unsafe or wouldn't beat my likely loan rate. Any thoughts on this?
Yeah, your thinking is correct. First off, the amount you "earn" would be fuck-all. Let's run some quick and dirty numbers:
Currently, Google says that 48-60 month used car loans are at 2.85%.
When I think safe and liquid, I think money market accounts, but they will only net you about 1%. So you are already 1.85% in the hole. (and are in fact losing 2% to inflation losses per year)
But let's just say as a for example that you happen to double your rate, and just to make for nice round numbers we will put your car loan at 3%. Now, good luck finding an investment that is safe and liquid and earns 6%. If you don't need liquidity and insulation from market volatility it is relatively easy. But let's just look at pie in the sky numbers.
If you bought a $10K car (to keep the numbers round and easy to multiply) and paid for half and invested half, you would be investing $5K at a 3% net. That is only $150/year. That is fuck-all for the risk you are unnecessarily taking on.
Now, as we started with $10K, it is easy to multiply out for different scenarios. Let's say you are buying a $30K car, you would make $450/year. Still fuck-all.
Secondly, when you are faced with scenarios like this, reverse the logic and see if it still makes sense. So I ask you, if you had a paid off car would you borrow against it in order to invest the money? By borrowing half and investing half you are in essence doing the exact same thing.
I wouldn't do it that way. I would pay cash for the car and keep my risk down in many different ways. And really, by paying cash you are already earning the 3% by not paying it out to the lending institution. A penny saved is a penny earned.
-
2007 Nissan Maxima 3.5 SL
-
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
The first car I bought:
First gen Mazda RX-7 (1982).
Buddy!
I learned to drive in my mom's 1991 Ford Tempo, but I don't really count it as my first car because I always had to ask if I could use it when I needed to. The first car that was mine to use as I pleased was a 1981 Mazda RX-7 that we bought off my uncle.
It was brown, had a moonroof and a set of rear-window shade louvres. Something like this:
We had to replace the clutch when we got it back from Colorado, though that probably would have been a better drive if we'd replace the clutch first. Ended up selling it when I graduated high school because the engine block had developed a crack.
Man, I miss that car.
-
@mikehurley said in First Cars Thread:
Seeing what a lot of people have posted, I'm left wondering if European car companies have been running a couple contests:
- Who can make the ugliest car?
- Who can be the most creative with a box?
- Who can make the smallest engine?
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
@TimeBandit said in First Cars Thread:
Your hybrid can do 0-60 under 5 seconds ?
I honestly don't know. Let me look.
8.5 compared to 6.9 for the non-hybrid + AWD version.
1.6 seconds may as well be an eternity when talking about performance measures.
-
@dkf said in First Cars Thread:
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
Fuel economy is a measure of performance.
It's a particularly relevant measure when you're going long distance.
Meh. Not trying to pick nits here, but I filled up the wife's vehicle tonight for $1.92/gallon. If I had to drive to California tomorrow (and, BTW, fuck that I would fly and rent a car) it would cost me $202 in fuel. If I could save 3/4 of that by driving a fuel efficient vehicle (I can't), I still would not because I would rather drive a comfortable vehicle.
You could triple that and I would still rather be comfortable.
-
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
If I could save 3/4 of that by driving a fuel efficient vehicle (I can't), I still would not because I would rather drive a comfortable vehicle.
How are "fuel efficient" and "comfortable" mutually-exclusive?
-
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
1.6 seconds may as well be an eternity when talking about performance measures.
Yeah think about all the stuff I could do if I got to the bus station 1.6 seconds earlier.
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
If I could save 3/4 of that by driving a fuel efficient vehicle (I can't), I still would not because I would rather drive a comfortable vehicle.
How are "fuel efficient" and "comfortable" mutually-exclusive?
I have driven Fusions as rental cars. They are shit.
But as long as you like it, who gives a shit what I think?
-
@Polygeekery I certainly don't, but when your entire reason given consists of "they are shit" I also don't think you've thought about it whatsoever. Because if you had spent even a few seconds of neuron-power on the problem, you'd probably be able to provide a better reason than "they are shit".
Which is the real tragedy. I don't care whether you like or hate the car, I hate that you go around with this knee-jerk reaction in your fuzzy brain substituting for actual thinking.
You also didn't answer my quite simple question. BTW. Yes, I noticed.
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
@Polygeekery I certainly don't, but when your entire reason given consists of "they are shit" I also don't think you've thought about it whatsoever. Because if you had spent even a few seconds of neuron-power on the problem, you'd probably be able to provide a better reason than "they are shit".
Which is the real tragedy. I don't care whether you like or hate the car, I hate that you go around with this knee-jerk reaction in your fuzzy brain substituting for actual thinking.
You also didn't answer my quite simple question. BTW. Yes, I noticed.
I do not find a Fusion comfortable. Nor any other car that is considered "fuel efficient".
I spend ~$4000/year on fuel at 18mpg. If I could reduce that to $1000/year by driving a fuel efficient vehicle (and I can't)...I wouldn't. But, at best I could reduce it by half. So why should I give a shit? Why not just drive the vehicle I want to?
-
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
I do not find a Fusion comfortable. Nor any other car that is considered "fuel efficient".
You still haven't answered my question.
If you're not going to answer the question, just stop typing. You're wasting everybody's time.
-
@blakeyrat If your question is about fuel efficiency and comfortable, I have yet to meet a vehicle that was both. I also have zero reason to give a damn about fuel efficiency. Fuel is cheap.
-
@Polygeekery I'm going to read that as:
I can't answer your simple question because the reality is that they aren't mutually-exclusive at all, and my post is based on a completely bogus wrong assumption and I am a really fucking stupid idiot for typing it here hoping nobody would notice or call me out on my own moronicity.
-
@Polygeekery The Impala (at least the 2000 to the model before the latest) is really nice, roomy, and comfortable. And even the 00-05 model gets good MPG. Mine can go prolly 175-200 miles on a full tank, maybe a little more.
ETA: I should add that I'm very biased though. Hehe
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
@Polygeekery I'm going to read that as:
I can't answer your simple question because the reality is that they aren't mutually-exclusive at all, and my post is based on a completely bogus wrong assumption and I am a really fucking stupid idiot for typing it here hoping nobody would notice or call me out on my own moronicity.
I will shit on your head.
No homo.
-
@Erufael said in First Cars Thread:
Mine can go prolly 175-200 miles on a full tank, maybe a little more.
My vehicle goes 330 miles on a tank.
Miles per tank is a bullshit measure. Hell, I used to have a work truck that could go 2000+ miles between fill ups.
It had a 100 gallon auxiliary tank and a solenoid actuated valve that would drain the auxiliary in to the main, but that does not matter for your definition. ;) I could fill up once, and drive for 2000+ miles. A fair amount of that burning "red fuel" (@mott555 will know what I am getting on about).
-
@blakeyrat said in First Cars Thread:
@Polygeekery said in First Cars Thread:
If I could save 3/4 of that by driving a fuel efficient vehicle (I can't), I still would not because I would rather drive a comfortable vehicle.
How are "fuel efficient" and "comfortable" mutually-exclusive?
Let me answer your question directly, since you are being a total dickweed.
The most comfortable vehicle I can think of for long drives carrying luggage would be a Yukon Denali. Highway fuel mileage would be 22mpg according to the EPA. Also, according to the EPA the highest fuel mileage (gas or hybrid, so I don't have to stop when driving to recharge) would be a fucking Prius at 40mpg highway.
Let's just call it a 50% savings. If we drove across country from Washington to Florida
...that is 2802 miles. If I needed to make that journey, at current fuel prices of $2.125/gallon
I could potentially save $330.
Fuck you, I would rather pay the extra $330 and not drive a fuel efficient vehicle across country. But not to you, because you still owe me and @abarker $50/each.
-
@Polygeekery well I was too lazy to figure out the actual mpg. So. Lol
-
-
@Erufael said in First Cars Thread:
@Polygeekery The Impala (at least the 2000 to the model before the latest) is really nice, roomy, and comfortable. And even the 00-05 model gets good MPG. Mine can go prolly 175-200 miles on a full tank, maybe a little more.
ETA: I should add that I'm very biased though. Hehe
I usually got my 2005 Impala to about 340-360 miles on a tank before the fuel light comes on. I could drive it 450-500 miles to visit my brother in IL with fuel to spare (a decent margin too).
-
@Polygeekery While I'm not arguing your point about the amount of money saved, I have to wonder what you consider a comfortable ride. Are you tallish and/or have longer than average legs? A bad back?
I'm 6'1", am overweight, have a 34-36" inseam, and wear leg braces (both legs, don't underestimate rigid ankles) and I thought my Impala (to be fair not the epitome of fuel efficient) was comfortable and so far (the past week) I've been happy with my Corolla.
Or, I guess when I say "comfortable" I really mean "not uncomfortable". I don't necessarily mean luxurious. If my car was any more comfortable, especially on long drives, I'd be even more likely to start nodding off.
-
@abarker said in First Cars Thread:
Man, I miss that car.
I feel your pain.
Most enjoyable car I ever drove.
-
@abarker said in First Cars Thread:
@abarker What the hell, @Captain? Why's that post worth a downvote?
maybe that car killed his parents cat when he was little and refused to apologize...?
-
@mikehurley said in First Cars Thread:
While I'm not arguing your point about the amount of money saved, I have to wonder what you consider a comfortable ride. Are you tallish and/or have longer than average legs? A bad back?
I am 5'10", so not really tallish. More average than anything on that front. The only box I tick there is the one for a bad back, which I have had surgery for and am 99% healed. But, the one thing that persists to this day is that bad seating kills me. Benches, or really any unpadded seating will cause my leg to go completely numb and make me fidget a lot. Bad car seating can do the same thing, if I am bunched up.
But, when I said "comfortable", I suppose I should have said "luxurious" or "comfortable to me". I have driven Fusions. (which is what blakey was alluding to, as he thinks his car is the greatest thing ever made, and the only car that would be made in his Communist paradise) They are a frequent rental car choice when we travel, and the only thing typically available in a mid-size where we travel to. If people own them and are happy with them, then they are fine for them. It is just not a car that I consider comfortable, or enjoyable to drive.
As for the rest of it, I generally find a lot of cars uncomfortable to get in and out of. Probably due to loss of motility in my spine due to having vertebrae fused together. SUVs and trucks are better for me. Strangely enough, sports cars are also easy for me to get in and out of. Possibly due to the seats being pushed lower in the chassis.
I do know that my in-laws have a Saturn Vue and that thing is a bastard to get in and out of. The door opening is too damned small and even with the seat all the way back it requires an uncomfortable head craning maneuver to get in to.
-
@mikehurley said in First Cars Thread:
Are you tallish and/or have longer than average legs?
yes and yes.
i'm not as picky as @Polygeekery comfort wise (i'm very happy with my Prius for the shorter trips and either fly, take the bus/train, or am passenger for long trips because fuck driving for multiple hours) but there are a lot of cars i literally can't fit into the drivers seat with.
the corolla is one of them.... which i found funny because my prius is a compact size class, and the corolla is a compact/mid-size (depending on which agency you ask... for some raisin) and is actually body wise a fair bit bigger than the prius. I fit in the prius (with not a lot of room to spare mind you) and i literally can't get into the corolla without the car trying to grind my knees into powder.
FTW!
