weekly car debate thread.
- Thread starter 87mk111
- Start date
Like I've said, I love both of them, you can't have more fun for anywhere near that cheap in anything CLOSE to that new of a car. Never driven an Mr2, so can't say much about that, but a Miata will teach you how to handle a car. It doesn't hide the fact that you need more seat time, it doesn't hide your errors. If you fuck up in a Miata, it lets you know it. That said, it doesn't KILL you for pushing it's limits, like I suspect the Mr2 would want to do. I like a car I can respect without having to fear it's limits.
Still want an Mr2 someday, but unlike most of the posts here, I'd much rather have either the first or third gen. Second was just a fatty with a turbo. Good engine though...
Still want an Mr2 someday, but unlike most of the posts here, I'd much rather have either the first or third gen. Second was just a fatty with a turbo. Good engine though...
sory i wasnt on last week. been pretty busy with week. i actually thought about doing a miata vs mr2 week down the road, so i dont mind at all that it got chosen lol. for this week, im gonna go with a euro debate. E30, vs. Mercedes 190e. these were both rivals in the dtm and as luxory cars. I have never driven either in real life, just gt4 and forza, and I prefer the 190e.
190e for me, yes the stock motor is a bit slow but the handling is brilliant.
Bugger the 2jz my Mercedes engine is extremely well built just doesn't have the aftermarket demand like the 2jz does.
How about a twin turbo m119 though.? fairly common motor but with huge potential, as Mercedes rivals found out with there c11 race car.
Here is the sweetest of the 190e's..
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=1...=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&biw=1024&bih=638
Bugger the 2jz my Mercedes engine is extremely well built just doesn't have the aftermarket demand like the 2jz does.
How about a twin turbo m119 though.? fairly common motor but with huge potential, as Mercedes rivals found out with there c11 race car.
Here is the sweetest of the 190e's..
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=1...=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&biw=1024&bih=638
wiseco7mgt;1746388 said:
The Evolution 2.5 Cosworth engine was in that one, correct? If so, I'd probably lean toward one of those, boy racer looks aside. But then again, the E30 M3 was a pretty cool car... Damn. Good pick man, I'm not usually a Euro guy, but I could live with either of the halo versions of these cars.
Is it alright to talk about something related, but a bit of an aside in here? If so, I propose the following to you:
Why are all new cars built with such tall front and rear ends? Is it for pedestrian "safety" (last I checked, it wasn't safe to be in the road at all..), or just because someone REALLY likes making ugly cars? Take the modern equivalent of the 190e, what would that be, the E350? They all seem so... tall... anymore. The car above, in wiseco's / Poodle's post is beautiful, but if they were to build that today, that hood line would be a good 6-8" further off the ground. What gives?
That all said, I think that 90% of this thread will be more about classics than any reasonably new cars, and I suspect this is the reason. I can't be the only one losing his love for the modern car... If we need to start a new thread for this side discussion, let me know and I'll get it going, or just move it if you're a mod.
Why are all new cars built with such tall front and rear ends? Is it for pedestrian "safety" (last I checked, it wasn't safe to be in the road at all..), or just because someone REALLY likes making ugly cars? Take the modern equivalent of the 190e, what would that be, the E350? They all seem so... tall... anymore. The car above, in wiseco's / Poodle's post is beautiful, but if they were to build that today, that hood line would be a good 6-8" further off the ground. What gives?
That all said, I think that 90% of this thread will be more about classics than any reasonably new cars, and I suspect this is the reason. I can't be the only one losing his love for the modern car... If we need to start a new thread for this side discussion, let me know and I'll get it going, or just move it if you're a mod.
Kind of a hard question te72 because many older cars pre 1980 were actually very large,Take the old Mercedes 220 for example.
The size of the vehicle seems to match the current styling trends of each era, as some of there current model line is quite small.But what i'm suggesting is nothing more than observation, asking this question to a modern day designer might be the best option.
The size of the vehicle seems to match the current styling trends of each era, as some of there current model line is quite small.But what i'm suggesting is nothing more than observation, asking this question to a modern day designer might be the best option.
Poodles;1746523 said:Yum
:squirt-mo
and i dont mind any side convos in this thread, thats what i created it for lol.
Had to post this pic as its my favourite.
http://www.teamspeed.com/forums/att...-post-your-favorite-mb-5050208_001_mini4l.jpg
Here is some interesting specs..not bad for a non turbo 4 banger...
The 190 E 2.5-16 Evolution II. This engine had 235 hp and correspondingly improved performance. Suspension and brakes were largely unchanged, but 17-inch wheels were now used. The body was modified again to reduce wind resistance and increase down-force on the front and rear axle. Again, 502 cars were built, all in 'blue-black metallic', like its predecessor.
http://www.teamspeed.com/forums/att...-post-your-favorite-mb-5050208_001_mini4l.jpg
Here is some interesting specs..not bad for a non turbo 4 banger...
The 190 E 2.5-16 Evolution II. This engine had 235 hp and correspondingly improved performance. Suspension and brakes were largely unchanged, but 17-inch wheels were now used. The body was modified again to reduce wind resistance and increase down-force on the front and rear axle. Again, 502 cars were built, all in 'blue-black metallic', like its predecessor.
Wiseco, cars were definitely large back in the day, but I think once the 50's hit, the overall height of the cars (at least common American models) seemed to lower a good bit. Best example I've come across are the modern "muscle" cars. Take the new Camaro vs the original. Take the new Challenger vs the original. Not certain on Mustang sizes, but I'm sure it follows suit. The back ends are a good bit higher off the ground, same with the hood-lines. For me, making cars tall is just KILLING good style... I've seen plenty of cars that quite honestly, would look pretty good if not for being 4' tall at the HOOD LINE, and even taller out back. Since when did the sporty car become the sedan, and the sedan become the SUV?
On the car of the week topic, that's almost surprising that the 2.5 Evo II engine didn't make MORE power... or was that just for the street car? If so, nevermind, but if that was the touring car engine... I gotta wonder if that isn't underrated.
On the car of the week topic, that's almost surprising that the 2.5 Evo II engine didn't make MORE power... or was that just for the street car? If so, nevermind, but if that was the touring car engine... I gotta wonder if that isn't underrated.
Was it Bentley or Rolls that said that a car should never be any taller than twice the size of the wheels. Hence why they went with rediculous sizes on their newest cars.
Side impact and pedestrian safety standards definately are having an effect...
Side impact and pedestrian safety standards definately are having an effect...
te72;1747286 said:
That specific model was basicly like a turbo-a is to supras, it was the fastest factory version and no it wasn't the same power as there race car of that time. But to put it in perspective the stock 7mgte only made 230-240 hp and the 190e wasn't turbo or even a 6 cylinder so it was still even by todays standards a powerful 4 cylinder. ( i've never owned a 4 cyl that could crack 250kmph without a turbo.)
They must mean tire size, I can't imagine a 32" tall car, even a Porsche 917 has to be taller than that, and they are TINY... However, I could easily see them meaning tire height. I think the stock size tires on a Mk3 would put that around 49.7" tall, which... seems about right, no? Even better if lowered. Proportionately speaking, our cars look good. Corvettes have always looked good (well, proportionately speaking), Ferarri's look good, etc, etc... Even Aston Martins, still beautiful, despite growing a bit with the times. Look at a Dodge Charger, the new ones, even with 20"+ rims, the tires STILL look too small to be a proper proportion. It's like STOCK Chevy pickups were back in the 80's, the tires looked so small that the truck just looked funny. There is no reason a Honda Accord needs 20" rims to look appropriate.Poodles;1747296 said:
I still say the best "pedestrian safety" should be to stay out of the fucking road... you get what happens, unfortunately.
wiseco7mgt;1747334 said:
That is true, and makes a lot more sense. I only know of one other NA engine that puts out that much in a street car (4 cylinder), the S2000. Love engines like that, they're so much fun, peppy, responsive...
Proper proportions, but not what I'd call a proper Bently... at least it looks right though.
New car discussion for the week? How about a "what if" scenario, cars that few, if any of us could afford, but would love to have a chance at...
New car discussion for the week? How about a "what if" scenario, cars that few, if any of us could afford, but would love to have a chance at...
Yeah, the Koenigggseeegggerrrr would be fast, exclusive, and quite fun I'm sure, but I'd still rather have an F40. It's my one and only "lottery car", the car that I would ONLY consider buying if I had won a fairly substantial lottery prize.