Cars and Trucks Are Changing Forever

[owequitit]

Every time I hear someone say "this is the last of its kind" regarding some big naturally aspirated engine, I think back to that very Top Gear video... and then remember how long ago that was: 2009. Think about all the big-engined cars that have come out since then. Dodge alone has been on an absolute warpath. I don't see why ICE cars and EVs can't coexist. If the governments of the world (and the general public) really cared about emissions impacting the environment, shouldn't they be going after the airline and shipping industries before attacking the average car consumer? Or even the environmental toll it's taking to produce those "clean" EVs?

But boy do I wish I could afford the maintenance on an Aston Martin. The V8 Vantage from that era is one of the most beautiful cars ever made, in my opinion, and has a fairly affordable cost of entry nowadays!

The airline industry is actually pretty clean, especially for the amount of economic output it generates. Generationally, you typically see a decrease in fuel burn of about 25-30% generation over generation, and emissions have gone down orders of magnitude as well. The other thing to keep in mind is that a full jet can move you across the country for less fuel and CO2 than a comparable car ride can, not to mention the safety difference.

They can't really touch shipping either because it is too vital to the world's economy. Ironically, the prospects of H2 powered ships and planes is a lot more realistic than an EV ship or plane due to the energy density (or lack there of, in the case of batteries).

I've been really thinking about the IS500 lately. Only downside? It's an automatic. The Z appeals to me too because I have always been a Z fan. I prefer NA over turbo, but with an MT and the rest of the package, I think I could deal.

[deevergote]

Maybe I'm just getting too much enjoyment out of being able to beat the hell out of my even more pathetic RSX without getting in trouble.

And for some reason I don't care about the new Integra. Maybe it's the FWD I expect it to have? I think it's awesome that Acura is bringing it back, especially with the Integra name, but I don't know. I don't even care about the CTR. I have my FWD cars, I'm not interested in getting rid of them, and I'm ready to move on once I'm in a position to get a third car, I guess.

There’s a certain magic to slow cars that can be flogged without too much danger or illegality. My CB7 was right at the sweet spot for that. Quick enough to be fun, slow enough to let me enjoy it for more than a few seconds.

I feel the same about the Integra. Glad it’s back, but not sure if it’s something I’d want. The old lines can’t be recaptured with today’s pedestrian safety requirements and market-based styling cues. Though at least Acura’s more recent offerings are getting more attractive lately!

The CTR impresses me because it does what a FWD shouldn’t do. But it’s the best of the best. An ITR has to happen, but it simply can’t be just a luxury CTR. That would be pointless. It would need to be better.
I’m thinking: CTR engine powering the front wheels, electric motors powering the rear wheels. Total output 350-400hp. Curb weight < 3400lbs. Price around $40,000-$45,000. Manual transmission would be ideal.

[AccordWarrior]

I've been really thinking about the IS500 lately. Only downside? It's an automatic. The Z appeals to me too because I have always been a Z fan. I prefer NA over turbo, but with an MT and the rest of the package, I think I could deal.

My understanding is with the Z’s motor the turbos are set up to mimic NA power delivery rather than the old school nothing nothing nothing hold onto your hat.

Maybe that’s BS, but I know a lot of the turbo cars these days don’t run the same as old ones. I drove my friend’s newer WRX and the power delivery was much different than my STi or my other friend’s 2006 WRX.

[CyborgGT]

My Integra prediction: there won't be a Type R, at least in name. Acura seems to be investing a lot in the "Type S" branding lately, so I think they'll give it that badge instead, but otherwise make it what a Type R would be. Not that any amount of performance will stop the internets from bitching that there isn't a Type R. Base, GSR (or some Si equivalent), and Type S trims. Base/Type S/Type R is always possible, but if that happened I can't help but wonder why the new NSX Type S isn't called the Type R if they're using it as a send-off for NSX production. And I feel differently about the performance, I think 'luxury CTR' will be it. The Integra/RSX has always been based on the Civic, so this really just makes me wonder if the Civic coupe is already going to make a comeback to maximize profits - and if the Integra as a whole is going to replace the ILX as their entry-level car and there'll be a sedan version like before the RSX. But if Acura is after the enthusiast's heart with this car, they'll listen to the outrage over the NSX (even though I think it's a brilliant car and everything a modern NSX should be) and stay away from any hybridization outside of possibly a basic hybrid-powered base model.

[owequitit]

My understanding is with the Z’s motor the turbos are set up to mimic NA power delivery rather than the old school nothing nothing nothing hold onto your hat.

Maybe that’s BS, but I know a lot of the turbo cars these days don’t run the same as old ones. I drove my friend’s newer WRX and the power delivery was much different than my STi or my other friend’s 2006 WRX.

I think that is the case with most turbo engines these days. That is one reason they crap out early in the rev band. They run small turbos to spool more quickly and use other assistance technologies like electronic waste gates, etc. It isn't a foul on the part of Nissan anything since the Z car has had turbos since the early 1980's. But there is just something about a raw, NA V8 scream that I kind of want to snatch up before it's gone. Or I'll save my pennies for a GT3 Touring someday. LOL.

Even the Accord 2.0T doesn't really have any lag. My biggest issue with turbo cars out here is that they fall flat on their face in the summer temperatures because there just isn't a lot of knock margin in our fuels.

[CyborgGT]

But there is just something about a raw, NA V8 scream that I kind of want to snatch up before it's gone.

This! In keeping with my older tastes, though, I've been looking at Ford's underappreciated gems in the SN95 Mustangs. '03/'04 Mach 1, '98 Cobra. Nice and simple NA 4.6L, DOHC (a must for me after being in Hondas), 4-valve. Seems pretty reliable, even. It's insane how many 4th gen Mustang V6s and GTs (and Explorers from those years) I still see in traffic. Power's solid enough for me in the Cobra and Mach 1, just needs a suspension overhaul, and the Fox platform has MASSIVE aftermarket support there. Interior's typical '90s Americana, but I can overlook that. While everyone's looking at the Terminator, prices should stay good for a while yet as well.

[Grumpys93]

I regret having to sell my dad's 1994 Mustang GT, it was white with red/black interior and came with the 302 in it. I wanted to keep it but unfortunately had no where to store it and I was living on the other side of the country. It would have had to been towed and I already have the accord to tow around.

[Size9zombie]

I regret having to sell my dad's 1994 Mustang GT, it was white with red/black interior and came with the 302 in it. I wanted to keep it but unfortunately had no where to store it and I was living on the other side of the country. It would have had to been towed and I already have the accord to tow around.

I'm sorry you had to get rid of it. Must have been hard for you. They have been climbing in value, and will continue to do so.
'94 is one of my favorites, first year of the sn95, last year of the 5.0 '79-'86 is where my heart lies, though. I have an '86 that is not much more than a shell right now I have plans for, last year of the 4 eyes, first year of fuel injection.

[AccordWarrior]

I think that is the case with most turbo engines these days. That is one reason they crap out early in the rev band. They run small turbos to spool more quickly and use other assistance technologies like electronic waste gates, etc. It isn't a foul on the part of Nissan anything since the Z car has had turbos since the early 1980's. But there is just something about a raw, NA V8 scream that I kind of want to snatch up before it's gone. Or I'll save my pennies for a GT3 Touring someday. LOL.

Even the Accord 2.0T doesn't really have any lag. My biggest issue with turbo cars out here is that they fall flat on their face in the summer temperatures because there just isn't a lot of knock margin in our fuels.

I miss being able to rev, to be honest. The Vette is such a weird car in that regard. It's got absolute immediate torque basically off idle. The engine makes peak power at 5,200 RPM, but it redlines at 6,000 RPM. It's almost deceiving because it doesn't feel like it's gaining power as you're going up in revs, if anything it feels like it's losing power, but you're really not. What's wild is the C5 will do 50 MPH in first gear, 75 MPH in second, my STi would do 38 in 1st, 58 MPH in 2nd and 79 MPH in 3rd. So effectively I'd be shifting twice in the STi before I shifted once in the C5. The STi had this frentic pace / redline thing going on which made it a hoot to drive when you were in the mood (and miserable when you weren't) compared to the more relaxed feeling from the C5. My truck will actually rev a little higher but anything up in the rev range on that truck just doesn't feel good.

[Raf99]

I miss being able to rev the engine in park / neutral Old cars a good 3 pumps of the old gas pedal = 3 nice roars or revs. New cars = electronic fail or a weird delay.

[AccordWarrior]

I miss being able to rev the engine in park / neutral Old cars a good 3 pumps of the old gas pedal = 3 nice roars or revs. New cars = electronic fail or a weird delay.

In my Tacoma in neutral I can take my foot off the floor mat, press the accelerator and put my food back on the floor mat before the engine responds. My friend has a 10th generation Civic Si and pre-Hondata flash the rev hang made it a challenge to drive. Post-flash...it's a ton of fun.

[owequitit]

This! In keeping with my older tastes, though, I've been looking at Ford's underappreciated gems in the SN95 Mustangs. '03/'04 Mach 1, '98 Cobra. Nice and simple NA 4.6L, DOHC (a must for me after being in Hondas), 4-valve. Seems pretty reliable, even. It's insane how many 4th gen Mustang V6s and GTs (and Explorers from those years) I still see in traffic. Power's solid enough for me in the Cobra and Mach 1, just needs a suspension overhaul, and the Fox platform has MASSIVE aftermarket support there. Interior's typical '90s Americana, but I can overlook that. While everyone's looking at the Terminator, prices should stay good for a while yet as well.

I hear you. A friend of my parents had a 1995 GT, also with the 5.0, that they bought grand new. It was a convertible, but it was whatever color approximated British Racing Green with Saddle leather interior. Fully loaded with the Mach 1 sound system and everything. I LOVED driving that even though by that time even, it wasn't stellarly fast. But man it sounded good. Driving it was my reward for detailing it in high school! Since I love doing both, it wasn't a big price to pay.

That was the first car I learned to drive sideways in!

[owequitit]

I miss being able to rev, to be honest. The Vette is such a weird car in that regard. It's got absolute immediate torque basically off idle. The engine makes peak power at 5,200 RPM, but it redlines at 6,000 RPM. It's almost deceiving because it doesn't feel like it's gaining power as you're going up in revs, if anything it feels like it's losing power, but you're really not. What's wild is the C5 will do 50 MPH in first gear, 75 MPH in second, my STi would do 38 in 1st, 58 MPH in 2nd and 79 MPH in 3rd. So effectively I'd be shifting twice in the STi before I shifted once in the C5. The STi had this frentic pace / redline thing going on which made it a hoot to drive when you were in the mood (and miserable when you weren't) compared to the more relaxed feeling from the C5. My truck will actually rev a little higher but anything up in the rev range on that truck just doesn't feel good.

Yeah, I have the same complaint about EV's. They are like jets. You pour the coals to it and it just pulls. Always linear, always the same push. Yes, they can be faster, but considering that any average car these days will obliterate the speed limit, I am no longer as interested in fast. Like the 911 GT3 Touring. I don't want it because it is FAST (it is), I want it because of the sound, the engagement of driving the MT, and the look. You FEEL special, even doing the speed limit. Even my Accord is way too fast for the street.

Oddly, I once drove an 11 second Camaro, and yeah, it was FAST but not exciting outside of the fact you could lose it. Oddly, the owner sold an LS powered car to go back to LT1 because he didn't like the "lack of torque" on the LS, while I thought his LS cars felt better... Different strokes as they say.

It also shows the different "sweet spots." Like on your Vette, there was such good torque and the car was so light, Chevy could get away with putting really tall gearing in it and still get good speed and MPG. It just works. Same thing with the "torqueless" Hondas on the other end. No torque, but lots of revs and small displacement, allowed Honda to put ultra low gearing and still get good speeds (relatively speaking). Oddly, most of the VTEC Honda's I have driven were kind of in the middle of the two. They typically had really short gears, but due to revs, were still able to get speeds. Recalling from the Si, I think 1st was good to around 40MPH, 2nd was good to 70, and then third would typically net you ~90 (same for the H22 Accord, K20 Civic and my Accord). Since by 90 you are going to jail, and speed is the number one contributing factor to collision fatalities, my age and slightly better wisdom make me cut it off around there.

[AccordWarrior]

Yeah, I have the same complaint about EV's. They are like jets. You pour the coals to it and it just pulls. Always linear, always the same push. Yes, they can be faster, but considering that any average car these days will obliterate the speed limit, I am no longer as interested in fast. Like the 911 GT3 Touring. I don't want it because it is FAST (it is), I want it because of the sound, the engagement of driving the MT, and the look. You FEEL special, even doing the speed limit. Even my Accord is way too fast for the street.

Oddly, I once drove an 11 second Camaro, and yeah, it was FAST but not exciting outside of the fact you could lose it. Oddly, the owner sold an LS powered car to go back to LT1 because he didn't like the "lack of torque" on the LS, while I thought his LS cars felt better... Different strokes as they say.

It also shows the different "sweet spots." Like on your Vette, there was such good torque and the car was so light, Chevy could get away with putting really tall gearing in it and still get good speed and MPG. It just works. Same thing with the "torqueless" Hondas on the other end. No torque, but lots of revs and small displacement, allowed Honda to put ultra low gearing and still get good speeds (relatively speaking). Oddly, most of the VTEC Honda's I have driven were kind of in the middle of the two. They typically had really short gears, but due to revs, were still able to get speeds. Recalling from the Si, I think 1st was good to around 40MPH, 2nd was good to 70, and then third would typically net you ~90 (same for the H22 Accord, K20 Civic and my Accord). Since by 90 you are going to jail, and speed is the number one contributing factor to collision fatalities, my age and slightly better wisdom make me cut it off around there.

My C5 is a 3.42, the STi was a 3.90. The automatic C5 is either 2.93 or 3.15. I have an ultra tall 6th gear in the C5 that lets me turn under 2,000 RPM at 75-80 MPH. I did a 150 mile round trip to visit a friend and got 35 MPG and probably could have done better if I didn't have the roof off in one direction and the AC on in the other.

During the early pandemic I ran an errand in the Vette and was out on one of the really empty highways (like no one was visible for miles) and I wasn't paying attention to what gear I was in and thought I was doing a 2-3 shift on the power and I was doing a 3-4 and I watched the needle go to "step out of the vehicle". The actual pull felt the same, it was unsettling.

I'm actually contemplating another WRX just for that mid-range shift all the time feeling that the C5 doesn't really have, but we will see what happens.

[owequitit]

My C5 is a 3.42, the STi was a 3.90. The automatic C5 is either 2.93 or 3.15. I have an ultra tall 6th gear in the C5 that lets me turn under 2,000 RPM at 75-80 MPH. I did a 150 mile round trip to visit a friend and got 35 MPG and probably could have done better if I didn't have the roof off in one direction and the AC on in the other.

During the early pandemic I ran an errand in the Vette and was out on one of the really empty highways (like no one was visible for miles) and I wasn't paying attention to what gear I was in and thought I was doing a 2-3 shift on the power and I was doing a 3-4 and I watched the needle go to "step out of the vehicle". The actual pull felt the same, it was unsettling.

I'm actually contemplating another WRX just for that mid-range shift all the time feeling that the C5 doesn't really have, but we will see what happens.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. It's why I always liked VTEC. It's funny, when my dad moved my car out here from Texas for me (the Accord) he was like "wow, that thing really goes! I was getting on the highway and didn't realize I was in 3rd gear doing 80!"

One EV I have actually become pretty interested in was the Rivian RT1. I think that thing is pretty incredible in its capability, and unlike Tesla, they seem to actually be doing real R&D.

However, at this stage, I am happy and my goal is to better position myself for the next phase of life financially.