What Cars Do You All Drive?

[Zagatto]

When I have a garage and can afford $20k for a toy car, I'm going to buy a Caterham Super 7 kit and build it myself. It only has 160 hp but then again it only weighs 800 lbs and has 6 gears in the box. I would be a total geek and paint it up like the car from the old TV show The Prisoner. I figure I'll be able to do this in another 20 years or so... I can wait.

If I ever come into some big cash, I saw a company once that did a real life Mach 5 from Speed Racer. It didn't have all of the same gadgets working on it but it was still cool as hell.

[fahad17]

Super 7's are so fast. There well cool. I personal am looking at a gt40 kit( only decent ford ever built IMO), its only £5k, but i dont know it id be able to build it, thats the only problem.

Insurance is really cheap for em aswell because its a kit.

[Mantis421]

I always think it is funny though when you see the commercials for most of these cars you see young people driving them. But in the real world we usually can get toys like that until we are into out late 30s up. I have notied here though most of the people who are posting I have this sports car or that sports car. One list off the options like it was being read from car and driver magazine and 2) they are the ones who you never see their age listed in their profiles, Makes you think

[Mantis421]

I just did a basic search to see how man threads contain cars in some way. Their has been 52 threads about cars for the most part they are all what are you driving ones that have been posted on the site

[Robojack]

I drive my parents' car, which is a 1994 Chrysler Concorde, which pumps out a mean 214 HP, with 221 lb/ft of torque. It can beat the crap out of a stock VTEC ricer anyday, despite being a more luxury-classed and heavier sedan.

However, when I get my own wheels, it'll likely be one that's rear-wheel drive, maybe a BMW or Nissan 350Z? FF cars stink when it comes to maximum potential performance, and the whole concept of pulling the car with the front wheels, rather than pushing the car with the rear wheels, really seems inefficient to me. FF also puts more wear on the the front tires, since you're accelerating and turning with the same tires.

Sure, FR's more dangerous in winter and wet weather if you're unable to control it, but that's what makes it all the more fun. So no Honda crap for me, unless they make a FR-based car. After all, you don't see any race cars with FF layout, do you, and there's good reason for that. I laugh everytime I see that Honda commercial, where you see an F1 car get turned into a Honda car, did they switch the engine to the midship and RWD configuration? I would love a MR car config, but it's way too expensive...unless I get a used MR2. Hmm.

[drizztkun]

Bah im 26 not afraid to give my age eheh

[kakomu]

Originally posted by Robojack
I drive my parents' car, which is a 1994 Chrysler Concorde, which pumps out a mean 214 HP, with 221 lb/ft of torque. It can beat the crap out of a stock VTEC ricer anyday, despite being a more luxury-classed and heavier sedan.

However, when I get my own wheels, it'll likely be one that's rear-wheel drive, maybe a BMW or Nissan 350Z? FF cars stink when it comes to maximum potential performance, and the whole concept of pulling the car with the front wheels, rather than pushing the car with the rear wheels, really seems inefficient to me. FF also puts more wear on the the front tires, since you're accelerating and turning with the same tires.

Sure, FR's more dangerous in winter and wet weather if you're unable to control it, but that's what makes it all the more fun. So no Honda crap for me, unless they make a FR-based car. After all, you don't see any race cars with FF layout, do you, and there's good reason for that. I laugh everytime I see that Honda commercial, where you see an F1 car get turned into a Honda car, did they switch the engine to the midship and RWD configuration? I would love a MR car config, but it's way too expensive...unless I get a used MR2. Hmm.

1994 Chrysler Concorde = 3379 lbs weight, 161 hp and 181 ft-lbs of torque. The LHS and New Yorker have the 214 hp engine and then the 97 Concorde had the 214 hp engine. In short, your 94 Concorde is heavy and terribly underpowered for that much weight. I woudl decimate you with my 125 hp manual trans car.

FWD is better than RWD in all cases except acceleration and driving up hill. Since the power is coming from the front and pulling the car, you don't have to worry about the back of the car getting all squirrly or fishtailing.

Lastly, Honda S2000 and NSX, bot RWD. FWD cars are continuously racing and auto-crossing and making exceptional times over kRWD cars. It's all about the driver and the tuner. So, you can stop making idiotically broad and sweeping generalizations.

[Robojack]

I have the 214 HP engine on my 1994 Concorde, which was optional that year. Heck, it even says 3.5L V6 on the engine block, which is proof enough. You think I know nothing about my car, or did you not read what I wrote? I don't know where you get your info, but you should do more research regarding other people's cars before disputing their specs.

Fact is, races where Ferraris, Corvettes, and Vipers (where cars have at least 400HP) are used rarely have any FR cars that are able to keep up. I wasn't talking about no auto-x, but something much faster and much more fun to watch. Hell, even Nascar and F1 vehicles are MR, which prove that when you want to go FAST, not wimpy auto-x fast, but blinding 200 mph+ fast, rear-wheel drive platform rules.

Sorry kakomu, but my 214HP Concorde would smoke your 124HP car, manual or not. But don't feel bad, I've smoked more powerful cars.

[kakomu]

research:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/...fm/id/2016

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1994/chrysle....chrysler*

it's either not a 94, or you're lying out of your ass. Choose one.

Second, no, a concorde is slow as fuck. 214 HP or not, it's still a shitty car.

[Robojack]

Kakomu, to answer your question, I pick choice 'c', since I'm actually telling the truth. In fact, I resent the 'lying of out my ass' part.

However, I'm quite impressed that you'd actually go through the trouble the of finding information about our car. However, please this passage from your Consumers Guide link:

"1994 Chrysler Concorde/New Yorker/LHS: Both a sporty LHS and revived luxury New Yorker joined as early '94 models on the Concorde's wheelbase but five inches longer overall. Both are roomier in back and use only the 214-horsepower engine. New Yorkers cost less when new, and had a split front bench seat instead of the LHS's buckets. Variable-assist power steering also arrived after the cars debuted. Initially optional in Concordes, the touring suspension became standard this year. Also on the Concorde, BASE engines gained eight horsepower, and a 3-place front bench seat became available. Power steering added more assist, to reduce turning effort for parking but deliver greater feel at higher speeds."

Notice the sentence that says "Also on the Concorde, BASE engines gained eight horsepower, and a 3-place front bench seat became available.", with emphasis on 'BASE engines', which means that more than one engine is available. Luckily, I convinced my parents to get the optional 214HP engine.

Also look at this page: (http://research.cars.com/go/crp/summary....odelid=110 )

Here's another page (http://www.sounddomain.com/id/dbelle18), where an owner has posted pictures and specs (where he states the car to have a 214HP engine) of his 94 Concorde. Our Concorde has the same rims, but is black and has a mini spoiler on the back.

If you look at this page, there's a short description from someone who was trying to sell their 94 model. ( http://www.usadreamproperty.com/1994.htm)

It clearly states that the 94 Concorde did have the 3.5L V6 214HP 221lb/ft engine as an optional engine. Thanks for trying, but I doubt it's slower than your 124HP car, unless your car weighs next to nothing. What car is this anyway? A Saturn or something? In any case, it's torque that's more important, and when you have more torque than HP, that's always a good thing. Our 94 Concorde suffers from mild torque steer during fast acceleration, since there's a bit too much torque for the front wheels to handle.

In fact, torque steer is a common problem (and dangerous with higher speeds) with more powerful front-wheel drive cars. If you don't know what it is, torque steer is what happens when you have too much torque in the front wheels, to the point where the wheels start to point in other directions besides straight ahead. This happens most often during fast acceleration, and usually requires that you fight the torque steer in order to keep your car going in a straight line. It becomes deadly when you're driving in narrow quarters or roads. If your car has low torque, I can understand how you think front-wheel drive is better, but once you experience torque steer, you'll know that it not only makes your car more difficult to control, but also it decreases your performance in higher speeds or acceleration, since it'll zigzag slightly before you're able to wrestle it to go straight. If you had LSD (limited slip differential)installed on your car, you would be able to reduce the torque steer, but in many cases, this doesn't happen.

If you read any review for the Acura TL, where the car has ~40lbs/ft more torque than it does horsepower, you'll know that most critics will point this critical problem out, and many have stated that if the TL had been a RWD car, it would've easily been a worthy competitor to the BMW 330. But since it's not, it's a notch below in terms of performance and safety.

With FR cars these days, stability control and anti-slip mechanisms like those found on BMWs or Mercedes vehicles make FR cars as easy and controllable to drive as any FF car, but with better performance and turning capability. Heck, some actually let you disable those features altogether, in case you're feeling daring and adventurous enough to make your rear-end slide out a little in rainy weather (hehe). All in all, driving a FR car is much more fun than driving an FF car!

[r00ster]

Are you kids going to start fighting over whose dad can beat up the other kid's dad next?

.... 'cause if you are, just know that my dad could kick all your dads' sorry asses! HA-CHA!

[Robojack]

No, Kakomu was just having trouble believing that my 94 Concorde came with an engine that has 214HP. I just found a few sources on my own (nothing else to do at 2:30 in the morning) to support my claim. It's nothing to worry about, really.

[kakomu]

Originally posted by Robojack
No, Kakomu was just having trouble believing that my 94 Concorde came with an engine that has 214HP. I just found a few sources on my own (nothing else to do at 2:30 in the morning) to support my claim. It's nothing to worry about, really.

except you're a jackass. Find an acredited site that talks about a 215hp V6. Not some guy on sounddomain or someone selling their car. Second, 221 Ft-lbs of torque is FAR from dangerous, especially on a car as fucking heavy as a concorde, new yorker or LHS and especially when it doesn't reach that much torque until 3100 RPM.

Why not just leave the board? It's clear you aren't liked around these parts.

[Robojack]

Right now, I think it's just you and another person, but in this case, you're mad since you can't admit you're wrong. What, you think EVERYONE's lying? Heck, even Consumers Guide (which I think is plenty accredited) stated that the 94 model had more than engine available, which is already pretty obvious you're DEAD wrong. Learn to read between the lines, it's something I'm finding many people unable to do these days Jeez, leave your ego at the door, k?

Besides, I just changed the oil in the car last week, and I clearly remember it saying 3.5L V6 on the engine block. Plus, I remember very clearly when we bought our car, since I was bugging my parents about it that year. Plus on my insurance papers, it clearly states that we have a 94 Concorde. We got into a small accident last year, and the accident appraiser also confirmed this when he wrote it down. Finally, the 1996 Concorde has single-toned door panels, that match with the body paint color. My Concorde has grey lower door panels, which is definite indication that the car is not a 96 model.

Quit being so offended just because I questioned your statement towards MY car about what engine it has. It's like telling someone their daughter is really a boy, it's ridiculous. I see my car as being almost like a child to me, since I take care of it and perform regular maintenance like any caring parent would to their child.

And Kakomu, you still haven't told me what car you were referring your 124HP beast to. What I have seen, few cars have exactly 124HP, and the ones that do include one particular Saturn model, and a Kia Spectra model.

Note to all those just tuning in: Kakomu doesn't believe that my 1994 Concorde has a 3.5L, 214HP engine, PLUS he think his 124HP car can beat it. Unless he has rockets strapped to his car, or his car's as light as a motorcyle, I don't see how that's possible. Then he got all offended when I pointed out in his OWN source that his claim regarding my car's engine was wrong.

[kakomu]

it's 125 HP. If you actually read and weren't such a fucktard, you'd have picked up on that. But what should I expect from a shit stain? But who are you to say that a car can't have exactly 124 HP? I mean, do you think that all cars round off their HP?

Second, Consumer guide said that the New Yorker and LHS had the 3.5L engine. Not the Concorde. The concorde didn't get the option till 96, and didn't have it standard until 97.

Lastly, since you're such a moron, and didn't even read the thread, you'd see it's a 1995 Honda Civic EX. Also, with a little reasearch, I found that my Civic beats the 97 Concorde in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile under stock conditions. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you chode.