I don't have time to get to that now but when i come back from school i will.

I have a Renault Clio and it has served me well in its two years of life. Of course, Renault and Nissan are now a single company, but so far I have no complaints.

On topic: I never knew how to do the engine braking. I just recently started to practice, and when it comes out right, it doesn't sound like the engine is overstressed. At least, I don't think it's something it can't handle.

I'm curious how much this was. The brakes shouldn't be overly expensive to replace (nor is it pennies). Was it for a garage to do it or just the replacement parts? Keep in mind that simple transmission work can often reach into the 4-digits and engine trouble is often very expensive as well.

Ummm, I wasn't comparing it to your Civic, Celica, or even your SL500. I compared it to Ferrari. I'd love to compare Ferrari prices with the ME 4-12, but products in the millions generally have individual pricing. In the 5 minutes Googling from work I found no mention of prices for new Ferraris on any site. I did however find that used Ferarri's with V8s expect about a third more than the ME 4-12 was supposed to cost new... Again, American vs. European.

The people who can afford them buy them: they are worth a lot for a reason. They aren't useless; they just aren't necessary.

These are cars that can, in the right hands, turn corners at speeds many of our cars would struggle to reach. I know from experience that my '89 Camry tops out around 107 MPH (175 KM/H or so).

You wouldn't buy an ME 4-12 to get you to work everyday or for grocery runs. You'd get one if you were able to make 6 figures in a year and were serious about performance cars.

I can fit a filing cabinet in my Toyota Celica with the back seats down. I just help me coz move into his new apartment the other day.

edit: my back seats are very roomy for a two door car. theres is enough room for
two sizable people to lay down on top of each other and move around.

Get an old cop car from the county auction, rebuild as necessary. Blues Brothers all the way!

It impresses you that they were unable to match their car's speed performance in 30 years? That's nothing to be proud of. I guarantee the '76 Golf GTI was NEVER the fastest car in the world. More than likely they weren't trying to improve its performance, especially since the 70s brought raised insurance rates and higher gas prices. Also, Volkswagen isn't known as a high performance brand.

The fact is that fuel economy is not a naturally desireable quality; rather, it is circumstancially desirable. If gasoline was in infinite supply and inexpensive to process there would probably be no such thing as fuel economic cars. Also note that insurance rates influence car production, as demonstrated in the 70s, so if there still were fuel economic cars, insurance rates would be why.

I hope that we can find a renewable resource with harnessable power like that of gasoline, or better. Muscle cars aren't going away until their fuel sources do. Hopefully the opposite happens and fuel economic cars go away.

Weight is a side effect of features. Every feature weighs something and they all add up. European cars tend to lack many features which results in a much lighter, less functional car. We used to own a Volkswagen Rabit (an '86, I think) and the doors were paper thin... If a larger vehicle hits you it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict the outcome. You might also be surprised by the weight of some European/Japanese cars.

Also, in the right hands, weight can be used to help you through a corner (by shifting it outside and having it recover towards the inside) or help to do advanced manuevers that required weight transfer. Friction is often the enemy and weight can in some cases be used to muscle against it (obviously having the opposite effect in other situations - hense, power/torque). Besides, 2300 Kg isn't unbareable. I prefer a mid-sized car with power to a car that weighs nothing.

Visibility is sometimes sacrificed for other characteristics. For example, aerodynamics and styling. The truth is that properly configured mirrors should show you most of what is behind the perpendicular line crossing through your body, meaning you should only ever have to look 90 degrees in either direction. Anything which isn't directly visible would have crossed through your line of sight to get there so you should have already seen it. In terms of backing up, some cars are better than others, but you should still be able to see if the car is adjusted right. You should know what is behind you for stationary objects before trying to back up anyway. Non-stationary objects will generally notice you are backing up and hopefully try to yield to you.

You don't accelerate with horsepower rather you accelerate with torque, although they are directly related. Horsepower is better described in terms of top speed or towing capacity or it's ability to power up a hill. For example, do you have to down-shift going up hill or can you up-shift and keep accelerating?

I rank Ford at the bottom of my list, along side Hyundai and Kia; the top being the best auto makers. And if a company isn't well known in North America then it's not even on my list.

Just because a car has 400 horsepower (or pound-feet [lb. ft.] of torque, for that matter) doesn't mean your Focus can out corner it. Perhaps the muscle car will have to slow down to make the corner, but at least it can go fast in the first place. That's not to say that it can't handle the corner at a similar (possibly higher) speed as your Focus.

The power/torque output of an engine has relatively little to do with it's cornering ability. Also, in the right hands, power and torque can be harnessed in a corner such as in drifting.

Speaking of cornering, when automotive reviewers got their hands on the 2002 Dodge Ram, they were amazed at it's cornering capacity. They described its handling like that of a sports car. This was derived by road, track, and G-force tests.

For those of you that don't know, the Dodge Ram is a full-sized pickup truck.

giggles

Filing cabinet!? CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT!

Or you park the Charger or Challenger and load the filing cabinet onto your Ram. Not because you couldn't fit the filing cabinet into the cars, but why bother when you don't have to?

Not to mention, the majority of American made cars are not 400 horse muscle cars with imaginary trunk space. Most of them are economical, practical, 4-doors for the family. It's just that some of them, like the Charger, are available with as much as 425 horsepower or more as well.

And most American cars don't neglect safety features. Many of them have extremely high safety standards. And others are Fords... I pretty much ignore that alliance of companies.

{"name":"591606","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/2\/9239d9dd05c36a710df8db1014f42c6d.jpg","w":716,"h":418,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/2\/9239d9dd05c36a710df8db1014f42c6d"}

Strike that.
I just today found out about the Peugeot 207 HDi Sport (the D stands for Diesel by the way) that can be had for less than half of the price of the 407 coupe.
http://www.peugeot.fi/Liitetiedostot/Pics/att16d4..jpg

Yeah, but 12.5 minutes for fuel isn't too bad, because the tires only last something like 16 minutes at that speed.

Although I am a fan of some GM products (i.e. GTOs, Trans Ams, Camaros, Corvettes,........... Probably a few others, but meh... ), I am not generally a fan of GM. Another example of poor quality from GM: I was taught that their solution to fuel injection for years (maybe still? ) was to place a single fuel injector where the carburetor normally sat and feed fuel into the engine like that. The right way is to have a fuel injector for each cylinder. Still, they were able to inexpensively advertise fuel injected.

If you haven't picked up the subtleties I'm into Daimler-Chrysler. Dodge, specifically, though I also support the entire alliance and appreciate every other company.

Everything is proportional. What if fuel was free and service was instantaneous? Obviously as you move from one extreme to the other the result will change accordingly. If you didn't like my last example, what if money was no object and fuel was renewable? Obviously the limiting factor in today's market is money and the dwindling fuel reserves. Eliminate those limitations and you have to admit that a powerful, fast car is desirable.

If you don't agree you may be a chick.

The more you weigh the more power/torque is required to go fast (which is desirable in a fastest-time event) and you can only squeeze so much power/torque out of the engine compartment found in most rally cars. Also, rally teams live in the real world where fuel is expensive and racing is even more expensive and being able to compete means making due with what you can afford.

Also, rally cars are not designed for slick maneuvers. They are designed for going from point A to B as quickly as possible on a variety of courses ranging in climate and terrain.

Contrary to ignorant belief, there are more than Americans in North America (though it depends on your definition of American). Canada is largely French and even has a generally French province (Quebec). Ontario also has a number of French dominant communities. Personally, I'm not a fan of French, but I don't hate the people; only the language.

Why are you so excited about diesel?

"By design, gas engines rev faster and are able to reach higher rpm peaks than diesels. This allows them to attain greater horsepower numbers and quicker 0-60-mph times." Source

There's a reason the majority (a vast majority) of racing cars run on gasoline (a more expensive fuel) instead of diesel.

The world agrees that drifting looks beautiful and attractive and that's why it's becoming more popular world-wide. I've heard it's extremely popular in Japan, where it originated as a sport, but it's spreading all over the world on road and track. It's obviously a lot funner to drift around a corner than to slow down. It also has a number of benefits, inherent from speed and style.

I also wouldn't say it's fair to say the fuel consumption is 'massive' compared to not drifting and the road (depending on it's composition and construction) shouldn't disintegrate.

Why do you insist on arguing with me?

A simple contradiction to that argument is that the reviewers often pick a variety of competitors' cars in different classes. If they were merely being bought you would expect them to favor a company or alliance of companies.

Which is obviously why rally racers brake coming into a corner and accelerate at the apex like road racers do. In case you didn't catch that, rally racers drift around corners because it is the fastest way around a corner.

However, drifting does wear down tires and burn fuel faster than if you were cornering like a road racer does. Road races are often an endurance sport and that's why they don't drift: pit stops are very expensive (time [money] and money).

What world? Drifting may look 'cool' for the first two times and then it becomes a silly pastime for juveniles with a deathwish or complete disregard for their own/others' road safety.

The free world outside of Europe, I guess.

Drifting isn't silly. Thinking something so dynamic and expressive only peaks interest twice is silly. It's also silly to call drifters juveniles with a deathwish because ages range from 15 - 50, most of them appear to be more mature than most posters on this thread (a feat in itself, I'm sure), and they aren't killing themselves. They're expressing themselves with a beautiful and incredibly fun use of automobiles; enjoying life. If they had no regard for their own safety or others' safety they wouldn't last long: they'd either be in jail or dead.

Which is why you generally don't do such loud, exciting things in the public eye. You do it on empty streets, in empty parking lots, or on race tracks. And those that are really careful have spotters watching for other drivers/pedestrians.

I'm not sure on the exact law that says you can't drift, but I'm sure it's more inherited from other laws. I'd have to check on that though.