Comments by "BeyerT1" (@derbigpr500) on "Auto Express"
channel.
-
109
-
How is Range Rover even comparable here? I mean...come on....why not use a BMW 7 series instead, which is a natural rival for S class? Why use the SE version of an A8? If you speced it up to cost the same as a Range Rover, it would be more luxurious. Besides, other than materials in the interior, in which way does Range stack up? It's not as comfortable, not as nice to drive, not as nice to sit in, not as refined, not as quiet, not as luxurious, gearboxes and engines are nowhere near as good, suspension is great, but not on the same level as S class, or even the same level as A8 with air suspension option (which also has laser scanning of the road ahead to preset the suspension for bumps on the road constantly, so it's incredibly comfortable), etc. It's a pointless comparison. Should have used the Jaguar XJ if you really wanted to overhype a British car and make it seem like it can compete with Germans, when in reality it really can't.
107
-
96
-
83
-
69
-
60
-
59
-
YOu know what happens with the GT-R when you drive on the track? You drive one lap quickly, next lap tires start overheating, so you're slower, then brakes start overheating and you're even slower, and then finally after some 4-5 laps engine overheats and drops down the rev limiter and max. power so that it wont blow apart. You dont believe me? Go find the JAPANESE car shows, where real RACING DRIVERS test cars on japanese race tracks and race them against each other for several laps. YOu can find them on bestmotoring channel on youtube...in each and every GTR test you will see Japanese race drivers saying its not as good and as fast as Lamborghini Gallardo, or 458, or 911 Turbo, or whartever european car they tested it against. Basically, they said multiple times that GT-R is a HOT LAP CAR, capable of doing a few fast laps, then starts dropping down. While european supercars can be driven all day long and won't cough.
51
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
Can reviewers stop claiming that Honda is the fastest around Nurburgring? It's misinformation.
THAT WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL LAP TIME.
NOT EVEN HONDA CLAIMS IT TO BE. THEY RELEASED THE VIDEO PURELY FOR ENTERTAINMENT.
IT WAS A PRE-PRODUCTION CAR, MODIFIED IN MANY WAYS.
Come on people, it had a roll cage, no rear seats, no passenger seat, no A/C, semi-slick tires (you can easily tell by the tone of squealing and the way they slip), etc. It also clearly had more power than claimed, if you watch the Megane and Type R videos side by side you'll see how much faster the Civic is on the straight and how much Megane gains on it at every corner. That Civic does not have 300hp, it has close to 350 or it has some massive weight savings that we can't see on top the obvious parts.
And even if it was a production car, well, big fucking whoop, it managed to beat a 7 year old Megane, by 3 seconds, on a 20km long track, after spending 5 years on that one single track trying to make it fast as possible. That is actually humiliating for Honda and nothing to brag about. Considering how much head start they had, how much time they had for development and for having put so much effort into it and then it barely ends up faster than a car that has parts in it (gearbox, engine, parts of suspension) from two car generations ago. On top of that, it's not any faster than a Seat, these three times are more about the driving than the cars themselves anyway, but look at how smooth the Seat and Megane are, and how freaking stiff the Honda is. Even by making it so hard and track focused, they still barely beat a Seat which probably feels like a Rolls Royce compared to Honda on the road in terms of comfort.
But anyway, all these victories will be settled next year when the new Megane RS comes, it will drop that Nurburgring time by another 10 seconds, and will probably be the first FWD car to go around in under 7:40. They've dropped 10 seconds off of that lap with every new generation, there's no reason to believe they wont do it again. Everyone knows who the king of hot hatches is and who has been beating far more powerful proper sports cars around track for years, all these new kids on the block are making use of the fact that the Megane is at the end of it's life cycle and they're all brand new cars. The new Megane RS will also have 4 wheel steering that the Renault Laguna GT has, and that car pulls close to 1,5G in corners, it's got more grip than most sports cars, while being a comfortable and relatively soft family car. I just hope they don't fuck it up by putting a dual clutch automatic into it like they did with the Clio RS, a hot hatch has to be manual.
37
-
35
-
30
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
Please autoexpress, stop feeding the trolls by mentioning the freaking Civic Type R in every video related to nurburgring, as if that car is any sort of benchmark on that track. The lap time it did IS NOT VALID, and I honestly can't believe how many people ignore that and don't know it, or just act like they don't know it because they're Honda fanboys, and we all know how ignorant Honda fanboys can be. The same was true for the Seat Leon that did the record before, you can't buy either of them in the configuration that did the lap record. The only car that you can buy in the exact same spec was the Megane RS 275 Trophy Under 8 spec that did the 7:53 time, and now the GTI CSS. Any other laps are invalid because the car you buy won't be the same as the one that did the record, simple as that.
As for the Civic Type R:
1. It was a pre-production car, with a completely different suspension setup, made just for the Nurburgring, they actually spent weeks fine tuning it and they bought several time periods on the Nurburgring for themselves, so they could run the car on the track and find the fastest setup. You can hear that from people who were at the track at the time, spectators,drivers, etc. Read some forums, it's not that hard. Even visually on pictures online you can see that the record time car had significantly lower ride height and significantly more camber in the front and rear compared to the stock car.
2. Had no rear seat, no sound proofing, no sat nav / radio, no climate control.
3. It had a full on roll cage.
4. It definitely had a modified engine. Now if you don't believe that, there are plenty of Civic acceleration videos on Youtube. Grab yourself a stopwatch and go measure. You'll find that in all other independent videos of acceleration the times are pretty much the same. But on the Nurburging lap time video of the Civic, you'll see the car actually accelerated the same on UPHILL parts of the track as the actual Civics do on totally flat ground. Meaning that either the car was considerably lighter or at least had 50hp extra over the road version that you get when you buy it, maybe even more than 50. I'm an engineer so I've talked about that with many colleagues, and it's even possible that Honda used some sort of software that changed the the power output of the engine depending on the GPS position, so that it would compensate on the uphill segments, because it just accelerates too fast on uphills compared to flat parts of the tracks, it doesn't lose anywhere as near the amount of pace as all other car. Now unless you suggest Civic Type R defies the laws of physics, then something is afoot.
5. It had even stickier tires than the Golf, and those tires you CANNOT BUY, even Honda didn't reveal the exact model of the tire that was on the car that did the lap time, all they said it was a tire from major European manufacturer developed solely for that car, but the car you buy comes with we all know which tires, which weren't developed specifically for the Civic because they come on many cars, and they're not that extreme. So another difference between the record car and the road stock car. Golf has extreme tires, but they're still ROAD TIRES, they're not semi-slicks. You can also hear that by the tone of the squealing. The Civic Type R that did the record lap HAD semi-slick tires. Anyone who's driven a car on semi-slicks knows the specific squealing tone they make and the very specific slip angles that they have.
Point being, even Honda themselves never claimed that lap was an official record, because they know how much they "cheated" and how much different that car was to the one you get at the dealer.
It's just that Honda has such hardcore fanboys that they simply don't care for facts, they just decide to ignore them because it fits what they like to believe.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
If you're gonna demonstrate how fast it is by having an RS3 "get away from it", then at least have the RS3 driven harder than 5/10th's and make it look at least slightly convincing that he's pushing it hard, and not obviously visible that he's driving it slowly, not accelerating at all and not even trying to take corners at speed.Maybe the RS3 won't leave the F150 behind too much off the line, but in the corners I doubt the F150 can live with an A3 1.6 TDI on 16 inch steel wheels and FWD. In fact, I know it can't with those tires, 2.6 tons, high center of gravity, long wheelbase, etc. There's no doubt.
It's just intelligence insulting for the viewers when reviewers do demonstrations like these in an obviously and purposefully wrong way just to get a point across that isn't really a point at all, because if they don't do the demonstration wrong on purpose it's impossible for them to prove that point in the first place.
17
-
15
-
Alexander Stefanov
False economy? Interesting...have any data to confirm that? Of course you don't, because all the actual data contradicts your opinion. Diesel fuel economy is real. You'll never drive a petrol engine of the same power, with same pace, on the same road, and achieve the economy you get with a diesel. Plus, the diesel has bags of torque which makes it feel quicker than an equivalently powerful petrol engine. On top of that, diesel fuel consumption is much more consistent than a petrol one. You can drive a petrol engine economically, but you will travel at snail speed, touch the throttle too hard and your consumption will skyrocket. With modern diesels you don't even have to try to drive them economcially anymore. False economy? How come a 320d with 184hp and loads of torque, which is a fast car by any standard for everyday driving, DOES NOT consume more than 7 l/100 km whatever I do to it. Literally, I can floor it and brake hard at every junction while driving in the city and the consumption wont go over 7l, and that is the minimum average you'd get with an equivalent 320i petrol engine. When driving normally, 5,5l is no problem, and if you are really economical, you can drop it below 4 liters. You'll never do that in a petrol engine driving at the same pace. Not to mention the diesel actually has significantly lower CO2 output.
15
-
14
-
14
-
As for the Mondeo being a competitor for new Passat....nah, not gonna happen. New Passat is way beyond anything in the segment, it's going to directly complete in the premium market, or the sort of sub-premium market, with the Volvo S60, Lexus IS, Infinity Q45, etc. It's too good to compete with Fords, Mazdas, Toyotas, Opels, etc.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
***** Facts? What you're saying aren't facts, what you're saying is rubbish based on your lack of intelligence, education and knowledge in general. Take it from a mechanical engineer who works in the industry, you know nothing about it, so stop talking about it and making yourself look like a fool by jumping into wrong conclusions. Where cars are assembled or produced is irrelevant. All the plants were designed and built, and are ran by Germans. You think people who build Q7's in Slovakia are some random idiots from the street? No, they're educated to do it just like the Germans do it. Anyone can be trained to screw pieces together, it's very simple and mostly automatized, and things that require manual labor are done with tools, in 99% of cases made in such a way that usage of that tool is semi-automatized and always does exactly the same work in exactly the same way, so it's impossible to screw something up. The main thing is engineering, designing, researching, developing, testing, etc., not assembling the pieces, which is BY FAR the easiest part of car production. I don't know why this has to be pointed out, but clearly people like you are out there, who fail to understand this very simple thing. It's ironic that you clearly very strongly value your opinions and even consider them facts, even though you're totally delusional and know absolutely NOTHING about this topic, and everything you say about it screams "I'm clueless and am talking out of my ass". You never developed something as simple as a single screw or a bolt. You never set food inside a facility where any part of a car is developed, tested, manufacturer or assembled. Am I right? You know I am, no matter what you say next. And THAT is a fact.
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
Almost everything you wrote proves your stupidity and ignorance. You don't have any knowledge about this car, or engineering behind it, or an IQ that enables you to understand why it's more expensive than a Swift (hint: there are things other than lap times that make a good car). Same goes for the Apple comment. Typical imbecile hater with zero knowledge or experience, and an intellect too limited to use the potential of devices and judge them by their actual performance, qualities and experience they give you, and not by the specifications on paper, which mean close to nothing in the real world. The sad part is, despite being incredibly stupid, people like you consider themselves superior, because hating a product you have no knowledge about and no experience with, and therefore no right to talk about, is what obviously makes you very intelligent, right? Try to disprove me, as a medical student (and someone with a 5 year university mechanical engineering degree) I meet and work with a lot of people like you, who "know" everything about everything, and give their uneducated opinions as often as possible. You've never even seen the i3 in person, let alone driven it, and you know it's an unengaging car and it's zero fun. On the other hand, people who've driven more cars than you will sit in during your entire life call it a fun and a great car...strange.
12
-
12
-
It's not bias, it's the truth. Go sit in an Audi A3 and then inside a Mazda 3, and you'll see. Japanese cars feels cheap. You close the door on the Mazda, it sounds like they're made out of tin foil. You drive it on the motorway, it's loud, unrefined, not nearly as stable and composed. There's nothing the Mazda does better, realistically speaking. It's cheaper, yes, for a reason. Compare it to a A3 2.0 TDI with 150hp, which also gets better suspension as default, and it will be far faster, quieter, better handling, etc. This BMW and Audi are like the most basic cars the brand offers, while this Mazda is top of the line model, you can't buy a more expensive Mazda 3.
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
*****
Actually average European earns about the same money as average American. Both have about $45000 GDP per capita average. But cars in USA are MUCH cheaper than in Europe. For example, in USA you can buy a BMW M3 fully loaded for the same money that you need to buy almost a base model 2.0l diesel 3 series in Europe. Thats why 40000€ for the Peugeot RCZ is not that much. Considering the performance, all the racing derived components it has in the chassis and drive train, design, quality, interior (which is all covered in very expensive materials, fully covered in leather EVERYWHERE, which is not even an option in some rival cars), its not that much. An Audi TT with similar power and equipment (even though not even the TT-RS matches the performance of the RCZR on track) will cost about 15000 euros more. And it wont drive better, it wont be faster, definitely wont be nicer to sit in or more comfortable, and it wont be more reliable either, since the days of french cars being unreliable are long gone. Even the germans are aware of that nowadays. RCZ is an all around excellent car. It looks weird, but there's no denying that its a very well engineered and put together machine. If it had a different badge on, it would cost a lot more and people would not complain just based on its performance. Remember, this is a car that's faster on Nurburgring than BMW 1M, TT-RS, Golf R32, 370Z, Cayman, Boxter, etc. All much more expensive cars.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
You're wrong. First of all, the Civic lap time IS IRRELEVANT, because it was done with a preproduction car. I don't understand why people ignore that fact. The car was heavily modified and wasn't the same as you get when you buy it. Fact. Oh and it also didn't have the rear seats. Or the climate control, or sat nav, had a full roll cage, no sound proofing, etc. So the Honda was more modified and less usable than the Golf CS. On top of that, even the road version of the Type R is incredibly stiff and uncomfortable, genuinely one of the most uncomfortable cars money can buy. On top of that, the Golf is light years ahead in terms of quality, refinement, equipment, etc.
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
MrFaniaros
Stupid once again. Nothing else to say. Why? Well, let me give you a hint. Last year, DEKRA, which is a German car association that deals with reliability of the cars, proclaimed the Megane III the most reliable car in the segment. And ADAC, other German car association also gave Megane III maximum ratings for reliability.
Lets not even go into the fact that people who work on the Megane RS and other RS models build the best Formula 1 engines and drivetrains in the world, and basically dominate in F1 for the last 8 years, so building car engines, and sports cars in general is a joke to them. Unlike VW, which, you sure would know, as an expert you obviously are (lol), just pulled in 1,6 million cars for DSG failure, and lets not even go into the fact that all VW turbocharged TSI engines have horrible reliability issues. Facts.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
And no, it's not a piece of tech from the future. I FUCKING hate when people say that, because it's so bloody idiotic and proves that you know literally NOTHING about technology. Electric motors are FAR from new or modern technology. And yes, the interior in a Tesla S is CHEAP, literally, CHEAP, it feels like an unfinished product. It's horribly put together, the door panels feels really hollow and again, cheap, and squeak when you push on them, etc. The small detail that is done really well in other luxury cars is just missing or really badly done in the Tesla.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Ok, for all the imbecile honda fanboys (sorry, I couldn't find nicer way of naming you, besides, honda fanboys are by far the most annoying ones and that name fits them) who now think the Civic "kicked RS3 and M3's asses" or similar juvenile terms you cretins like to use, let me, a mechanical engineer with experience in developing vehicles who REALLY dislikes when people who know jack shit about cars talk about them and jump into wrong conclusion, explain it to you in a very simple way. Just because Civic is faster on this short and totally irrelevant "race track" doesn't mean it's better or better value for money. There's a very good reason why it's faster, it's been SPECIFICALLY tuned to be fast on a track. The whole point of that car was to be fast on the track. It was developed on a race track, the whole geometry of the suspension, all the components, the set up, etc. were tuned for track use. You know what that means? It means it sucks on the road. When you tune a car in order to maximize performance on a smooth and flat race track, you ruin the road performance, because the two are COMPLETELY different. It's a balance, it's hard to have both. Some cars push that balance towards the road use, some push it towards the track use. Cheap cars can do one thing at a time. Designing a car that will be comfortable is easy and cheap. Designing a car to be fast on a race track is easy and cheap nowadays as well, that's why cars like the Civic Type R can post good lap times...or cars like the Corvette post lap times like supercars that cost many times more. Designing a car that is both luxurious, comfortable, refined AND fast and sporty on a track is very difficult on the other hand, and very expensive, that's why only premium cars do the same. Of course, none of you can possibly understand why, but if you're interested, go spend 6 years in a good engineering college and then work on some projects and you'll find out.
Like a lot of cheap sports cars, with the Civic, they pushed the balance to the track direction as far as possible while keeping the car barely usable on the road. That's why on a flat track it's fine, but drive it on the road, and your back will hurt for a week. It's incredibly stiff, unrefined, uncomfortable, etc. RS3 is 10k more expensive because it's 10k more car. No, it's 20k more car. Civic Type R is overpriced in comparison to the RS3. Why is the RS3 better? It's far more comfortable, refined, luxurious, more usable on the road that's not perfectly smooth and dry, it will be fast in all weather conditions, it's far more efficient, it's got a far better interior, quality is way above the Civic, it has more space inside, it's safer, stiffer, more solid, every component is more thoroughly engineering, attention to detail is better across the board, it's better equipped, etc. RS3 is more expensive because it's a better car. Full stop. Anyone who disagrees with that statement simply knows nothing about cars and should not be talking about cars at all, and I say this in the most humble way I can. Why is it slower then? Because it's set up to work on the road too. The suspension is tuned to take care of the bumps, surface changes, camber changes, etc. on the road, that's why it's a far more comfortable car. Drive the RS3 on a real road, go on a road trip, drive across the country, drive it on the autobahn at high speed, etc. and then do the same in the Civic, see which one way better, you can be damn sure it won't be the Civic. In fact, the fact that a car like the Civic Type R, being so hardcore in the setup and so track focused, having a similar power to weight ratio and more aggressive aerodynamics (which didn't matter much on this track) and more sticky tires, was barely 0,5s faster, is a shame for the Civic, because all the disadvantages the Civic has because of it's track focused setup, and all the advantages of the RS3 in every other aspect FAR OUTWEIGH the slight advantage of the Type R on the track. In fact, this video (in the eyes of people who have knowledge, and aren't just blind and cluelss like 99,9% of Honda fanboys) is actually anti-Civic. Same can be said for the M3, which is an even better car in every way. In fact, comparing the M3 to a Civic is an insult to intelligence. Let's not even go into the driving and the lap time, which is irrelevant. Anyone who can drive the M3 for 5 minutes and then drive the Civic will come to the conclusion that M3 is a far better car in every way. It's not even the same segment, it's several notches above in every aspect. It's so much better in every aspect it's an insult to compare it to a far cheaper car from a lower segment and shape the video in such a way to insinuate that the cheaper car is better because it was slightly better in just one, very irrelevant (how many of the owners every push the car to the limit on a track?) aspect. I hate the fact that car journalists nowadays are all trying to simplify car reviews so much, to the point where it seems like lap times are the only things about the cars that matter and are the ultimate tool to judge how good a car is, when in fact its FAR from that, because it's an aspect of the car that is all about balance and worse cars can post better lap times than better cars. In fact, it happens more often than not nowadays, because car makers know most consumers nowadays are stupid enough to care more about their car being 1 second faster on a race track than having a more comfortable or refined suspension, better quality interior, or some other (far more important) thing that could have been improved for the same amount of money that was spent making the car faster on the track. I'm so frustrated that no car journalists ever points this out, I guess they don't understand it, that's why I always say only engineers should be allowed to review road cars, because only engineers have the competence to do it properly.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You have to be seriously stupid to think that a Tesla X would beat a Huracan over a mile...maybe if the Huracan drives at 50% throttle. That just proves how fucking clueless you Tesla fanboys are. You can't even grasp the very basics of car dynamics, such as looking at torque / weight / drag ratios, or power / weight ratios, and simply realize that Tesla X has no chance of competing against a Huracan, in any sort of acceleration. Even before 60 mph it's already almost 0.5 sec behind. Not to mention Huracan can do drag races all day long. Tesla will overheat and go into safe mode after 3 launches. Or try taking it to a track. Good luck completing a single lap without it freaking out and not allowing you to. Or just try driving it a bit harder on the roads. Nop, won't do it. Or try traveling somewhere else in the country or longer distances, nop can't do it without stopping every few hours and prolonging your journey by 50%. Not to mention that, just like other RC toys, they only achieve their top performance when the batteries are fully charged, which is...almost never. Tesla cars are for tech nerds who buy new smartphones every 2 months because they want the newest thing, even though they're not competent enough to put the old one through it's paces.
It's a poorly engineered car, badly put together, with appalling build quality in the interior, and the only appeal it has is the simplicity of EV drivetrain and it's ability to produce a lot of power with very simple engineering.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
You people thinking that GT-R is the better car are just complete idiots. There is no other way to call the amount of stupidity and total lack of any knowledge about cars. EVEN THE JAPANESE THEMSELVES SAID THAT GT-R CANT COMPETE WITH EUROPEAN SUPERCARS. But you stupid need for speed fanboy brainwashed generation think it is...morons. Porsche is infinitely more luxurious, comfortable, refined, has MUCH more quality in every detail, GT-R feels cheap next to the old 911, let alone new one, AND on top of all that its got a better engine, better gearbox, better brakes, better suspension with much more comfort and better handling at the same time, better acceleration, its lighter, so it can be driven hard for much longer, better fuel economy, no doubt better reliability with GT-R being so unreliable,
5
-
MrFaniaros
Just because rear end look more stable to you (whatever), doesn't mean it is. Golf starts understeering much sooner, thats why rear end doesn't step out. Megane doesn't understeer as much, but thats why it goes trough corners faster. Also, don't forget Golf has stability control that is ALWAYS on, in the Megane it was turned off, so ofc it can slide a bit if you make it. I've driven the Megane RS III, and owned the Megane II RS for 3 years, and trust me, Its NOT unstable. Its extremely planted and on normal roads you really have to go ape shit, you really have to go over the top to make it understeer or oversteer.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It's not even about lap times. Seriously, I've only driven the basic 2.7 Cayman, and that thing drives like a dream. It's seriously one of the best drivers cars ever made, and probably one the 3 best money can buy today. It's so incredibly balanced, stable, predictable, the seating position is perfect, steering and brake feel are spot on. It just feels like it's glued to the road, and then when it let's go, it does it with zero drama and it's very easy to control. It's one of those cars that feel like no matter what you do, you won't spin it or slide off the road. It feels like a go-cart, except it's super refined and pretty comfortable at the same time. It's one of those cars that you drive and after that you need a one week break to forget about how good it iis before you sit behind a wheel of any other car because otherwise you're bound to be very disappointed.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yea VW snobs must really be hitting their heads now....let's just ignore that every single piece of that Seat that makes it as fast as it is was just taken over from VW... chassis, suspension, brakes, engine, gearbox...and that without VW this Seat would never even exist. They have the same mechanics, it's just set up differently. But stupid people like you don'tunderstand that having the same hardware, and setting it up differently makes a big difference in performance, and also that setting up the car to be a bit faster on the track usually makes it worse on the road, because you lose stability and safety in poor weather and bad roads, and you lose a lot of comfort and refinement as well. Leon R is set up more aggressively, more track focused, Golf R is set up for the road. I can guarantee you that while Golf R might be a touch slower on a perfectly dry, perfectly flat track with an even surface (and remember it's 5 door vs 3 door), because of it's setup its MUCH more comfortable and refined on the road, and better, more stable, safer, smoother to drive on the road, where it will spent 99,9% of time. You can be sure as hell that it will also be faster on real roads with bumps, different surfaces, cambers, different weather conditions, etc....because in case you didn't notice, real roads are nothing like smooth, flat and dry race tracks. So, while people with limited intellect might jump onto the "lololol vw sucks" bandwagon, Golf R is still a better car overall and in 9/10 situations faster than Leon R. So yea...poor bastards who will buy the Golf R over the Leon...they will have to spend their time in a car that's better in every way. (faster on track doesn't mean better when it comes to road cars, for reasons previously stated, anyone who doesn't realize that clearly is clueless about cars).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Snakebloke If you think a 5 series is anything other than perfect visually, you're just a fucking moron with zero taste. I've never heard ANYONE say that a 5 series is ugly or disgusting as you put it. That car is absolute perfection for a saloon in terms of design. It's perfectly balanced, proportions are spot on, every single part of that car, from any angle, looks better than any other car in the segment, and if you take any single part of that car, and think of how you could possibly improve it visually, you couldn't do it. Trust me, people infinitely more intelligent with far better taste agreed with me, as for the engineering part of the car, well, as a mechanical engineer I know very well why the 5 series is still the best car in the segment. That is a fact, not an opinion. Those who don't agree, again, are not relevant, because I don't value opinions of morons or people who talk about things they're not educated on, know nothing about, and have no experience with.
3
-
beastho
M135i or Boxter S, Cayman S? Roughly the same price? In which universe? M135i with the same equipment level as the RCZ will cost around 55000 euros, thats 15000 more. Base Cayman S costs 65000, put in equipment that RCZ comes with as standard, and it will be over 70000 euros. Besides, RCZ-R is faster than both of those on track. Even Megane RS is faster on Nurburgring than 1M, not 135i, but 1M, which is faster than 135i or Cayman. And RCZ-R is almost 1,5 sec faster than Megane RS around this short track, on a long track it would make an even bigger difference. I don't think you're quite aware of the components that RCZ-R uses. It currently has some of the best suspension systems you can find on the market this side of supercar region.
3
-
3
-
Light Yagami
Yea, you'd know, never being in a 50 km radius of either of these two cars. C5 is an excellent car, in many ways MUCH better than C class. C class, in fact, not even E class comes close to the refinement, smoothness, comfort and quietness of the C5. It's a very comfortable car in every way, the seats are amazing, huge, soft, supporting like a sofa at home, unlike the hard tiny seat in the C class.
C5 scored higher in safety than C class, it's got more room inside, bigger trunk, same equipment (actually more, you can't get adjustable air suspension on current C class, you can't get massage seats, etc.), the quality of the materials in the interior of the C5 is actually better than in the current C class, which feels very plasticky and dull inside, while you can get a C5 that COMPLETELY covered in leather, on the dash, door panels, velour on the roof, etc. Don't underestimate the C5 just because you lack any sort of knowledge about cars, plus you're very ignorant and acting as if you DO know something. And I know you'll come back with "it will fall apart" or "its unreliable" comment... well, check the latest GERMAN reliability ratings where it scored max. points, just as the C class did.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
***** Yea but it changed the stiffness of the body (and it's total bullshit when they claim it didn't, they can fool children in the kindergarten, not a mechanical engineer like me, even "rubber mounting" it has some effects). It did affect it at least a bit, but that is irrelevant. The rollcage might have slightly changed the distribution of weight, center of gravity, etc.
But that is again irrelevant, even if everything related to the weight was the same as the production car, even if the roll cage had the sole purpose to protect the driver in case of crash, that is already an advantage because the driver could push the car harder knowing that if he crashes he will be ok, instead of driving a road car that wont be as safe in a crash. Mentally when driving on a race track (and again, having more than 15 years of experience of track driving myself I'd know), it's very important to feel safe and comfortable. Even if you're just subconsciously aware that you simply can't get hurt if you crash, you'll consciously take more risk when driving. Just that advantage is an unfair advantage for the driver (and don't be naive and think that driver is not the most important component of the lap time on Nurburgring, average driver could not take these cars around it in less than 8:30 even with all assists enabled).
On top of that, compare the Megane and Civic laps side by side, see how much faster the Civic is in the straight, it literally looks like it accelerates like a car with 400hp not 300. And Megane keeps up because it's faster trough corners and during braking and corner exits. Listen to the tone of the tires and the slip angles, which are very specific and easy to recognize for semi-slick tires if you have experience of driving with them, again, an advantage for Honda over the Megane, which used Bridgestone more road focused tires.
In any case, even if Civic is faster, we're still comparing cars that came out SEVEN YEARS apart, and the engine in the Megane is actually pulling roots from the Megane II, so the engine basics, as well as gearbox, are basically 12-13 years old, whereas the Civic has a brand new drive train. It's not such a big feat to barely be able to beat a car from one or two generations ago, by a hair. When Megane 3 game out, it beat the old Megane RS 230 by 15 and Focus RS500 by almost 20 seconds per lap on the Nurburgring, Honda barely managed 3 seconds, WITH those unfair advantages.
3
-
Victor Hoyles 0.4 seconds of a difference is not exactly what I'd call "spanked". You're clearly a fanboy who is unable to think clearly and will exaggerate everything just to prove he's right. This video is 100% about driving, just a small mistake or a different line can make 1 second or more of a difference on a track with such slow chicanes and corners, where you can simply cut the chicane a bit more aggressively and save about 10 km/h of speed, so I would not use this video as any sort of proof, the times were just too close. I grew up at race tracks and have a lot of experience driving on them, and just by looking at this video and the track layout I can see where he could have easily fucked up without it showing on the video and still lost or gained more than just a second.
And the Megane (which beat the Seat in EVERY comparison so far except this one) had old brake pads which faded, so that time is totally out of the question, because they should have used the cars equally worn out mechanical parts. Furthermore, the Seat Leon is actually not the most hardcore version, because this one didn't have the Sub 8 minute perfrormance pack, which would reduce the time. On top of that, look how stiff the Civic is...just because it's suspension is much more track focused, it has so much more aero features, more power and more torque, it should have been far faster, but it wasn't. 0.4s is nothing when it comes to such slow cars...this is not F1 you know...this is a slow track, and 0.4 seconds of a difference is really small.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Oggoel If you want your 1.8 v-tec to achieve 6,7 l/100 km fuel consumption that it has on paper, you have to drive it EXTREMELY carefully, shift when it tells you to shift up, at under 3000 rpm, and if you do that, you will get nowhere because the engine has absolutely no power under 4500 rpm, and under that it feels like you're driving a car that has 70-80 hp. The point is, unless you drive 1.8 v-tec completely slowly, shifting at 2500 rpm, you WON'T achieve anything under 8,5 l/100km.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
mattheginger
All else is not equal, nowhere near equal.
You obviously have absolutely no experience with either of these cars, at least sit in them before talking about them. BMW and Audi being more expensive has nothing to do with the brand or the image, that's what ignorant people say. They're simply better cars, even if they have weaker engines like in this case...you can't deny that when you drive them, they're simply better. Everything...I mean....they have better sound profing, better seats, better seating position, better ergonomy in the interior, better quality of materials, plastics is higher quality, everything that looks like metal IS metal, not plastics painted silver, cloth material on the seats is better, foam in the seats is more supportive and comfortable, the headliner cloth is that nice silky finely knit stuff that only Germans and French lately put in their cars, the whole interior feels far more durable and higher quality, with better fit and finish. Close the door aggressively on the Mazda, and you can hear a cheap thump. Pull the door handle aggressively, and it will make a cheap noise. That doesn't happen on an Audi or BMW. They're feel far more solid and substantial, on top of that, you can look at all the details...like, they have better audio systems, better lights, better climate controls, better windscreen wipers, better headlights, quieter window electric motors, better brakes,....every little detail you can take and add up finally makes a better car overall, and justifies being more expensive. They're safer, have higher solidity of the body, and you can feel that when climbing up a curb at the side of the road, sometimes in Japanese cars you can hear creaking of the rubber door sealants, since the body flexes slightly. Germans feel heavy and substantial in a good way, without sacrificing agility or handling, they're more refined and smoother, more comfortable, more composed on the road, more stable at high speeds...driving a Mazda 3 at 200 km/h feels like it's not liking it and it wants you to slow down, it doesn't like to cruise at above 160 km/h unless road is flat and smooth. Driving an Audi A3 at 200 km/h feels like a walk in the park, especially in corners, or slightly bumpy highways or with crosswinds present, you could do it for hours without problems, in fact, A3 is more refined in terms of noise and smoothness at high speed than the Mazda 6. So no...it has nothing to do with a brand. You're paying more for an A3 becuase it has an Audi badge...you're paying more because it's a better car. Even with a weaker engine (which you can easily chip tune to 140-150hp, and it even improves fuel economy, I know becuase that's the case in a Golf with the same 1.6 TDI engine).
2
-
2
-
About 90% of mechanical components (and 100% of the ones that matter, such as the engines, gearboxes, chasis, suspension, body, etc) inside a Rolls are developed, engineered, tested and made by BMW in Germany. The only thing that's made in Britain are some parts of the interior trim.
The same thing can be said about Bentleys which are pretty much made by VW, and Mini which is made by BMW as well. Jaguars are not fully British either, neither are Range Rovers. They all use components and parts from other makers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
aquaphoenixx Civic that did the lap was not a production car at all. It was a pre-production vehicle, it had slick tires, it had a roll cage, no passenger or rear seats, probably either a lot of weight saving elsewhere or a lot of power added considering how fast it is in the straight line, so that time around Nurburgring is totally irrelevant, which makes it more annoying when everyone seems to mention it. Play the Megane and Type R Nurburgring videos side by side, start at the same point in the lap, you'll see how much faster Honda is in the straight line, it literally goes like it has closer to 400hp than 300, and in the every braking zone and every corner the Megane makes up a lot of time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tesla has a lot to worry about, because you don't buy a charging infrastructure, you buy a CAR. And Tesla cars are mediocre and INCREDIBLY overpriced, as cars. On top of that, they're the most unreliable cars on the market at the moment (despite having EV's which in theory should be far more reliable than ICE's) and they have serious quality control and production consistency issues. Something that any other reputable manufacturer sorted out decades ago. Any premium manufacturer will make FAR better EV cars than Tesla once they start doing it, and they have started doing it. BMW will have 20+ fully electric models within 3-4 years, Audi and Mercedes are going in the same direction, not to mention all the other European manufacturers who have shown concepts and plans to make it work as well.
As far as the infrastructure goes...well...Europe is all set already. EU is spending billions on building totally new infrastructure ON top of the existing one. If you need data, EU has over 100,000 charging stations in total, and only 2100 of those are Tesla's superchargers. So....what exactly does Tesla offer that's so revolutionary? Other than S class priced cars that feel as cheap as an A-class?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If this was done in the summer, I'd say Alfa had an unfair tire advantage. However, as it was done in the winter, in cold, damp weather, the BMW had a tire advantage. Those P-zero's are notoriously slippery in these conditions, while the Michelin PS 4S's are ridiculously grippy. Still, the Alfa rides far better than the BMW, it's much more comfortable, smooth and refined on the road, so even if it loses out on track, it's gonna be nicer to drive on the roads.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mattheginger
They're not from the same category. There's a reason why Audi and BMW are more expensive, it's because they're better, in every way. It just so happens that here they used the most basic and underpowered version of BMW and Audi, with most basic equipment, and put it against top of the line Mazda 3. All the basics of those cars like reliablity, safety, solidity, refinement, quality, etc. is far better. Seriously...as someone who tested the Mazda 3 not so long ago (it was a 2.0l petrol though with 120hp), it's nowhere near as good as European rivals. Something like Peugeot 308 makes it feel like the Mazda is a 10 year old model. It drives nice, but it sacrifices refinement and comfort, and feels simply cheaper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exige S? You want to compare a stripped down, 20 years behind in technology, bare Exige to a Cayman, which is a luxury coupe? One door panel in the Cayman costs more to make than the entire interior of the Exige. Let's not go into the fact that Exige S is horribly unrefined, uncomfortable, it's safety is a complete mystery, it has no sound proofing, it looks like a kit car, and if you look at the components under the skin, it's very primitive. Just look at it's body shell, chasis and suspension components...they look like something someone designed in AutoCAD during a coffe break and then hammered it all together in a shed as a hobby. Porsche Cayman is far more advanced car, much better engineered in every single, I repeat, in EVERY SINGLE detail, and performs better on track, and on the road. Even the Exige S is a joke on the track. A 275hp Renault Megane RS is faster around Nurburgring...and that's a 5 people, big boot, FWD hatchback, that also has 5 stars safety rating, 8 air bags, loads of equipment, and it basically a luxury car compared to any Lotus.
Oh and...how is the Evota a 2+2? 2 + 2 of what? Toddlers? The rear seat is a joke, the only way you can fit an adult in the back is if you take the front seats out and cut his head off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oggoel When I test drove the Civic, I drove it for about 15 kilometers, on a very well known road to me, , about 3 km's in city and about 12 km's outside, about half of those 12 km's is a road full of corners 3. /4. gear, 60-80 km/h, and half is opened road 100-110 km/h. I didnt push it hard, drove with traffic, shifting at about 4000 rpm, and car had over 9 l/100km at the end of test. Same route, Golf VI 1,4 TSI 122 hp, around 7 l. Astra 1.4t 140hp under 8l too. And both felt more powerful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vix121 If you understand what I'm trying to say. If you make a global model, then you need to involve all Ford divisions into development, not make EU Ford develop chassis, suspension, engines, gearboxes, body, safety gear, interior, and then let US division make a navigation system...and after that, US Ford will re-brand the car to Fusion and sell it as their own model. Like they did with Focus and Fiesta. They need to give something as well, not just take, otherwise its not ONE Ford.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oggoel Funny how you look at things so blindly. First of all, 1.8 v-tec achieves same MPG as 1.4 TSI only on paper, in real world, no. Also, 1,4 TSI has much more torque, and is actually faster in any acceleration test and it feels more powerful when you drive it. Its also much smoother, quieter, and it also revs freely to almost 7000 rpm if you want to. If you drive the 1.8 v-tec normally, it will consume MUCH more fuel than 1.4 TSI. I test drove both, I know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You forgot to mention in the comparison that Jaguar will do 7:50 time on road tires, while being comfortable, refined, quiet, you will sit inside surrounded by luxurious materials and top notch build quality, you will be inside a luxury car, and still go extremely fast. In GT500, you will be surrounded by cheapest plastic, no luxury at all, car will be extremely uncomfortable and unrefined (as even the normal mustang is)...not to mention it did 7:30 on SEMI-SLICK track tires, which cut lap time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Color has nothing to do with luxury, and there is no cadillac on the market which can be described as luxurious, well, at least not remotely comparable to what is considered luxury when it comes to cars likes Audis, BMW, Mercedes, etc. Lots of fake leather on dash, fake wood, fake plastic chrome and aluminium, or carbon fibre, and nowhere near the build quality of an A7 for example, means its not even a premium car, let alone a luxury one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derbigpr500 To conclude, its simple to make a car go fast around track if you ignore luxury, comfort, build quality, everyday use, driving in wet/cold/off track, etc... and merican car makers make sports cars like that. Thats why Mustang GT will never be as good as lets say Jaguar XKR, because XKR is a car, it does EVERYTHING well, and its still fast, probably as fast around track as GT500 if you put the same semi-slick track tires on it, despite having 100hp less and infinitely more luxury.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1