Comments by "BeyerT1" (@derbigpr500) on "Auto Express"
channel.
-
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