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