Comments by "Rousseau" (@rousseau327) on "Auto Express" channel.

  1. Lots of well deserved praise for the 12C and the 650S, but I rarely, if ever, hear reviewers using the word "special" to describe this car. That, I think, is the biggest problem Mclaren has.
    2
  2. Jgizzy -redacted- You've never driven a car that was actually running on fumes have you? "one or two gallons" is entirely enough for one ~1 minute lap, and will do so without performance handicaps.
    2
  3. swunt10 So if a car is cheaper, made of carbon fiber, is a hybrid, and has "BMW goods", it's the king of supercars? Lol, nice try.
    2
  4. swunt10 Japanese cars? Where in the list of cars I have listed out, did I list a Japanese one? I don't think much about the GT-R, but although since your sarcastic ass has brought it up, the LFA is more of a supercar than the i8 will ever be.  Which one of the recent BMWs can you actually call an "ultimate driving machine"? Please, if you still believe BMW is genuinely making cars to that motto, you are one blind fan of BMW. The E9x and E60 BMW were the last BMWs that can actually be considered ultimate driving machines. Oh yes, tell me more about how the 458 Speciale, Mclaren 650S, 911 Turbo S, and a plethora of upcoming Japanese hybrid supercars, are soo lacking in new technology. Get real, the i8 is not revolutionizing the world with its tech. Stop trying to make the i8 out to be what it isn't. There's nothing wrong with what the i8 is, it is just not a supercar, let alone the king of supercars.
    2
  5. swunt10 It doesn't matter if the LFA is that much more expensive, if one is going to claim the i8 as the king of supercars, it needs to be a better supercar than most if not all supercars available. And when did I EVER say an ultimate driving machine needs a big engine? I said BMW is no longer the ultimate driving machine. Look at the E92 M3, E46 M3, E60 M5, E39 M5, E36 M3, E30 M3. Those are CLASSIC examples of what the BMW ultimate driving machines should be like. I don't expect them to make mirror copies of them in modern form, but the F10 M5 is a far cry from anything "ultimate" in a driving machine. Want an ultimate driving sedan? Try the Panamera GTS. Motortrend even went as far to say the E63 AMG S is a better driving car than the M5. Ultimate driving machine? You really still believe that? Right, the i8 is quite original for its hybrid tech right? You, get real, because the only thing BMW did was put already existing hybrid tech into a sportscar. I did not say other cars have revolutionary tech, but the i8 does not either. And as far as carbon fiber goes, Mclaren uses it extensively. Your explanation on why a supercar is called a supercar shows you really know nothing about what makes supercars super. And so what if the hypothetical millionaire chooses to buy an i8? Great for him, great for BMW. You seem to think that I think the i8 is a piece of shit. I don't. I will repeat this, as it is my original point: While the i8 is a good hybrid sportscar, it is not even close to being the king of supercars. 
    2
  6. Tesla fanboys are becoming the new GT-R fanboys. If the Tesla loses a drag race, it's never the cars fault, always the driver. Dumbasses.
    2
  7. ***** I don't think you understand what Proof means..but benefit of the doubt. Congratulations buddy, read my second part. Hope you expand your horizons, because the GT3 is anything but a kitcar 911, and I still maintain that it is more special than the 570S based on other more reputable people's opinions on the subject.
    2
  8. While there are a non-insignificant number of people who want a high performance wagon, Ford probably has data that they don't sell well enough for them to make a Focus version of it. At least that's what my experience in PD tells me. Even if high performance wagons sell well for other brands, that doesn't necessarily means it sells well for other brands.
    2
  9.  @atthelord  It doesn't need to be an M car for it to feel like sportscar on the road without feeling like it's going to break your back. Back in the day, a 325i would be an exciting car to drive. It's no M car, but it's sharper and more exciting than anything short of a sportscar, and the Z3/Z4 were just the same. They are sharp sportscars that didn't make you feel like you were going to regret it in your back after the drive. BMWs nowadays aren't the same thing. This whole "comfort" argument, while valid for your typical luxury buyer anyway, is not what BMW used to be about.
    2
  10.  @atthelord  Lol, that's what this model is about, in this day and age. This Z lineup was never about a comfy roadster. It was always the experience of a roadster first, and everything else is secondary. If a 2 series is something that should be exciting, yet the Z isn't, then there is something seriously wrong with your perception of the BMW lineup. The Z4 is not a full blown M car, no way. But there is no reason in the world why a 2 seater convertible shouldn't put the driving experience before the comfort experience.
    2
  11. "Under the right conditions", meaning it can only autopilot on Audi's test track
    1
  12. I'm fairly certain the Turbo S has an option of stickier tires. Motortrend tested on with stickier tires.
    1
  13. +keanehgz Well, we're not from where you're from, are we? That renders whatever you said invalid, because where we're from, we have a right to whine for $50,000 for a Focus RS, regardless of how good the car is.
    1
  14. I'd rather save a few grand more and buy the American cars. Hot hatches made sense when they were much cheaper than the sportscars, but not when it's only a few grand's difference
    1
  15. no you dumbass, this will never be a fair comparison, it's a different class of vehicle
    1
  16. Mark Antar I believe the reviewer in this video said the 650S in the video got the more aggressive of the 2 tire options available on the car
    1
  17. anotherone10 Well I guess Porsche had the tires, Mclaren had the horses
    1
  18. Tobi Ogunsanwo Lol, that rating isn't conservative according to Porsche, it feels conservative according to people who have driven the car.
    1
  19. Tobi Ogunsanwo Andreas was using the term conservative in a feeling sense, not in the sense that Porsche underrated the engine power.
    1
  20. Tobi Ogunsanwo Yes, because when people talk, they never make implications or have underlying intentions of any sort, and they ALWAYS say everything exactly as it means. How thick are you? Prior to him saying the figures are conservative, he states the horsepowers per liter, and after he says it's conservative, he says it goes like hell. That's a statement of how a car feels, not how underrated the horsepower figures are. His way of saying conservative is, "this car feels faster than it says on paper". What many reviewers say is "Porsche is advertising less horsepower than it actually has". If you can tell the difference between the two, you really should not be quoting Andreas.
    1
  21. Tobi Ogunsanwo And you're not? Fact is, the way he used "conservative" is up to interpretation, your assumption only accounts for one interpretation, mine accounts for two, one of which is better than the other.
    1
  22. Tobi Ogunsanwo Well guess what buddy, there are two interpretations of what he said. 1) That Porsche is underrating the horsepower figures, which is what you think he means, and 2) that driving the car feels like there is more power than it says on paper. If you cannot differentiate the two, you really need to go back and drive a few more cars and take an english course before you begin to comment on this thread again. And concrete proof? No such thing as concrete proof in interpretations. Concrete proof is a thing of mathematics, science, and law. Not what you're trying to do. You don't have concrete proof either, because it's not possible in this subject. He says the figures are conservative while saying how fast the car is, therefore not directly correlating the conservatism with the power figures, but how the car feels. Which means the more sensible interpretation is the the 2nd one.  And your average person is quite blunt minded, if they're all like you.
    1
  23. Tomasz Stanek Because people want convenience. Sparing 30 minutes out of your life is harder than you think, especially if an alternative engine choice can refuel in 5 minutes. Add that to the fact that on long road trip, they're already spending a lot of time doing nothing but driving, adding 30 minutes would not make people happy. And then add THAT to the fact that people are forgetful, especially those in the age demographic that are likely to buy cars as expensive as a Tesla Model S, meaning there will be times when owners forget to charge at home, and would need 30 minutes at a supercharger to get a full charge while they could be in a rush to get to work, attend an event, or whatever their tasks are. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a Tesla. Everyday driving tasks without any money spent on fuel? Love that idea. But spending 30 minutes at a supercharger every time I want to recharge on the go is just not efficient enough for me.
    1
  24. gasdive And what happens when you need to charge on a relatively long distance trip? It's not the act of leaving your house, arriving at the gas station, and go back home that takes 20 minutes, its the act of refueling ONLY. Imagine if you were to drive to a supercharging station and charge. Given a 10 minute round trip (very close station), and a 30 minute charge, that's 40 minutes. Of course, you can just charge at home, but what if you need to leave as soon as possible? What if you need to leave mid-day after driving in the morning/noon? You may not have the time to charge at home, and you may not want to waste 40 minutes charging at a supercharger. In terms of time, there is absolutely no outlet in which an EV is more efficient at the moment. Tesla obviously realizes this, and they're experimenting with battery swapping technology as an alternating to high speed charging. But it's quite clear that there are people who refuse to recognize this flaw in EVs.
    1
  25. ***** Sure everyday driving is fine with EVs. Nowhere did I deny that. However, in what world do people ONLY drive short distances? Did you happen to conveniently forget about that? You're another one of those EV fanatics that are blind to the current flaws of EVs. EVs are not perfect, and I'm pointing out an issue all EVs share, and it's an issue that may not affect you, but will affect others. Unless you have a solution to follow up on the "Fuck gas stations and gas" comment, you're just another person who can't face reality.
    1
  26. bammerburn Where I live, California, trips from northern california to southern california are not uncommon. They are trips that are well over 5 hours one-way. Majority of the people want to get to their destinations as soon as possible. You want to be the guy that tells them they have to add at least an extra 30 minutes to their plans (one-way)? I'm sure there are people who will do it, seeing as the plentiful amount of superchargers in California, but it doesn't change the fact that the MAJORITY still see it as an inconvenience. And what of in areas of the world where superchargers are truly few and far between? You'd have to drive like SAINT to ensure you get the most out of your charge, because of the sparsely located superchargers. And before you say anything, as common as these long distance trips are, I realize people don't do this everyday. But again, the MAJORITY of people would want a car than can do it. And however irrelevant you think this is to you, it's a fact that it's a problem with EVs, just like how not being able to refuel at home is problem with gasoline powered cars. Just because EVs are great for daily use does not mean everyone can convert, even if given the money, and it certainly doesn't mean it's without its flaws.  And I did say for everyday driving, EVs are great, and I do love the idea. And if I had a family, I would love to have one. Did you read my comments before saying I have problems?But seeing as I don't have a family, I really can only afford one car. I travel a few times a year, and the problem with EVs that I just described means an EV, at the moment, cannot be my only car. I know for a fact that I am not the only person in this situation. 
    1
  27. bammerburn And I just read your smartphone analogy. Terrible analogy. If you really do not see the difference between using a phone vs. a car, you really shouldn't be the one saying I have problems.
    1
  28. obielicious It is not. A smartphone that runs out of battery does not leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere on a long distance drive. You run out of battery on a phone? Drive to the nearest payphone. Maybe takes 10-20 minutes out of your life, tops. Need to use other smartphone functions? If you carry your charger around, you quite literally plug your phone in at a local Starbucks for a minute or two, run whatever app you need to run, and be on your way; you can use the phone as it charges. Can you use your car as it charges? If it really is an emergency that you need to use a depleted phone, there are ways of doing so within 5 minutes time, given you have a charger. Hell, nowadays you can plug it into your car to charge as you use it. But run out of charge on your car? You're stranded and will be waiting for a tow. Anyone who has been stranded knows this could an hour or more just for the tow truck to arrive. And you clearly cannot just charge it for 5 minutes and then use whatever charge you just got, because before long you'll be back for more. And for obvious reasons, you can't drive your car as it charges, like you can use a smartphone as it charges. And if, as bammerburn  explained, the only thing the EV does to change people's lifestyle is to change their habits around charging times, then yes, it's a good analogy. But that can be said about ANYTHING that charges. The point of this thread isn't the solely the charging times of EVs, but the problems of EVs that prevent everybody from buying one. In that respect, the cellphone analogy is completely off: a big problem is running out of battery on long drives, or even aggressive shorter drives. Depleting a cellphone battery generally has nowhere near the same repercussions when you use it extensively as depleting the battery on your car where you're not at a place to charge either.
    1
  29. gasdive It's not the act of running out of charge that's the problem. The matter of the scarce supercharging stations relative to gas stations (this leads to meticulous planning on long distance drives, and very cautious driving), and the long charging times, even for the superchargers. In everyday driving, I concede (I already have, in fact. You'd know if you read my comment) that EVs are really quite good for your wallet, your time, and the environment.  It's not a matter of it being IMPOSSIBLE to drive EVs on long distances, as you seem to think I'm implying, it's an inconvenience. I have been on 7 hour+ journeys with a Tesla Model S before. If you drive above 75 mph, you are not getting optimal distance for your charge. It was an extreme inconvenience, as it lengthened our travel times, made our foot itch cause it was hardly on the pedal of a very fun car to drive, and everyone around you is annoyed at you for driving at, or 5 mph lower than the speed limit. Keep in mind, this is in California, where superchargers are really quite common compared to the rest of the world. And when we did stop for a charge at a supercharging station, it added over 30 minutes to our already elongated travel time. If you're fine with all of this, EVs are fine, all around. But it doesn't change the fact that many, if not most, people are NOT fine with these issues. It remains a problem that needs to be addressed in EVs in order for the majority of the world to spend their own money to buy an EV over an all around more convenient ICE vehicle.  And there are enough 24hr gas stations for you to arrive at one that is not, and then find one that is. If you left your tank to be so close to empty that you got stranded at a non-24hr gas station, that is a matter of your own lack of planning. It's common knowledge to start looking for a gas station well before the needle hits red. And even then, cars have reserve fuel that can keep you running for 40-60 miles, depending on your car's MPG rating. 
    1
  30. emdec55 Again, look at what I am actually saying. Everything you just said, I have already said to be why EVs are good for everyday driving.  And the act of refueling a ICE is around 5 minutes. If you take any longer, you either have an abnormally large tank, or you're doing something wrong. This does not include waiting in line, or finding a gas station, which are also things you do for superchargers. 
    1
  31. Tim Austin Do tell me more about how that law is enforced. And you ever heard of switching drivers? Just because you need a rest after every 2 hours doesn't mean the car has to.  And FYI, there are no laws, in the U.S. at least, that says non-commercial drivers have a legal limit to the number of hours they drive. And even commercial drivers have a limit of 5 hours. It is only a suggestion to rest every 2 hours, and even in that suggestion, they recommend 15 minutes.  And it's quite alright if you don't want to be my passenger. I wouldn't have befriended someone like you in the first place.
    1
  32. rydhwan Not the point of this thread. 
    1
  33. Tim Austin Show the exact law. Everything I've read from the DMV handbook point to it being a suggestion. Legal responsibility? Cut the crap. If I can stay wide awake and focused for over 2 hours at a time, I will. Just because you have the focus capacity of a teaspoon doesn't mean everyone else does. Your failure here is trying to measure EVERYONE'S capacity with a standard time. I know people who can barely drive for 1 hour let alone 2. And others that can drive 4-5 without feeling fatigued. By the way, you haven't even shown me the actual "law" yet. Please cut this "legal" crap until you do. I would hold off on that really immature attack on petrol heads if I were you. Are you trying to insinuate that I am selfish and irresponsible because I can drive longer than you want to believe (what a joke, refer to previous paragraph) and a petrol head by extension because I am objectively looking at both the petrol vehicles and electric ones? Wow, really is what a petrolhead is, huh? Your prejudices is pretty clear. At least TRY to be objective. Refer to the last paragraph if you're actually deluded enough to think what I am here is not objective. How many trips have co-drivers? Well I don't know about you, but all of my friends are older than the age of 18 and know how to drive, therefore, all of them can be co drivers, if even for only an hour. No time for toilet breaks? Buddy, if nature is calling, you have to go. Unless you want to go in a bottle, which we really didn't want to in a Tesla, you HAVE to make the stops.  You have issues if a toilet stop and swapping seats in a car takes you 30 minutes. And for the sake of argument, even if it does last 30 minutes, how many rest areas have superchargers right now?  Again, please read what I previously wrote. I said nobody, hopefully, drives so long everyday. But it's not uncommon is many areas of the world to drive these distance a few times a year. People want a car that can do everything, yes? Well at the moment, it's difficult (note, not impossible) to do this with an EV. However minute you may think this is, it is an issue that bothers some people nonetheless. Just because you like EVs, it doesn't mean it's without flaws. And just because these flaws don't mean squat to you, doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. Widen your vision. AND NO FOR FUCKS SAKE. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A HORRIFIC INCONVENIENCE. I am just saying it IS one, and it MAY be one that is too big to look over for MANY people. Jesus fucking christ, every time anyone has ANY criticisms about EVs or points out an certain aspect where gasoline cars MAY have the edge, people like you go nuts and think these critics are completely bashing on the car. Is it that hard to acknowledge that EVs are not perfect? Is it that hard to actually read the parts where I say EVs are actually quite great? Is it that hard to actually keep your views objective and see the pros and cons of each system? Cause right now, you obviously can only see the pros of EVs and the cons of ICE engine cars. 
    1
  34. Tim Austin Again, I cannot see how you fail to understand this, on that particular trip and quite frankly every single other trip we've taken since and prior to as a group, we switch drivers every one to two hours. There were four people in the car, so unless the car needed to stop, we were refreshed and ready to go. That still doesn't change the fact that you can't measure everybody's ability to focus by a standard. They may be stupid and push their limit way too far, setting a standard time limit is just stupid for reasons stated in the previous post. And calm down? Wouldn't even have to be so worked up if I didn't have to spell out everything and repeat everything I've said before. 
    1
  35. Tim Austin You clearly have not even thought about reading anything I wrote two comments prior to this one, as everything you just wrote was addressed in that comment. 
    1
  36. rydhwan Irrelevant. That does not void the inconvenient parts of EV ownership. I never said petrol cars are perfect.
    1
  37. rydhwan Nothing. Even EVs have its flaws, one of which I pointed out. It just so happens to be unfortunate for EVs because people are accustomed to petrol cars, and therefore the flaws of EVs may stand out to some people more than the flaws of petrol cars. Seeing as you get that nothing is perfect, I really don't see the point of what you've contributed to this thread.
    1
  38. EoRdE6 Ten minutes to fuel up, go to the bathroom, and get coffee. 20 minutes at the supercharger is for the recharging only. This has been brought up a few times in this thread already..
    1
  39. rydhwan The only one here trolling is you. 
    1
  40. EoRdE6 My point was, you used the 10 minute at the gas station to measure not only refueling time, but other activities as well. Without getting coffee and using the bathroom, the refueling time would be far less than 10 minutes. And yes, battery swapping is incredibly fast, but recharge/swapping time isn't the only issue barring people from converting to EVs, as mentioned before. It simply isn't as simple as "spend the same money, spend less time, therefore all is well, everyone convert to EVs."
    1
  41. EoRdE6 I am not denying the benefits of EVs (and btw, a better interior is not one of them), but those benefits are not enough to have everyone who has the money to convert to EVs, even by all logical reasoning. THAT'S the point, and you don't seem to be able to grasp that just because you see the good aspects of EVs. 
    1
  42. +Porsche Highly Did you even watch the whole video?
    1
  43. bezor Ta The 7:08 time is not legitimate. Nismo tuned the time attack GT-R Nismo SPECIFICALLY for the Ring, gave it more power, non street legal aero, and a bigger wing compared to the GT-R Nismo customers will buy. Whereas every other manufacturers just optimizes for the air temperature/pressure, dry/wet road surfaces, time of day, etc. Nissan actually tuned their GT-R Nismo for the Nurburgring, like they do with every other GT-R they ran around the Ring. So don't have your hopes too high for that GT-R Nismo. This would also explain why no one manufacturer could get the GT-R around the Ring anywhere even CLOSE to the times Nissan claims.
    1
  44. bezor Ta You don't understand the difference between tuning for a track and tuning for development, do you? Porsche tuned the 918 for development. Nissan tuned the GT-R for a track. BIG big difference.
    1
  45. ShawJohn31 Saying AutoExpress is a poor show just because they have one mediocre video while they make other quality videos is NOT criticism. You're a joke if you think that's criticism.
    1
  46. Why would you pit a low-slung, light, sportscar, against a tall, heavy, crossover? All yall acting like they pitting the M2 against a PDK Cayman GTS or something.
    1
  47. ***** Yes, let's buy a driver's car that weighs 2 million tons and is about the length of a damn swimming pool. This is exactly what we mean buy putting the right kind of tech and character in the right cars.
    1
  48. swunt10 Yes, let me just brag to the next person about my light ass carbon cell. Idiot, if I'm in the market for a limousine, if the carbon cell does not give it a more solid and luxurious ride quality, I could hardly give a shit.
    1
  49. swunt10 A lighter car does drive better dynamically, probably does accelerate quicker, brakes better, and perhaps helps fuel economy. Which one of these is essential in my search for a luxury-first limousine? None. Sure, it'll be a bonus, but you need to establish the essentials before you branch out. For example, one would not begin to think about fuel efficiency in a 911 before they've made it as engaging to drive as they can first. And a heavier car is generally safer than a lighter one. It's simple physics. A bigger car may not be safer, but a more massive one will be.
    1
  50. ***** That's only because BMW will offer a low horsepower version. You really think and equivalently equipped 7 series will be that much cheaper than its S Class competitor?
    1