You learn something new... - Cars you didn't know existed, until now!

  • Thread starter Rue
  • 6,192 comments
  • 1,031,794 views
Tornado
Pretty sure in the past decade the big three have replaced all of the older V6/I4 engines with clean sheet designs that more directly match those of other companies.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And now, not being satisfied with a good job, are going full Euro with smaller engines in larger, heavier cars. Because more weight and less power is always a good thing!
 
Those smaller engines tend to make more power than the ones they replace. If not, they have slightly less power, with less weight (engine wise) and improved fuel economy.
 
White & Nerdy
And now, not being satisfied with a good job, are going full Euro with smaller engines in larger, heavier cars. Because more weight and less power is always a good thing!
Click to expand...

As opposed to the barges powered by pencil sharpeners that came before them? :odd:

Thanks to European influence, United States engines these days are more economical, lighter, faster and generally more robust and better. Surely that's a good thing?

But I suppose, unless it's a gas guzzling V6 or V8 which haemorrhages oil, it's just not got that 'Murrican charm, has it? The largest engine displacement on a production car I think still belongs to the 1971-1976 Cadillac Eldorado. 8.2L/500ci. Its power at the wheel was at best, 235hp. In 1977 they reduced the engine capacity to 7.2L/425ci at... 180hp. It was also an FF, which I never have understood.

That, frankly, is wasteful and not good enough. Thankfully, Detroit has learnt from those halcyon days.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
As opposed to the barges powered by pencil sharpeners that came before them? :odd:

Thanks to European influence, United States engines these days are more economical, lighter, faster and generally more robust and better. Surely that's a good thing?

But I suppose, unless it's a gas guzzling V6 or V8 which haemorrhages oil, it's just not got that 'Murrican charm, has it? The largest engine displacement on a production car I think still belongs to the 1971-1976 Cadillac Eldorado. 8.2L/500ci. Its power at the wheel was at best, 235hp. In 1977 they reduced the engine capacity to 7.2L/425ci at... 180hp. It was also an FF, which I never have understood.

That, frankly, is wasteful and not good enough. Thankfully, Detroit has learnt from those halcyon days.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the 70's. I meant how, after designing newer and better engines, they're now replacing them with downsized & force-fed engines as if we were suffering under Europe's ridiculous displacement-based road tax system and even more ridiculous gas prices that still manage to make ours look cheap. Not to mention, the downsized engines sometimes aren't even any more fuel efficient. 2.0-2.5L NA inline fours in compacts and baseline family sedans are being replaced by 1.4 and 1.6 turbos, and now Chevrolet's top Malibu has a 2.0T pretending to be a V6 - I think Ford did something similar with the new Fusion too.

And all the extra weight is a further detriment. It seems as if cars have started to spread in every direction, and even if they aren't that much bigger than before, all the complicated, unnecessary, and often anti-ergonomic gadgetry they add still weighs quite a bit.

The unfortunate part is, no one cares. People don't care that their car sounds like a wheezing Weedwhacker when they stomp on it because they'll never, ever stomp on it and they'd rather not hear their car at all, ever. Most people's idea of driving pleasure appears to be cruising down the freeway with the cruise control on, controlling wireless internet radio via a touchscreen they have to take their eyes off the road to use, not being subjected to any sort of engine noise or road feel at all.
 
I've driven a V6 Malibu, in two different flavors:

1024px-1997-1999_Chevrolet_Malibu_--_03-21-2012.JPG

And:
1024px-2004-2005_Chevrolet_Malibu_--_05-01-2010.jpg


You weren't going to get any driving pleasure from it in the first place. The only difference between them and a Camry in that regard is that they didn't hold resale value nearly as well.
 
Last edited:
Times, tastes and markets change.

You have a V6 J-body. Unfortunately, that sort of car is no longer profitable nor fashionable.

Deal w/it.
 
White & Nerdy
I wasn't talking about the 70's. I meant how, after designing newer and better engines, they're now replacing them with downsized & force-fed engines
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as: newer and better. Again.

as if we were suffering under Europe's ridiculous displacement-based road tax system and even more ridiculous gas prices that still manage to make ours look cheap.
Click to expand...

The increased globalization of the auto industry is a good thing for the companies. Now, instead of making multiple different engines for the different markets, economies of scale save them a fair chunk by offering these engines around the world.

Not to mention, the downsized engines sometimes aren't even any more fuel efficient.
Click to expand...

That's the exception, not the rule.

2.0-2.5L NA inline fours in compacts and baseline family sedans are being replaced by 1.4 and 1.6 turbos, and now Chevrolet's top Malibu has a 2.0T pretending to be a V6 - I think Ford did something similar with the new Fusion too.
Click to expand...

It's not pretending to be anything other than the engine it is.

And all the extra weight is a further detriment. It seems as if cars have started to spread in every direction, and even if they aren't that much bigger than before, all the complicated, unnecessary, and often anti-ergonomic gadgetry they add still weighs quite a bit.
Click to expand...

You mean like the new Range Rover, that grew in every measurement and shed a few hundred pounds doing it? Or the Mazda6 dropping roughly 150kgs for the new model year? Manufacturers have been serious about the weight issue for a while now; BMW and Audi both have made efforts for newer models to at the very least weigh the same as the previous generations. The A3 (and really, all the Golf-sized cars that will be coming on the MQB platform) has shaved off a fair chunk of weight too.

As for unnecessary; that's only your opinion.

The unfortunate part is, no one cares. People don't care that their car sounds like a wheezing Weedwhacker when they stomp on it because they'll never, ever stomp on it and they'd rather not hear their car at all, ever.
Click to expand...

For the vast majority of buyers of the Fusion and Malibu you mentioned above: uh, yeah. These aren't cars built for track-day enthusiasts, and they shouldn't be.
 
*can't be bothered to quote*

I owned a 2.2L Caviler & now own a 2.2L Cobalt (basically the same car) & I can say the 2.2L in the Cobalt is like a 5.6 V8 compared to the 2.2L in the Caviler. Sometimes it seems like they are dialing it back but trust me they aren't.
 
Spoil-t
*can't be bothered to quote*

I owned a 2.2L Caviler & now own a 2.2L Cobalt (basically the same car) & I can say the 2.2L in the Cobalt is like a 5.6 V8 compared to the 2.2L in the Caviler. Sometimes it seems like they are dialing it back but trust me they aren't.
Click to expand...

Better not put that one in a Camry...
 
Ken Koios
Ferrari Pinin

FerrariPinin_01_1000-700x350.jpg
Click to expand...

I love this car, it was initially a non-runner concept car but later made into a runner by the Belgian Ferrari importer who bought it.
As well as forecasting some other Pininfarina cars, it's grille was apparantly also the inspiration for the last Opel Senator.

opel_senator_b_cd_2.jpg
 
Ferrari inspired the Vauxhall/Opel Senator. I did not know that.

It's like the Ferrari Daytona and Rover SD1 all over again.
 
The 1969 M6B McLaren Can-Am Race Car. Powered by an all-aluminum Ford Boss 494 (bored 429) (8.1L) full HEMI engine using a 429 crank and Nascar parts pumped out a naturally aspirated figure of a whopping 777hp at 7,000rpm and 579lb-ft of torque and idled at 900rpm.

Ford built 13 of these engines for Mario Andretti to use in the McLarens in the 1969 season. He reported that he could break the tires loose in any gear, anywhere on the track. Pure awesome.

image_homepage_hero.jpg



FIengine2.jpg
 
Well, these cars didn't actually exist, but here are some media mock-ups from 1990 of the proposed Daimlers (British marque, not to be confused with the German parent company Daimler AG). Rumours of a revival of this dormant brand came about with Ford's purchase of Jaguar. Jaguar acquired all rights to the British Daimler marque much earlier, and was included in the deal along with the Lanchester marque. As an aside, Lanchester and Daimler passed onto the ownership of Tata when Jaguar was again sold on in 2007.

A heavy influence from the XJ40 and the XJ Series III can clearly be seen.

CliffsLimo3sketch.m.jpeg
 
I kinda like it. If I had a little thing like that I'd do something like that too. Except I wouldn't make it like a BMW. :sly:
 
The Vanishing Boy
^ Thats not rare. Thats questionable. In fact you posted at the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't know it existed until I saw it the other day, so I'm technically correct...

cliche_technically_correct.jpg


Apparently on sale in the UK now, a Chinese manufacturer, hence the disregard for copyright infringement
 
Last edited:
The Volvo P1900 is pretty forgotten. I think it should stay that way.

volvo-sport-beach.jpg


volvo_p-1900_fs.jpg


4653509002_025fa003bf.jpg


Edit: Let chuck some of this on too, Mohs Ostentatienne Opera Sedan. Only one 'door' and looks like a Rolls Royce that got bottled in a bar brawl and stitched back together by a blind man.

1968Mohs-Ostentatienne-opera-sedan.jpg


Mohs-Ostentatienne-Opera-Sedan-560x373-0b2acab3b03a1e52.jpg


tumblr_lfqsksyfvc1qaze90o1_500.jpg
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back