Cars That Could Have Been Better

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBM01
  • 85 comments
  • 2,750 views
Or you could keep your money and still end up with a decent tyre-wheel setup. It's not worth whatever you'd pay.
 
Custom wheels suck. I've NEVER seen a car whose look is enhanced by custom wheels. Stock wheels are always - 100% of the time - better than anything else.
Click to expand...
Yay!
 
Your not overseas. Spell tire correctly damnit! :)

I don't know. For right now I'm thinking of just getting some stickier tires, but I don't think bigger wheels to get bigger tires is a bad buy.
 
Originally posted by Goomba
Your not overseas. Spell tire correctly damnit! :)
Click to expand...


I'm from Guam and I lived there until I went to college - so there's my excuse. :D

I don't know. For right now I'm thinking of just getting some stickier tires, but I don't think bigger wheels to get bigger tires is a bad buy.
Click to expand...

I do. Stickier tyres solve the problem! Sort of. What do the sort of wheels/tyres you want cost?
 
About a grand. Rota Tarmac IIs or Downshifts for $600 and the tires are Kuhmo MXs for about $122 a tire.

Downshift:

rt17Downshift50048Gold_01.jpg


Tarmac II:

rota17tarmac2bronze50048_01.jpg


HAHA! I stolez da imagez!
 
Originally posted by []AzNDrifter[]
I think the Honda Civic SiR should have as much HP as the Honda Civic Type R
Click to expand...

Well American never got a SiR...And second...If they made the SiR have as much HP as the type R...why even bother making the Type R or vice versa?......

And on the TT 350Z thing.......
2+ seats = good idea..
TT Stock = bad idea
 
Here's a car that should have and could have been much better: the '03 Mercury Marauder. Pityful that a 300 hp neo-muscle car would see a V6 Honda Accord's taillights in a drag race.


M
 
I like those Tarmac IIs. They look better than any stock wheels I've ever seen.
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
I like those Tarmac IIs. They look better than any stock wheels I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Yes, very nice and smooth. Think the bronze would look good on my black WRX?
 
Yes! I like black on black even more.

(Please take that last comment out of context if you wish.)
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Yes! I like black on black even more.

(Please take that last comment out of context if you wish.)
Click to expand...

OMFG GIGGL3!

I hate black wheels. I had them on the RS, they have no definition really.
 
First off, I like the S2000. It is very sporty with a high-revving engine and impressive driving technique. But I think that since the S2000 could use just a touch more horsepower. It's obviously a great car. And I feel it needs more power, just as the Mazda RX-8 does. But as I know, relying on horsepower to sell a car doesn't help sales very much. I think despite the 240hp engine, cars like the S2000 and RX-8 have more reliable and innovative engines rather than adamant V8 powerplants in muscle cars. For sportscars of our day, the S2000 could be maybe a 260 or 276 or 280 horsepower motor still pumping out the good revs. I think only the engine needs some work. Other than that, the S2000 and the newer one are alright.

The new NSX is actually stylish with its non-retractable lights (thank God). But its looks are very questionable. The newer NSX is in the same s*** as the C6 Corvette. Two cars that have non-retractable lights, but with somewhat off styling. The C6 has it worse, but the NSX could first look a little more aggressive. But the newest NSX isn't a disappointment in my view. The headlights can probably be a little bigger and more stylish (not to say the ones now are bad). Other than that, the newer NSX is still an affordable supercar (unless you consider the Lotus Elise a supercar).

The Honda Integra/Acura RSX I'm not a real fan of. The headlights are alright, don't really like the grill, the taillights need to be revised, but other than that, I kind of like the older Integra, give or take its styling over the RSX.

So three Honda/Acura rants. What car (or even trucks, vans, or SUVS) could have been better?
 
Well I feel that every car can be improved in someway. There isnt one car that dosent have its weakness. No car is perfect. Not even my favorite car the Nissan Skyline GT-R. It has alot of weakness just like any other car. In my opinion, but some of you may think otherwise.

Originally posted by Driftster
Well American never got a SiR...And second...If they made the SiR have as much HP as the type R...why even bother making the Type R or vice versa?......

And on the TT 350Z thing.......
2+ seats = good idea..
TT Stock = bad idea
Click to expand...

How about we get the Civic Type R then :D. There has been a rumor about Honda releasing a Type R verison of the Civic and RSX but we will have to wait. The fastest civic in our current production line is the Civic SI which is about 40hp weaker than the Type R. Also the suspention and brakes also arent as good.

Why is a TT bad thing for a 350z? I know the price will increase rapidly but I would enjoy seeing a Turbocharged 350z. The 300ZX TT was pretty sucessful. Its faster than our current 350z. Just think of a turbocharged 350! It would be awesome. As for the 2+2 I say, if you want a 4 seater 350z go with the Infiniti G35. Its basically the same and offer coupe (2 doors) and sedan (4 doors). With the sedan you get 260hp and AWD system the Altessa system same as found in the GT-R's.


Cars like the Honda S2000 and Mazda RX8 are underpowered. I agree, I would like to see more power and torque for both S2000 and the RX8. Maybe a coupe verison of the S2000 also?


The Honda NSX should get more power and thats going to happen with the HSC (Honda Sport Concept) the new NSX. Its going to make more than 300hp, but we dont have the exact detail at the moment, its still a concept.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Here's a car that should have and could have been much better: the '03 Mercury Marauder. Pityful that a 300 hp neo-muscle car would see a V6 Honda Accord's taillights in a drag race.


M
Click to expand...
Yes. And it's pitiful that Ford has come out with a 5.0 L modular crate engine anyway. Why couldnt it find a home in the Marauder? Anyway, I think that the mediocre performance has something to do with fuel economy concerns.
 
Originally posted by JohnBM01

I think the latest Toyota Celica could have been better. Now many of you can probably recall the last Celica. It had four big lights at the front, available in front or rear wheel drive. Horsepower went from low up to 276. When the latest Celica came out, it was edgy, had the little grill and everything. Horsepower numbers don't really touch the 200hp club. To me, the Celica is VERY racy. It is almost as if you can tune the NA engine to 300hp, slap on racing tires, a functional touring car or GT wing to help, and the end result? Weekend road racer. In the tuner department, the car is porbably the more popular in the Toyota line. I obviously think horsepower could have been at least 225 or 260, with four-wheel drive. Other than that, I don't think the car is a disappointment.

Now it's your turn. Agree/disagree with my claim, or come up with your own. I'll step back and await replies.
Click to expand...


well, i really like the new Celica's, but i still like the last one's better. I love the 4 headlight set up! I don't know much about those cars though. I didn't think they sold the GT-4 here, but apparently they sold 'All-Trac's here in america? WHERE CAN I GET ONE? well, i currently own a 2001 Celica GT-S, i've had it for 4 days now, and i LOVE it! the only thing that could have been better, that I've noticed so far after putting over 120+miles (80+miles on first day), is the the 6 Speed shifter could be smoother. but TRD sells a short shifter, so maybe that would fix the problem.

Car that could have been better: 4th Gen CAMARO! you talk about BLAH styling!
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Here's a car that should have and could have been much better: the '03 Mercury Marauder. Pityful that a 300 hp neo-muscle car would see a V6 Honda Accord's taillights in a drag race.


M
Click to expand...

This is the comparison everyone makes, isn't it? Everyone should be informed of two things:

1. The Mercury Marauder is the quickest large sedan since 1996.
2. The Honda Accord V6 is the second-quickest midsize sedan of all-time.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Marauder is quicker than every one of the Accord's competitors except the Nissan Altima which is the quickest midsize sedan of all-time (yes, I know about the Ford Taurus SHO V8, but for the purposes of this biased comparison, I'm not calling it a midsize but rather a performance sedan - so basically, it competed against the M5 and E55. Good luck).

The Marauder does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. It's not slow. It's probably not even much slower than the 1994-1996 Chevrolet Impala SS.
 
The Marauder is a ****ing boat with a couple wheels and a large engine slapped on. 6.8 seconds isn't that fast.

My parents just bought a '97 Saturn SL2. I bet it could have been better.
 
The marauder is meant to be a boat, all the cars in its class are boats. In the new Accord, aren't the headers intergrated into the intake manifold making trouble some to uo-grade. Some said earlier, that they should make the RSX and the neon SRT-4 RWD, in my opinion that will never happen, those cars were specifically directed towards the FWD market.
And m5 what do you do for a living that you have all these cars?
 
Originally posted by rollazn


Why is a TT bad thing for a 350z? I know the price will increase rapidly but I would enjoy seeing a Turbocharged 350z. The 300ZX TT was pretty sucessful. Its faster than our current 350z. Just think of a turbocharged 350! It would be awesome. As for the 2+2 I say, if you want a 4 seater 350z go with the Infiniti G35. Its basically the same and offer coupe (2 doors) and sedan (4 doors). With the sedan you get 260hp and AWD system the Altessa system same as found in the GT-R's.
Click to expand...

Well i'm pretty sure there are people that would enjoy a 2+2 350z as apposed to just buying a G35...Considering it has more power stock, and in some opinions including my own the 350z looks alot more race oriented as apposed to the sleek G35.
The Honda NSX should get more power and thats going to happen with the HSC (Honda Sport Concept) the new NSX. Its going to make more than 300hp, but we dont have the exact detail at the moment, its still a concept.
Click to expand...
I could have sworn it was a full blown replacement for the NSX, and not a revamped one...And not to nitpick but i think the current NSX makes 300+ HP in stock trim...just dimmed down due to # restraints like so many other japanese cars.

P.S... SRT4 would be nice RWD but doesn't need to be..it just needs a stock LSD that is sturdy, and a new fuel map and a fuel cutoff that isn't as low as the stock one......It shouldn't be able to backfire so EASILY in stock trim.
 
The G35 is the exact same engine, I believe 15 less, woopty do 15, and thats only cause of electronics you change that easily if you wanta 2+2
 
Originally posted by knightinwhite86

And m5 what do you do for a living that you have all these cars?
Click to expand...

I steal cars. Ha, ha ha ha!

Whether or not it will happen, the SRT-4 should be made RWD.
Click to expand...

The SRT-4 should be made AWD - then the WRX drivers would stop saying, 'yeah, but I can beat you in the wet.'

We all know Dodge can't come up with that sort of engineering, though, and only serious companies change the drivetrain for just one trim level. Mitsubishi, for instance. Oh wait, they're billions in debt. Well, whatever. Dodge's SRT product line is off to a crap start if it isn't even competitive with established players in the segment like the WRX and even the Lancer and STi. That said, I think Dodge actually realises this, hence the power boost.

The G35 is the exact same engine, I believe 15 less, woopty do 15, and thats only cause of electronics you change that easily if you wanta 2+2
Click to expand...

It's actually just seven less in the G35 coupe, which is negligible (though the 27 less in the G35 sedan is a different story).
 
Sure, AWD would be even better. I can deal with a major power boost if they can't change the drivetrain. Like 310 HP.
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Sure, AWD would be even better. I can deal with a major power boost if they can't change the drivetrain. Like 310 HP.
Click to expand...

Good idea - 310hp on a front-wheel drive small sedan. Always the dreamer, Klos.
 
99% of the WRX and STi owners at ClubWRX.com acknowledge the STR-4 as being a good, fast little car. In fact, most that race them will give the STR-4 the advantage and it'll be from a rolling start. The AWD powertrain loss is worse and the ratios suck.

It's odd though, even though I enjoy having a fast car, and would like a faster one, I don't think I would go for an SRT-4. It just doesn't appeal to me for some reason.
 
Originally posted by Driftster
Well i'm pretty sure there are people that would enjoy a 2+2 350z as apposed to just buying a G35...Considering it has more power stock, and in some opinions including my own the 350z looks alot more race oriented as apposed to the sleek G35.
Click to expand...

The power isnt a problem just like they said 7hp isnt alot. The G35 coupe is just as quick as a 350z around a track its not that much slower even though it weights alittle bit more. 350z is the quicker of the 2 on paper. Im not going to lie, 350z look way better than the G35 coupe. I dont know what about the G35 rear end that I dont like but its weird.

Originally posted by Driftster
I could have sworn it was a full blown replacement for the NSX, and not a revamped one...And not to nitpick but i think the current NSX makes 300+ HP in stock trim...just dimmed down due to # restraints like so many other japanese cars.
Click to expand...

Its going to have a full new model change, also we all know that the NSX is already around 300hp but on paper its 280ps for the Japanese verison of their NSX. We get the 290hp verison of our NSX. Even their fastest NSX out, the 2002 NSX-R is rated at 280ps or 276hp. Now with the new NSX, I dont know. They said 300hp +... that could easily be 301hp or 399hp... its could be anything. Like I said as of now its a concept.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
This is the comparison everyone makes, isn't it? Everyone should be informed of two things:

1. The Mercury Marauder is the quickest large sedan since 1996.
2. The Honda Accord V6 is the second-quickest midsize sedan of all-time.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Marauder is quicker than every one of the Accord's competitors except the Nissan Altima which is the quickest midsize sedan of all-time (yes, I know about the Ford Taurus SHO V8, but for the purposes of this biased comparison, I'm not calling it a midsize but rather a performance sedan - so basically, it competed against the M5 and E55. Good luck).

The Marauder does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. It's not slow. It's probably not even much slower than the 1994-1996 Chevrolet Impala SS.
Click to expand...

You point is well taken, Doug. But the Marauder IS slow --for a performance car. In 2003, a car that runs the 1/4 in the 15s and traps in the low 90s is NOT a quick car. It is not even "semi-quick". Its just slow.

It is also $35,000. For that kind of money, I'd expect the car to at least out run ALL its price competitors, because it sure isn't going to beat them on style, luxury or handling. The number of cars in that price range that would smoke it are too numerous. G35. 330i. TL. A4. CTS. Not to mention Maxima, Accord and Altima. The Marauder would have a hard time shaking even a V6 Camry. Any attempt to run with a Mach 1, RX-8 or 350Z would result in humiliation.

But the best argument against the Marauder is the 300C, which would crush the Marauder in speed and handling, look better doing it and give you $3,000 back in change.

Yeah, okay, the Marauder is bigger. Whoop-de-do. Its supposed to be a performance sedan isn't it? As the Wendy's lady used to say, "Where the beef?"

Yet it is very clear that if Ford wanted to, could have made the car very respectable. But they half-assed it and it shows: the car is getting the axe this year. What they really needed to do was drop the Cobra motor in there. THEN it'd be on.


M
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec

It is also $35,000. For that kind of money, I'd expect the car to at least out run ALL its price competitors, because it sure isn't going to beat them on style, luxury or handling. The number of cars in that price range that would smoke it are too numerous. G35. 330i. TL. A4. CTS. Not to mention Maxima, Accord and Altima. The Marauder would have a hard time shaking even a V6 Camry. Any attempt to run with a Mach 1, RX-8 or 350Z would result in humiliation.
Click to expand...


I don't think we should be looking at price here, but rather the class that it's in. Yes, it'd get its ass kicked by the TL, CTS, the brilliance of the A4, the 330i, etc. - but anyone buying a high-power Mercury Grand Marquis isn't looking at the 330i and A4. For that reason, I think it's near the top of its large sedan class, behind only the Pontiac Grand Prix GTP and both trims of the Nissan Maxima. I don't consider it a sport sedan, a performance sedan, or a premium sedan, and I don't think prospective buyers should either.

Plus - the Marauder, at $33900, has many of the goods to compete with other 'sporty' members of the large sedan class, like the Pontiac Bonneville GXP (now with a Northstar V8), the Chrysler 300M (though it's evidently been cancelled), the Buick Park Avenue Ultra, and the 250-horsepower Dodge Intrepid SXT.
 
Back