Would you rather?

  • Thread starter motortrend
  • 22,046 comments
  • 1,102,166 views
It's got the "lowest" outputs (saying that about 404kW/542hp feels almost irrelevant though) and some of the design traits seem to even "out-bogan" the Holden but I reckon I'd take the Jaaaaaaaaag too. It's got a certain flavour that appeals more to me than the others.
 
Modified Vettes: Hmmm... I'll have the 427 Turbo C6.

Super Sedans/Wagons: Ugh, this is a tough one.... Between the HSV and the RS6 Avant, I'll take the HSV. Seems like the perfect car for me! :D
 
SVT Cobra GT
Ok, this should settle an argument/debate between myself and my cousin. These are two cars that we're looking at buying, (not the actual cars in the links, just examples) his is first, mine is second.

His;
2007 Ford Fiesta ST

Price; £4000-6000
Engine; 2.0 I4 N/A
Power; 150-170BHP
Top Speed; 129MPH
0-60: 8.4 Seconds
FWD
Curb Weight; 1137KG (2500lbs)

Link to example for sale

Mine;
1986 Ford Capri 2.8 Injection

Price; £4000-6000
Engine; 2.8 V6 N/A
Power; 160BHP
Top Speed; 130MPH
0-60; 7.9 Seconds
RWD
Curb Weight; 1188KG (2620lbs)

Link to an example for sale

It's obvious which one I'd have. Partly because it's RWD with a V6 but it turns way more heads on the road and you always get people asking about them and saying 'I/My parents had one in the '80s'
Click to expand...
Capri
funnyguy344
A

2014 GMC Sierra SLT

Or a 2014 Ford F-150 Lariat

Me, The GMC its a good looking truck. and durable.
Click to expand...
GMC, because I have never seen or heard of an F-150 LARIAT
Slashfan
What the hell happened.
Click to expand...
1970's oil crisis. OPEC decides to troll America. Hence, “smaller=better" mentality.
Xavier2342
.
Would You Rather: Same Car Different Purposes

'07 Katech Corvette Z06

OR

'07 Lingenfelter Corvette Z06 427 Twin Turbo
Click to expand...
Don't know the difference, but I'll go with the Lingenfelter just because of the word Turbo in its name.
Murcie_LP640
The 400kW Club

2012 F10 BMW M5 - AU$230,000 - 412kW/680Nm

2013 Jaguar XFR-S - AU$222,545 - 404kW/680Nm

Audi RS6 Avant - AU$225,000 - 412kW/700Nm

Mercedes-Benz CLS63 AMG - AU$263,500 - 410kW/720Nm

HSV GTS - AU$92,990 - 430kW/740Nm
Click to expand...

Too easy. HSV GTS. Turn up in one of these in a car meet here in Canada and people will notice. Reason: no one knows what a Holden is..

New one....

Saab 900 Turbo

2.1L B212 Inline 4 (140 bhp)

5-Speed Tranny, FWD


420px-Saab_900_GLE_%282%29_%28crop%29.jpg



Volvo 244 Turbo

2.1L Inline 4 Turbo (155 BHP)

5-Speed Tranny, RWD

VOLVO244-medium-2429_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tough one with the sedans I like both the Jag and the BMW but I'll pick the BMW.

Even though I'm not a fan of the volvo and the saab I'll go with the volvo.
 
Of the saloons, i'd choose between the Holden and the Jaaaaag. But the Jaaaag would just edge it.

Of the Volvo and the Saab, I'll take the Volvo. My grandad used to have one and I've had a soft spot for them.
 
Fast Fords: Capri, no explanation needed.

Corvettes: I'll take the Lingenfelter.

Super Sedans: As much as I like the RS6, it doesn't belong in this comparison as the RS7 would be a better choice. I'll go for the Jag.
 
SuperSedans/Vagons: Easy, I like RS6 most of them. I would take, like Audiman RS7 rather RS6.

Saab vs. Volvo: Volvo because Volvo´s are the best cars around! GO VOLVO
 
Super Sedans/Wagon -
I wouldn't take the Audi because my choice must be RWD, despite my love for Audis. The HSV seems too... caveman and the BMW looks too boring. So my choice is between the Merc CLS (amazing model, may I add) and the Jag XFR-S. I adore the S versions of Jaguars, especially in bright neon colours, as the XFR-S has, but I think I will always end up with the Merc. I say this because in the Merc, you can have as much fun as you can in the HSV or XFR-S, while still retaining the class and cool of the Audi and BMW and having a luxurious place to sit in.

Saab vs Volvo -
Why would I ever take a slower, smaller, uglier, more dangerous and FWD alternative to the Volvo? I would take a modern (-ish) Saab over a modern Volvo, but that particular Saab makes my hair stand on end; I really detest it. So I will pick the Volvo, which still isn't a very good car. If it was me, I would save up the £1,000 or so that I had until I was able to afford an old Merc/BMW/Audi. Or maybe I could buy a 200SX? Either way, it would not be spent on a Volvo...
 
Katech because its a proper track weapon and CLS63 because of looks and luscious materials/quality. Volvo because great drift practice car.
 
Volvo vs. Saab: Easily, the Volvo wins here. And I'll do like phil bell, customize the Volvo into a drift car, maybe with a better Volvo inline or V6 or even a 1JZ to a LS6......💡
 
BMW M5 vs. Jaguar XFR-S vs. Audi RS6 Avant vs. Mercedes-Benz CLS63 AMG vs. HSV GTS - Jaaaaaaaaaaag. Because it's a Jaaaaaaaaaaaaag and I like Jaaaaaaaaaaaags.

Saab 900 Turbo vs. Volvo 244 Turbo - I like the styling of the Saab....but that's about it. Volvo, because it has more power, and it's RWD. Those looks are....ehh though.
 
I'll have the Saab. It might not technically be as good of a car as the Volvo, but I just love the looks of it. There's lots of them around here and I just stare at them when I see them.
 
xXKingJoshXx
I'll have the Saab. It might not technically be as good of a car as the Volvo, but I just love the looks of it. There's lots of them around here and I just stare at them when I see them.
Click to expand...

I was going to pick the Saab as well, but I saw the drivetrain and the HP and I ended up picking the Volvo. I love the Saab's styling, and I really dislike the Volvo's.
 
GranTurismo916
I was going to pick the Saab as well, but I saw the drivetrain and the HP and I ended up picking the Volvo. I love the Saab's styling, and I really dislike the Volvo's.
Click to expand...

Hmm... maybe if I didn't give the specs of each car, the Saab might have gotten a couple of more votes.
 
funnyguy344
Would you rather.
A 2010 Chevy Colorado,

Or a 2010 ford ranger
Click to expand...

Ranger. My grandfather has a Colorado and yeah it's nice but the inline 5 is a pain and it rides a bit rough and the suspension is way too stiff. And it feels like your going 2mph at 50. Hate that.
 
Chevrolet Colorado vs. Ford Ranger - I never understood why these trucks were ever made....I'll take the Ranger for the looks.
 
Ranger, they're really nice for soemone who needs a truck, but is secure enough not to lust after a massive one.
 
GranTurismo916
Chevrolet Colorado vs. Ford Ranger - I never understood why these trucks were ever made....I'll take the Ranger for the looks.
Click to expand...

Pretty much because it serves as a compact vehicle. Good gas mileage while being able to haul small loads. Good for people that don't need a huge truck. Same reason the Dodge Dakota exists. They sold in droves. I won't understand why Ford killed the Ranger.


1984 Ford Bronco XLT 5.8L 351ci H.O. (High Output) V8

Horsepower: 210 @ 4,000rpm
Torque: 310 @ 2,600rpm
Transmission: 3 speed automatic/4 speed manual with granny 1st gear

84_bronco_xlt_pass_side_1.jpg


vs

1984 Dodge Ramcharger 5.9L 360ci V8

Horsepower: 230 @ 4,000rpm
Torque: 283 @ 3000rpm
Transmission: 3 speed automatic/4 speed manual


1984_williamsburg-va.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ford Bronco vs Dodge Ramcharger -
I know nothing about these cars, but the Ford looks better (very slightly), so I'll take that. I can't get over the fact that a truck could have had 3 gears in 1984, a truck! Anyway, the Ford also has that Granny Gear, which I quite like for a truck; all the more reason to take it! Finally, I value Torque more than Horsepower, so the Ford wins there as well.
 
Bodyguard
Ford Bronco vs Dodge Ramcharger -
I know nothing about these cars, but the Ford looks better (very slightly), so I'll take that. I can't get over the fact that a truck could have had 3 gears in 1984, a truck! Anyway, the Ford also has that Granny Gear, which I quite like for a truck; all the more reason to take it! Finally, I value Torque more than Horsepower, so the Ford wins there as well.
Click to expand...

Well considering the fact that it is highly unlikely to get it over 85 without some power adders you don't really need more than 3 gears. As far as the granny gear goes, I don't know of many vehicles were the first gear ratio is 6.32-6.69 or lower. Even the reverse gear is huge...the T-18 4 speed had a reverse gear of 7.44...that is unheard of! Either way both transmissions are very strong and reliable and can hold an incredible amount of power in stock form.

I'm also one to value torque over horsepower. Especially in the low RPMs. Sometimes I miss the old 4.9L Inline 6 because of the torque it put out at idle.
 

Latest Posts

Back