Jump to content
EUROPAS GROßE
SPORTWAGEN COMMUNITY

Why does Toyota have a bad rep here?...


LateNightCable

Empfohlene Beiträge

the celica GT-S's engine was directly derived from that in the corrolla. It has what is, literally, the worst power band of any car currently sold. It is front heavy and understeers, aside from being front wheel drive, limiting how good of a track car it can be. It does have great brakes and has a racy feel, but it isn't a performance car.

The LS430 is a barge, just a toyota made bigger. S-Class is british elegance.

You have to be hell-conservative to go out and buy an LS430.

Jetzt registrieren, um Themenwerbung zu deaktivieren »

Did Polar just say that the S-Class is British elegance? I'm sure the people at Mercedes would be very proud to hear you say that.

The LS430 is a very comfortable barge, it really just represents old style luxury, the kind people enjoyed before they began thinking they wanted to be racecar drivers too.

I've never heard anyone but you talk about how awful the power band of the Celica is. I think it's a fine track car. As for front wheel drive limiting how good of a track car it can be, driving a front driver just takes a different technique.

The old Honda Prelude SH had a great system called ATTS ( Active Torque Transfer ) that kicked in during high speed cornering, and made it feel like a rear driver. And the Alfa Romeo 156 is a front wheel drive dominator in International Touring car racing. The production 156 GTA follows in it's foot steps.

the type SH was all wheel steering, the S-Class is very very elegant.

Look at a graph of the torque curve of the celica GT-S. It looks like a richter graph of an earthquake.

Nothing. Nothing. HUGE JUMP. Nothing.

Those are the facts baby! :P

Point is, whether a car is front drive or not is not the deciding factor on whether or not it's a good track car.

And the fact is, the S-Class is not British.

the s-class has a british level of elegance.

and if i remember right, when R & T ran celica GT-S, RSX-S, and Eclipse GTS around the track, the celica came in a hair ahead of the eclipse, well behind RSX.

A British level of elegance, thats' a good way to cover your ass. :D

Being sporty front drive coupes, Celica GT-S is competiton for the RSX Type-S, and the Acura gets by on more power, not nessesarily better handling. And we've spoken about this before, never trust an American auto journalist.

Besides, the Celica has a much better stereo, and more destinctive styling. :)

stereos can be replaced much more easily than major suspension components and engines.

The Type S is a faster car. It has more dynamic and usable handling, and has been tuned so oversteer can be easily induced (something very important to a long time E30 driver).

You ass, I am not stupid enough to call an S-Class british.

I could tell you gottlieb daimler founded the company that makes, that it comes from stuttgart, that the engine has 3/V cyl and twin spark plugs, each with it's own coil. I assure you I know where it's from.

S-Class is british elegance.

Hey, you said it I didn't. I knew you knew. :)

About the Celica, I'm not questioning the abilities of the RSX, just defending the Celica's credibility as a fine little sport coupe, and not " crap ".

the celica is poorly designed in comparison to RSX. RSX has more refined handling and a much more potent and usable engine.

I left out the word style. Sue me for being a shitty typist and thinking faster than I type.

Speaking purely in terms of asthetics, I find the RSX to be a squatty, toe headed little squirt.

People talked about the Integra, but they don't talk about the RSX like that. Like the E46 M3, When the RSX came out, it took quite awhile for anyone to really give a damn. Because they knew that the old model was good enough. For a little moment, everyone forgot what they had been conditioned to believe - newer is better.

Yes, I'm on something. The hood of my M3 typing this on a laptop.

Speaking strictly in terms of all out ass-kick performance yeah, but who ever said that was the only ingredient of a great performance car? E46 is very hard core, but the E36 was and is a very livable package, and provides all the balance and enjoyment you could want in a road car.

Thats' why people love it so much, it's an all around champ. When E46 came out, people had to ask themselves," Do we really need a new M3? " That is a hallmark of a car close to perfection.

Kick Ass Performance are the key words for E46 M3.

Finesse and Supreme Balance, for the E36 M3 - and whos' to say that cant' be a more enjoyable feeling?

well, a 330i nowadays has 95% of the performance of the E36 M3, and is even more luxurious. Supreme balance, i think so.

The E46 is liveable, it may be sprung tightly, but it's engine is docile, it is easy to drive, and generally comfortable around town, and it's quarter mile easily takes out a corvette and threatens a Z06, both of which are harder to live with cars. I'll give you E36 was a softer car, it still performed well, i just think the overall package, atleast to a performance person of E46 M3 was a no brainer.

and the engine alone of E46 generated tons of press.

I wouldn't say the 330i has 95% of the performance of the E36 M3, thats' a bit of a stretch. I like the E46, but the E36 is the style that first caught my eye in the beginning, and it represents to me pure M performance. Not too little, not over the top, but just right. It's a fine blend of civility and athletisism, which is what BMW M is very good at. The right proportion of the good things, it's ability to inspire confidance in the driver, keep him comfortable, and entertained in the long haul, and perform galantly, are what make a car great! :P

BMW really knew how to publicise that 8,000 rpm redline.

E46 is just a better performance car. Ok, fine 330i sport has statistically better than 90% of what E36 M3 had.

E46 is still liveable and comfortable, think of it as the EVO III to the old E36, just a few kicks up in intensity. It's still a VERY comfortable car.

The Z3 based M roadster may have been a bit uncomfortable (i don't care what you say about that sport seat they put in their, experience says it's dangerous to men)

Why the need for ever increasing intensity? My original point was, people loved E36, and alot were not drooling for a replacement, they would have if the E36 were not so good. Thats' all I'm saying.

I'm not into messing with the engine too much, but the old M3 provided plenty of room for backyard gearheads, like you or I, to have fun with. There is not alot you can do to modify the E46 M3 if you wanted to. The engine is pretty much maxed out from the factory.

isnt this in the wrong thread/forum? its always cute when you guys do this.

i dont think newer is always better. i would much rather take the jspec itr over the rsx-s. it is just plainly better engineered. aside from the 6th gear.

I was thinking that the other day, don't you love how every debate topic flows into the next? If we needed a seperate thread for every topic that comes up we would be swimming through threads.

A blanket statemant like " newer is always better " is rediculous. Cars should be judged on an individual basis, not on how old they are. For example, the newest Chevy Impala SS is not at all a step up from it's 1994-'96 predecessor, in the aspects that really matter in an SS. any enthusiast would tell you that.

By the way, what in the world is a jspec itr?

i have a lot of respect for E36 M3, it was well loved, but the europeans got that same car with 315hp, i just think if E36 M3 had the european motor, we wouldn't have needed E46, but the extra 93hp E46 brought just moved the car up a class. It isn't that E36 was bad, or that newer is better, it's just that E46 is a lot faster.

and those things a wickedly fast cars.

I saw one last year. i'm not big into riced cars, but this thing delivered. The guy told me he had spent over 30k just to get it into the country.

Archiviert

Dieses Thema ist archiviert und für weitere Antworten gesperrt. Erstelle doch dein eigenes Thema im passenden Forum.


×
×
  • Neu erstellen...