BMW or Camry, now with money!

[Slash]

Yes, but he was saying that 8.2 seconds is fast for a compact even today.

Yeah that's definitely not the case. 10 years ago, maybe. Generally I consider anything from 5-8 seconds 0-60 to be pretty quick.

 

[Wolfe]

I'd say it's about average with a lot of the cars out there.

W&N wants to convince everyone that his car is anything but average. He can't just be content with that and respect others' rides, he insists upon dragging everyone else's cars down (like hawkeye122's Camry) so that he can prop his own up with the flimsiest of excuses and "prove" that his car is superior. No one would pick on him about his J-body if he'd stop throwing rocks from a glass house.

 

[Slash]

I can understand if he's got some crazy mods done to it but stock it's not really anything to brag about.

 

[Bopop4]

I can understand if he's got some crazy mods done to it but stock it's not really anything to brag about.

If it has 500lbs of the frame rusted off does that count as a weight reduction mod?

 

[Slash]

If it has 500lbs of the frame rusted off does that count as a weight reduction mod?

 

[White & Nerdy]

No frame rust that I know of. Focus doing 0-60 in 6 seconds? The ST maybe but at nearly 30 grand, I'm not sure that counts. Look at the Chevrolet Cruze - according to that same place I'm getting the other data from, even a manual is somewhat slower than the cars GM was building 20 years ago - and you know the only reason it gets the gas mileage it does is because of its ridiculously tall 6th gear. Somehow the Dodge Dart 1.4 is about as quick as a Probe (or slightly quicker than my car) despite weighing about as much as a home theater (which it resembles in terms of available eqipment, annoyingly), but that's only 0.3 to 60 quicker than my car. I'm sure when the SRT-4 comes out it'll be as fast as a 4th-gen F-body, but it'll also cost more than those did new.

 

[Aquarelle]

Perhaps we should rename this sub forum "W&N's Sunbird in general" because I swear it gets brought up in every other thread.

In a vague attempt to get back to the topic - Keep your Toyota and save your money for a functional performance car or until you can afford to sink the money in for the repairs. (especially so if you're planning on getting a garage to do the work)

We all have to walk before we can run.

 

[Bopop4]

No frame rust that I know of.

Blatant lies and deception.

Focus doing 0-60 in 6 seconds? The ST maybe but at nearly 30 grand, I'm not sure that counts.

Under 6 seconds according to some sources, for less than 25k.

Look at the Chevrolet Cruze - according to that same place I'm getting the other data from, even a manual is somewhat slower than the cars GM was building 20 years ago

It's roughly the same, actually.

- and you know the only reason it gets the gas mileage it does is because of its ridiculously tall 6th gear.

It's not like they would want to put in a cruising gear for good mileage, would they?💡

Somehow the Dodge Dart 1.4 is about as quick as a Probe (or slightly quicker than my car) despite weighing about as much as a home theater (which it resembles in terms of available eqipment, annoyingly),

Oh my god, technology, don't let it touch your skin, lest the burns of convenience be upon you.

 

[White & Nerdy]

"Convenience"

Yeah, the one thing my car is missing is an obnoxious touch screen sitting in the middle of the dash. Being able to change radio stations without taking my eyes off the road is so annoying.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Personally, I would just keep the Camry if I were you. A BMW with a blown head gasket is not worth it, especially the fact cars of Luxury manufactures are usually expensive to maintain or fix when something breaks.

That's why I'm not getting a BMW until I'm absolutely sure I can afford to maintain it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I didn't read the whole thread first and realized that he already decided on the Camry. Sorry.

 

[Slash]

"Convenience"

Yeah, the one thing my car is missing is an obnoxious touch screen sitting in the middle of the dash. Being able to change radio stations without taking my eyes off the road is so annoying.

I actually like not having a touch screen in any of my vehicles.

 

[Bopop4]

"Convenience"

Yeah, the one thing my car is missing is an obnoxious touch screen sitting in the middle of the dash. Being able to change radio stations without taking my eyes off the road is so annoying.

Not having access to satellite radio and a usb slot for the radio are annoying.

Not having heated seats when it's 15 below freezing is annoying.

Not having power windows is annoying.

If everyone thought like you we would never have invented the wheel.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

That blob of beige has never let me down, never felt underpowered (Merging onto a freeway with 4 other people and their stuff) to the extent of being a liability. It's comfortable, gets a solid 33 MPG, the interior is still in solid condition, it carries a good amount of stuff.

But hey, my bad for liking it...

Not bad at all, it's also a decent looking car imo. That is my 2nd favorite gen of the Camry (the current, 2013 one kinda took the spot). Reminds me of how I feel about my 2001 Ford Focus that has been in solid condition on 12 years now.

 

[Slash]

Not having access to satellite radio and a usb slot for the radio are annoying.

Not having heated seats when it's 15 below freezing is annoying.

Not having power windows is annoying.

If everyone thought like you we would never have invented the wheel.

I don't mind not having any of that stuff.


Speaking of which...

I don't have A/C.

I don't have heated seats/seat.

I don't have a heated steering wheel.

I didn't have power steering.

I didn't have power brakes.

I don't have power windows.

I don't have power locks.

I don't have heater vents.

I don't have satellite radio.

I don't have anything high tech.




Perfectly happy.

 

[Bopop4]

I don't have a heated steering wheel.

Gah, the one thing I want!

 

[1241Penguin]

No way do you trade the girl next door who knows how to cook for post-meltdown drug junkie Lindsay Lohan.

I miss her

 

[White & Nerdy]

Not having access to satellite radio and a usb slot for the radio are annoying.

Not for me, since I don't have an iPod anymore. Well, I do, but it doesn't actually work, so whatever. As for satellite radio, I'm not sure how much I care. I have Glenn Beck, Andy Dean, and occasionally some decent music, so I'm OK.

Not having heated seats when it's 15 below freezing is annoying.

I don't have heated seats, and I'm perfectly fine. A heated steering wheel would be the better option, but I've done without that too and it wouldn't be overly irritating if I had to keep doing without that for the rest of my life.

Not having power windows is annoying.

I do have them, and I might get rid of them, along with my A/C. It seems to have atrophied, and I try to never use it anyway, so why carry around the extra weight?

 

[Jet Badger]

Well, I guess some people, after getting up at 5:30 in the morning and getting into their frozen economy car, want a comfortable ride and don't care about their econobox 0-100 time. What's their problem?

 

[Joey D]

Not for me, since I don't have an iPod anymore. Well, I do, but it doesn't actually work, so whatever. As for satellite radio, I'm not sure how much I care. I have Glenn Beck, Andy Dean, and occasionally some decent music, so I'm OK.

Glenn Beck and Footloose? No wonder you're so hateful.

 

[White & Nerdy]

"Hateful"

And there's yet another politically loaded word. Nowadays "hateful" just means you think there's anything wrong with anything.

 

[Joey D]

You hate everything, so therefore full of hate, thus hateful. If the shoe fits right?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

"Hateful"

And there's yet another politically loaded word. Nowadays "hateful" just means you think there's anything wrong with anything.

Someone who declares others wrong for not sharing his tastes, talks about wanting to punch people in the face simply for singing, and wants to "drive away" a group of people simply for watching a cartoon. Nope, the below sounds about right:

hateful
ˈheɪtfʊl,-f(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: hateful

1. 1.
   arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred.
   "that hateful arrogant woman"
   • informal
     very unpleasant.
     
     

 

[Wolfe]

I thought he was proud of being hateful and compulsively antagonistic. His avatar is a self-designed coat of arms for crying out loud; a symbol of his tireless crusade against all that is sub-masculine.

 

[Kent]

8.2 to 60 and low 16s in the quarter was pretty fast for a compact in 1993. Heck, it still is. You may have onboard local Google search to help you find where to go, but I can get there faster.



It's a CAMRY. It is one of the most anti-enthusiast cars ever built. You could be forgiven for thinking it was specifically designed to be boring. There is no good reason to ever have one if you care even a little about cars or driving, which I'm assuming you do since you're here.



Oh really?

I've recently found a website that runs computer simulations of different cars' acceleration properties. I don't see much reason to doubt their accuracy, and they're certainly much better than the stupidity that is zeroto60times.com. To see if what you're saying here is correct, I looked up my 1993 Sunbird SE and his 2001 Camry I4. Well, actually, I looked up the very similar Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 and Daihatsu Altis SL FWD automatic, both rebadges of the cars in question, since this site has neither one indexed.

View attachment 85778

So much for that.

Going more granular, the comparison reveals that my car is:

-3 mph faster in the top end (assuming no speed limiters)
-1.5 seconds faster to 60 MPH
-4.1 seconds faster to 100 MPH
-1.8 seconds faster to 110 MPH, so yours starts catching up here
-But while mine takes 1 minute, 7.9 seconds to reach 120 MPH, the chart doesn't even list a time for yours, so it probably takes quite a while getting there.
-Mine is also 0.8 seconds and 4 MPH faster in the 1/4 mile, and would have opened up a 31 yard lead by the time it crossed the line.
-My car boasts siginifcantly better passing power, beating yours from 40-70 MPH by 1.3 seconds and from 50-90 MPH by 2.1 seconds
-Yours would get somewhat better gas mileage, but not that much better. Personally, I could probably make more than that difference just by not driving so hard.

As for the comment you linked to, I won't try to deny that. My bad for not wanting to completely give up and drive a nice, comfortable, completely uninspiring I4 until I can afford a real sports car with a nice interior and whatnot.

Um... I'm pretty sure the Z24 had an optional engine that was also only an option (not standard) in Sunfires.
More over, there's no reason to berate the guy's car.
Frankly, I find it laughable that you're on here speaking down on the guy because you've got such a fast and sporty car of your own.
Should I take the time to compare your '93 Sunfire SE with my '11 WRX STI?

Get off your high horse.
You're car isn't fast or cool so stop acting like you can talk poorly about his. 👎

 

[hawkeye122]

8.2 to 60 and low 16s in the quarter was pretty fast for a compact in 1993. Heck, it still is. You may have onboard local Google search to help you find where to go, but I can get there faster.



It's a CAMRY. It is one of the most anti-enthusiast cars ever built. You could be forgiven for thinking it was specifically designed to be boring. There is no good reason to ever have one if you care even a little about cars or driving, which I'm assuming you do since you're here.



Oh really?

I've recently found a website that runs computer simulations of different cars' acceleration properties. I don't see much reason to doubt their accuracy, and they're certainly much better than the stupidity that is zeroto60times.com. To see if what you're saying here is correct, I looked up my 1993 Sunbird SE and his 2001 Camry I4. Well, actually, I looked up the very similar Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 and Daihatsu Altis SL FWD automatic, both rebadges of the cars in question, since this site has neither one indexed.

View attachment 85778

So much for that.

Going more granular, the comparison reveals that my car is:

-3 mph faster in the top end (assuming no speed limiters)
-1.5 seconds faster to 60 MPH
-4.1 seconds faster to 100 MPH
-1.8 seconds faster to 110 MPH, so yours starts catching up here
-But while mine takes 1 minute, 7.9 seconds to reach 120 MPH, the chart doesn't even list a time for yours, so it probably takes quite a while getting there.
-Mine is also 0.8 seconds and 4 MPH faster in the 1/4 mile, and would have opened up a 31 yard lead by the time it crossed the line.
-My car boasts siginifcantly better passing power, beating yours from 40-70 MPH by 1.3 seconds and from 50-90 MPH by 2.1 seconds
-Yours would get somewhat better gas mileage, but not that much better. Personally, I could probably make more than that difference just by not driving so hard.

As for the comment you linked to, I won't try to deny that. My bad for not wanting to completely give up and drive a nice, comfortable, completely uninspiring I4 until I can afford a real sports car with a nice interior and whatnot.

A car expert like you should know that a 5 speed Manual (like mine) should be somewhat faster than a 3 or 4 speed automatic. So run your simulation again before you try and claim your car is faster than mine

Also keep in mind that at no point did I say my car is "fast". It isn't. You took that on yourself.

Am I correct in think that a Camry has

More Space
A More comfortable ride
A more modern interior
More creature comforts
as well as better gas mileage in comparison to your Sunbird? At the expense of an inconsequential amount of speed slower?

But hey, my car is the hunk of garbage...

 

[Bopop4]

But hey, my car is the hunk of garbage...

That's according to W&N logic.

And we all know that's an oxymoron anyways.

 

[White & Nerdy]

A car expert like you should know that a 5 speed Manual (like mine) should be somewhat faster than a 3 or 4 speed automatic. So run your simulation again before you try and claim your car is faster than mine

Also keep in mind that at no point did I say my car is "fast". It isn't. You took that on yourself.

A manual probably wouldn't make that much difference, and no manual was indexed.

Am I correct in think that a Camry has

More Space
A More comfortable ride
A more modern interior
More creature comforts
as well as better gas mileage in comparison to your Sunbird? At the expense of an inconsequential amount of speed slower?

But hey, my car is the hunk of garbage...

That's sort of my point.

First, that speed isn't exactly inconsequential. When you're trying to pass a Subaru wagon doing 35 in a 55MPH area and oncoming traffic is threatening to lock up a rare passing area, you'll wish you had more of it.

Second, the way I see it, your choice reveals that you really consider creature comforts and ride quality more important than performance or the experience of driving the car.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

First, that speed isn't exactly inconsequential. When you're trying to pass a Subaru wagon doing 35 in a 55MPH area and oncoming traffic is threatening to lock up a rare passing area, you'll wish you had more of it.

Second, the way I see it, your choice reveals that you really consider creature comforts and ride quality more important than performance or the experience of driving the car.

I can easily overtake a slow driver in my 130hp AT Ford Focus in 65+mph traffic, I think hawkeye will do fine in a car that has a 5 speed MT & 190hp V6.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Didn't he say he had the four?

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Didn't he say he had the four?

I didn't read that. Either way, I'm pretty sure he'll be fine with overtaking a 35mph subaru that you're suggesting or any slow driver.