GTP Cool Wall Nomination Thread-CURRENTLY CLOSED

[homeforsummer]

and that's what I'm afraid of, too. We seem to have a penchant for starting flame wars here.

The only people who consider them flame wars are those less able at debating. To my knowledge, not one of them has been lowered to the level of insults. If someone's made a vote that they wish to stand by they should be subject to explaining their choice. All the better if their explanation isn't a) a reference to irrelevant objective data in a subjective poll and b) an arbitrary percentage.

 

[TheCracker]

I know I'm not. I usually go "Cool" if the car's notable, I like the car or concept behind it, and it's not liked by people I strongly dislike or people I'm having disagreements with at the time. I also consider if news of the car or enthusiasm thereof has been shoved down my throat recently.

And none of these reasons of yours are really relevant to racing cars are they?

 

[Jim Prower]

Sure they are. I can apply them to racers as well as normal cars.

 

[Azure Flare]

if its Ideas you want, I got one.

The Mercedes-Benz SLS AMGs


just an idea

 

[Joey D]

He's a better idea. Don't post obnoxiously large photos.

 

[Azure Flare]

Fixed!

 

[Murcie_LP640]

And it's not ideas for cars to be nominated its ideas regarding the cool wall itself. Nominations for cars aren't until Boxing Day.

 

[Lucas]

People deserve to be called out if they are doing it to go against the grain for no reason. It's not being funny and it defeats the point of the wall.

The problem with this wall is that you guys call out everyone who votes different. You don't know what motivates someone to vote the way they do. That's my main problem with that reasoning.

I think as part of the rule, it should be stated that you are strongly recommend to give a reason why you voted the way you did.

Everyone should give a reason, or everybody can do what they want, there's no other fair option available. Otherwise, I will start voting Sub-Zero on every car deemed Sub-Zero by the majority, or Seriously Uncool on every car deemed Seriously Uncool by the majority, because it's much easier for me to use the "yeah, what that guy said" argument than writing an opinion some people will get picky on (and I have seen that happen here). And I believe it defeats the point of the wall, right?

You can't get picky on people's definition of cool, because there isn't a definition of cool to begin with when talking about cars. If there is, then please free to put it at the beginning of every thread so we can look at it and vote accordingly. Then we can see who is voting against the grain or not.

 

[Joey D]

The problem with this wall is that you guys call out everyone who votes different. You don't know what motivates someone to vote the way they do. That's my main problem with that reasoning.

And we'll never know why someone voted the way they did if they don't say why. People vote the opposite of what everyone is else is doing for the sole reason to go against the grain and not for legitimate reasons deserves to be called out.

 

[Lucas]

And we'll never know why someone voted the way they did if they don't say why.

True. Still, that doesn't allow people to say they voted just to go against the grain, because that's not true in many cases. The only case I think someone could have done it on purpose (and please excuse me if I'm wrong), is Paulie voting Uncool on the Mercedes-Benz 300SL. Yet he gave a reason that I perfectly agree with it.

People vote the opposite of what everyone is else is doing for the sole reason to go against the grain and not for legitimate reasons deserves to be called out.

I think you missed some words there, because I have some difficulties trying to understand it. I believe you meant "People who vote the opposite of what everyone else is voting for the sole reason to go against the grain and not for legitimate reasons deserve to be called out". If that's what you meant, then you are right. But some people have legitimate reasons, reasons that they can't explain, or that if they try to explain they know the rest will still call them out, so they refuse to give an opinion (both are my case sometimes). To put everyone (those who go against the grain, those who have a different opinion) in the same bag is wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like the new Cool Wall where you can't see who voted for what, so that they won't get called out.

And please, could somebody explain to me how can get somebody piss by someone who "votes against the grain"? It's not like you will lose a prize or something.

 

[Joey D]

I think you missed some words there, because I have some difficulties trying to understand it. I believe you meant "People who vote the opposite of what everyone else is voting for the sole reason to go against the grain and not for legitimate reasons deserve to be called out". If that's what you meant, then you are right. But some people have legitimate reasons, reasons that they can't explain, or that if they try to explain they know the rest will still call them out, so they refuse to give an opinion (both are my case sometimes). To put everyone (those who go against the grain, those who have a different opinion) in the same bag is wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like the new Cool Wall where you can't see who voted for what, so that they won't get called out.

Ya that's what I was saying. But whatever the case if you don't give your opinion and just vote for the hell of it, especially if it's different then everyone else is lame. And if you do, there is no reason we can't debate it. If everyone just gave their $.02 and went on their merry little way then it would be pretty boring. Typically a debate has a discussion that revolves around it.

And please, could somebody explain to me how can get somebody piss by someone who "votes against the grain"? It's not like you will lose a prize or something.

All you do is cause a needless argument. Voting off form without cause or reason is just going to create a bunch of needless, unproductive debate. If you give a sound reason behind your selection though chances are you can have a decent discussion about the car even if your opinions differ.

 

[Lucas]

But whatever the case if you don't give your opinion and just vote for the hell of it, especially if it's different then everyone else is lame. And if you do, there is no reason we can't debate it.

That's true. Sadly, some people will just reply "" to your reasons, and you look like an idiot, reply with sarcasm, etc. I'd rather vote what I want and give no reasons, just to avoid all of that.

All you do is cause a needless argument.

That's not a reason. That's a consequence. It's the consequence of people being pissed at my vote. Why are they pissed at it? I don't know.

 

[Joey D]

That's not a reason. That's a consequence. It's the consequence of people being pissed at my vote. Why are they pissed at it? I don't know.

You asked how someone can get pissed, I'm telling you it's because it causes needless arguments. I experienced and I'm sure Toronado will experience it. No one likes to see their thread spiral down and eventually need a padlock.

 

[Lucas]

You asked how someone can get pissed, I'm telling you it's because it causes needless arguments. I experienced and I'm sure Toronado will experience it. No one likes to see their thread spiral down and eventually need a padlock.

I can understand people being pissed because other members make trouble for one vote. But I don't understand those members in the first place. Their argument arises from my vote. But why do they create the argument in the first place? That's what I'm getting at, and excuse me if you have already answered that, but I believe you haven't.

 

[Joey D]

I can understand people being pissed because other members make trouble for one vote. But I don't understand those members in the first place. Their argument arises from my vote. But why do they create the argument in the first place? That's what I'm getting at, and excuse me if you have already answered that, but I believe you haven't.

Because if you give a reason and you are prepared to defend that reason (and this is not just with the cool wall) then you'll have a debate that will probably actually lead somewhere. Even if neither side changes their opinion you can debate it, people like to do that. If you vote differently then me and I don't agree with your reason I'll provide an argument for why I disagree with it, I see nothing wrong with that.

However if you just say something to create a needless argument and don't really contribute anything you are just lighting a flame war which will lead to an out of control downward spiral.

 

[Tornado]

Its open for business, folks. I'll close it after 25 nominations or the 1st of January, so hurry up!
I also ask that anyone who made a nomination in this thread prior to this post resubmit, as otherwise they will not be accepted. If possible, include at least the same amount of information as seen here.

 

[Joey D]

1992 - 1993 GMC Typhoon

Specs:
Type: V6
Disp.: 262 C.I. (4.3L)
Horsepower: 285 BHP @4400
Torque: 350 lb-ft @ 3600
RPO/ Engine Code: LB4
Bore: 4.00
Stroke: 3.48
0-60: 5.0-5.5 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.4-14.3 seconds​

 

[Tornado]

1984-1988 Pontiac Fiero

Specs:
Engines - 2471cc OHV 8-valve I4 / 2837 OHV 12-valve V6
Layout - MR
Transmission - 3-speed automatic / 4-speed manual (1984, 1985) / 5-speed manual (1986-1988)
Power - 92 HP @ 4000 RPM / 140 HP @ 5200 RPM
Torque - 134 lb-ft @ 2800 RPM / 170 lb-ft @ 3600 RPM
Curb weight - 2590 lb / 2790 lb
Zero to 60 mph - 10.9 sec / 8.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile - 17.7 sec @ 75 MPH / 15.5 sec @ 90 MPH
Price - $8,999 / $13,999
​

 

[Lucas]

2006 -2010 BMW M5

General
Engine: 90º V10
Engine location: Front, longitudinally mounted
Displacement: 4.999 liter / 305.1 cu in
Valvetrain: 4 valves/cylinder, DOHC, with Bi-Vanos
Fuel feed: MS S65 Fuel injection
Aspiration: Naturally Aspirated
Gearbox: SMG 7 Speed Automatic
Drive: Rear wheel drive
Mass: 1848 kilograms (4066 lbs)
Weight distribution: 51.8 / 48.2
Power to Weight ratio: 270.6 hp/tonne
Power per liter: 75 kw/liter

Performance figures
Power: 507 bhp / 378.2 kW @ 7750 rpm
BHP/Liter: 101.4
Torque: 520 Nm / 383.5 ft lbs @ 6100 rpm

Max speed: 155 miles/h (250 km/h)
0-100 km/h: 4.4 seconds
0-160 km/h: 9.2 seconds
0-200 km/h: 13.5 seconds
Quarter mile: 12.4 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 15.20 seconds​

 

[Jim Prower]

1956-1958 Studebaker Golden Hawk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Golden_Hawk

Type: 2-door midsize pillarless hardtop
Engines:
1956 - Packard 352ci (5.8L) - 275 HP
1957-1958 - Studebaker 289ci (4.7L) Centrifugal Supercharged - 275 HP
Weight: 3,360 lb ('56), to 3,470 lb ('58)
Wheelbase: 120.5 in (3.06m)
0-60: 7.8s
Top speed: More than 125 mi/h

 

[SVX]

Subaru Alcyone SVX

Also called Subaru SVX

Production 1991–1996

Model year(s) 1992–1997

Layout: F4 layout

Transmission: 4-speed automatic 4EAT

Wheelbase: 102.8 in (2611 mm)

Length: 182.1 in (4625 mm)

Width: 69.7 in (1770 mm)

Height: 48.4 in (1229 mm)

Curb weight: 3,580 lb (1,624 kg)

Designer: Giorgetto Giugiaro

Engine: 3.3-liter 24-valve 6-cylinder horizontally opposed (3.3 L EG33 flat-6)


Horsepower: 230 bhp

0-60 MPH: 7.3 seconds

1/4 Mile: 15.4 seconds @ 92.5 mph

Skidpad: 0.85 g

Top Speed: 143 mph

Mileage: 17 / 25 mpg

Weight:3,580 pounds

We think that to 1991 to 1997 have the same specs.

 

[homeforsummer]

Mercedes-Benz W201 (190)

Production 1982–1993, 1,874,668 built
Assembly Bremen, Germany; Sindelfingen, Germany
Body style(s) 4-door saloon
Layout FR layout
Engine(s) 1.8L 8v I4 - 2.0L 8v I4 - 2.3L 8v I4 - 2.3L 16v I4 - 2.5L 16v I4 - 2.6L I6 - Diesel 2.0L - 2.5L Non-Turbo - Diesel 2.5L Turbo
Transmission(s) 4-speed automatic - 4-speed manual - 5-speed manual
Wheelbase 104.9 in (2664 mm)
Length 175.1 in (4448 mm); 1988-1990 Base: 175.0 in (4445 mm)
Width 1988-1990: 66.1 in (1679 mm); 1991-93: 66.5 in (1689 mm)
Height 1988-1990: 54.7 in (1389 mm); 1991-93: 54.1 in (1374 mm)

I'm nominating the W201 as a whole, so all models are included from the boggo diesel up to the Cosworth, though not racing versions.

 

[slidesquad#1]

Mercedes-Benz W201 (190)


I'm nominating the W201 as a whole, so all models are included from the boggo diesel up to the Cosworth, though not racing versions.

That would cause a few issues wouldn't it? For me, a Cosworth is pretty close to sub-zero, but a boggo diesel is quite uncool...

 

[homeforsummer]

That would cause a few issues wouldn't it? For me, a Cosworth is pretty close to sub-zero, but a boggo diesel is quite uncool...

Then you'd have to decide which was more influential to your vote, wouldn't you...

 

[Murcie_LP640]

1989-1994 Nissan Skyline GT-R (R32)

Numbers Built: 43,394 (40,390 standard GT-Rs)
Layout: Front engine, all-wheel-drive
Transmission: 5-speed Manual
Body Style: 2-door coupe
Engine: 2.6L (2568cc) twin-turbocharged inline-6 (RB26DETT)
Power: 206kW (276 hp) @ 6800rpm
Torque: 361Nm (266 lb·ft) @ 4400rpm
HP/Litre: 109.03
Weight: 3668lbs (1663kg)
Power-to-weight ratio: 168.37hp/tonne
Wheelbase: 102in (2590mm)
Length: 178in (4521mm)
Width: 70in (1778mm)
Height: 52in (1338mm)

0-60: 4.7secs
Top Speed: N/A
1/4 mile: 13.0secs @ --mph

 

[Irons]

2008-Present Subaru Impreza WRX STI (3rd Generation)

Specs:
Drive type: All-wheel drive
Transmission type: 6-speed manual
Engine type: Longitudinally mounted flat-4
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 2,457 cc (150 cu-in)
Block/head material: Aluminum /aluminum
Redline (rpm): 6,700
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 305 @ 6,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 290 @ 4,000
Fuel tank capacity (gal): 16.9
EPA fuel economy (mpg): 17 city/23 highway
0 - 60 (sec.): 4.8
1/4 mile (sec. @ mph): 13.3 @ 102.4​

 

[NISM0_SKYLINE]

Mercedes SLR Uhlenhaut Coupé

Engine: Type M 196 S, Twin Spark Inline-8 w/Dry Sump Lubrication, Front Longitudinal, 53 Degree Inclination To The Right
Power: 231.2 kw / 310.0 bhp @ 7400 rpm
Speed: 284 kph / 176.5 mph
Torque: 317 nm / 233.8 ft lbs @ 5950 rpm
Redline: 7800 R.P.M.
Body/Frame: Elektron Body over Steel Tubular Space Frame
Drive Type: RWD
Weight: 1117 kg / 2463 lbs
Transmission: Rear Mounted 5-Speed Manual​

 

[mafia_boy]

My nomination is already shown in post #28!

For the lazy who can't click on a link, it's the Ford Falcon XY GTHO Phase III. 👍

 

[TheBook]

1998-2003 Ford Escort ZX2

​

SPECIFICATIONS

Engine Type inline 4-cylinder, dual overhead cam, 16 valves
Engine Size 2.0 liters / 121 cu. in.
Horsepower 130 @ 5750
Torque (lb-ft) 127 @ 4250
Transmission 5-speed manual
Wheelbase / Length 98.4 in. / 175.2 in.
Curb Weight 2504 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 19.3
Fuel Capacity 12.8 gal.
Fuel Requirement unleaded regular
Tires P185/60 R15 Goodyear Eagle RS-A
Brakes, front/rear vented disc / drum
Suspension, front/rear independent Mac Pherson strut / independent Quadralink
Drivetrain front engine, front-wheel drive

PERFORMANCE

EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon city / highway / observed 26/33/29
0 to 60 mph 7.4 sec
1/4 mile (E.T.) 15.7 sec
Coefficient of Drag (cd) 0.33

 

[socomplayer2]

MarkIII Volkswagen Gti (North American spec)
Specs
1995-1998 (limited number in 1999)
Engines - 2.0l 8v I4 (1984cc); 2.8l 12v VR6 (2792cc)
Layout - FF
Transmission - 4-speed Automatic (2.0l only)/ 5-speed manual
Power - 113 BHP @ 5400 rpm / 172 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque 122 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm / 173 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm
Curb weight - 2557 lbs. /
Zero to 60 mph - 9.2 / 7.4
Standing 1/4-mile - ? / 15.5
Top speed - 123mph / 139mph
Price - ~ $20,000 new