POLL: Do econo-cars and small cars (think Lifan) have a place in gt6?
- Thread starter 300SRT8Fan
- 257 comments
- 14,369 views
- 1,515
- Assamstadt, Germany
- Flaco__13
Well if PD should go this way here's one customer they will be losing. He will not be the only one, and even though they s**t on us and sit in a bathtub full of Dollars (or Yen) I will still know they sold their souls while turning into another EA.
But I'm glad all this is far from reality, believe it or not!
- 1,528
- Melbourne
- Conza_No1
Phew! Got scared for a second there that HOLY MOLEY 12% think they should go?! Wth guys, w.t.h. You have to include the small cars, they're awesome, hot hatches, kei cars, smaller sports cars, I don't see any reason not to, most people (especially european and japanese) would be driving small cars anyway, and they are a heap of fun.
- 283
- California
- RoadRocket77
Let me clarify... I don't want the 50 hp lawnmower cars that are always clogging up the UCD. the Fiat 500 is a golf ball and we got 4 of 'em. The leaf is just wimpy. electric cars suck always have always will. go gas/diesel or go home. I like the fast cars like the STI and I would like to see the new civic Si get into the GT series. notice that the most popular import cars STILL USE GAS. it ain't going away, no matter how much the environmentalasses and the B!tchocrats in washington want it to.
- 145
- Southeast VA
- TriumphTT900
Got me thinking.. Changing how the UCD works for GT6 would solve a lot of these problems. PD should take some cues from GT2. Have multiple UCDs representing certain countries or manufacturers.. Like a real dealership.
- 66
- Canterbury
- Hitman_Elite66
Yes, it would be awesome if you could race mod them and then change the engine and tune to cars to 600 or 700, or even more horse power. That would be fun insanity.
More often than not, used dealerships have all sorts of brands under the same roof. What we COULD do, however, is implement a filter system like the player's garage has.
- 145
- Southeast VA
- TriumphTT900
Seems like a good idea.. Have a box somewhere saying "Only list cars of X manufacture, country, engine, drive-train, etc."
Of course having this would make a lot of people just filter out the common cars and go straight for the exotics/uncommon/rare/expensive cars. If this is the case, all cars would have to have a quality factor.. So if John Doe makes his UCD only show the most rare cars.. then there would be a lot of "game days" where he would have no cars show up in the UCD at all. Of course the more filters you add, the more narrow the results will be.
Solutions like this are very reasonable to me. Said it once, and I'll say it again, taking certain cars out to make room for another type is not the way to go. UCD needs to be completely changed for GT6 in order to please everyone..
- 88
- South africa
Although I don't use them very much, I can fully understand why some people love driving econoboxes.
However, PD need to be sensible and stab a pin of common sense into the inflated balloon that is their current car list. Let's not have another Premium Prius vs. Standard Veyron fiasco in GT6. There is no excuse for situations like those.
Also, when I say they need to cut down the inflation, im referring to both mundane cars and sports cars.
However, PD need to be sensible and stab a pin of common sense into the inflated balloon that is their current car list. Let's not have another Premium Prius vs. Standard Veyron fiasco in GT6. There is no excuse for situations like those.
Also, when I say they need to cut down the inflation, im referring to both mundane cars and sports cars.
- 403
- Reaper7411
Generally PD does a decent job filtering out totally uninteresting cars. I can think of a few, but not too many. A lot of the most boring cars have 'cup' variants, which are nice, and mean that when including them, the modelling on the boring version is somewhat already done.
Personally I always start out with a Cappuccino, and spend a significant portion of my driving time in cars with about 100hp. The races are generally close and strategy becomes very important.
One thing I don't care for in all the GT games is that I'm always feeling pushed into faster cars. I don't see a problem with letting me stay in a career path with low-power cars experiencing a wide variety of increasingly difficult races until I'm the 35-time kei world champion.
Anything over 300hp or so and I stop having nearly as much fun. Cars spread out and the cockpit loads get pretty heavy (especially at 500hp+). The GT300's are about the fastest cars that I still really enjoy.
Personally I always start out with a Cappuccino, and spend a significant portion of my driving time in cars with about 100hp. The races are generally close and strategy becomes very important.
One thing I don't care for in all the GT games is that I'm always feeling pushed into faster cars. I don't see a problem with letting me stay in a career path with low-power cars experiencing a wide variety of increasingly difficult races until I'm the 35-time kei world champion.
Anything over 300hp or so and I stop having nearly as much fun. Cars spread out and the cockpit loads get pretty heavy (especially at 500hp+). The GT300's are about the fastest cars that I still really enjoy.
- 9,053
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Mercedes, Audi, the ACO, FIA, Ferrari, Toyota, and pretty much the entire automotive industry would disagree with you on that.
It's attitudes like that that hinder progress. A few people said the same thing about the first gas powered car while riding smug on a horse.
I like my fast cars too, but I also like different avenues of automobile technology.
- 214
- Florida
- Young_God122
I completely disagree with you... Electric cars are becoming more and more amazing. What do you have to say about Tesla? they are fully electric and have great performance.
- 1,403
- mooresville, NC
- FRT_LEGACY97
one word Caterham 7 Fireblade best small car in the game
- 145
- Southeast VA
- TriumphTT900
+1
- 1,515
- Assamstadt, Germany
- Flaco__13
I think OP and poll are still misleading, it should say 'weak' instead of 'small'.
Without a doubt the 7 Fireblade is one of the most exciting cars in GT5 and in general.
Econo-cars should stay because of the innovation and they (unfortunately) are the automobile future. Personaly, I'd love the addition of the Ampera/Volt in the game...
Kei cars will stay, PD's not going to bail on the Kei-fanbase back in Japan.
As for 'small' or weak cars I'd say if a car has a certain cult-status such as a beetle or a fiat 500 it's ok to have them.
Thinking of cars that are rather useless heres 2 examples: Corsa Comfort 1.4i, what's the use of this if there was a Corsa GSi with 125hp?
Audi A3 3.2 quattro - why no Audi RS3? Or at least S3 of that model-year, or simply all three?
those are decisions, by PD, that don't make sense to me
Last edited:
- 283
- California
- RoadRocket77
Why electric though? we ain't "saving" the planet any more than just running gas. Most of the electricity is produced burning COAL. we don't have very many nuclear, geothermal, or hydro-electric power plants to make electric a better option than gas. The "carbon footprint" as well as total cost is ALOT more with current electric technology. LI-ion batteries are NOT re-useable and they cost a ton of money to replace. you can't recycle them after they crap out on you. it becomes useless and ends up in a landfill causing even more headaches on what the hell to do with it.
I like other options besides gas, but get something that can truly make a difference without worrying about a wimpy 100 mile range with a 4 hour down time in between. I say let's go with hydrogen. burn it, fuel cell it, do whatever. it's massively abundant, completely harmless, and dirt cheap. hydrogen is in water. separate water and you get oxygen and hydrogen, both are extremely flammable and completely harmless. Burn hydrogen, what do you get? Water and water vapor. THAT'S IT. super clean, super efficient, and super cheap. dead simple solution. we have the technology right now to make that work. CNG converted engines can burn hydrogen all day long. gas engines can be converted with a cheap conversion kit. screw electric until they can match a 250 mile range MINIMUM and make it super clean in the BIG picture.
- 283
- California
- RoadRocket77
and the Tesla is an overpriced 100 mile range piece of crap. I can get the Elise for cheaper and get like 30 MPG's with that little 4 banger. and be able to convert it to CNG or hydrogen with a simple conversion kit that I can install in my backyard.
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
I'd say more than "some," I'd say closer to 80%.
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
Electricity has the potential to come from completely renewable, non-carbon based sources. Increasingly, in non-anachronistic developed nations, it is coming from such sources.
- 9,053
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
I don't think you burn Hydrogen to make into water, nor is that even possible? It goes through some chemical reactions, but I don't think it actually burns.
That said anything that comes from this Earth and burns is not clean. There's no such thing as clean coal or clean diesel. It maybe cleaner than stuff before, but dirt on the floor is still dirt on the floor.
Like it or not, the small car of the future, and indeed all cars in general, or gonna get more and more hybridized and perhaps even have full electric models.
- 1,117
- grrlpurple
Absolutely they belong - though there needs to be a bit of rational thought behind their inclusion. I love the handling of the Honda CR-Z and even a tuned Prius can be entertaining - but some of the best fun I have had in game has been with the smaller cars
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,510
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
What he means is that when you burn fuel there is a waste emission. In the case of Hydrogen that waste emission is water. Nothing else at all.
I'm sorry but the words "Hydrogen" and "completely safe" do not belong in the same sentence. That stuff is, after all, Rocket Fuel.
Last edited:
- 88
- South africa
Electric cars are deeply flawed. I'd say car manufacturers have come a long way with the technology, which is admirable - but also slightly annoying. Maybe all that time, money and effort would have been better spent improving the production process of hydrogen?
See, electric cars are not practical for three main reasons:
-Source of energy. Drawing power from a coal-fired powerplant just isn't doing the environment any good. Yes, there are environmentally friendly sources of electricity, such as windmills, hydro-electric plants and geothermal steam systems.
But most of these are only able to produce power in small amounts - just enough to fuel the relatively low number of electric cars on the road today.
If we all drove electric cars, that power supply would dry up pretty quick. And good luck finding enough area to build more and more of these facilities (not to mention the environmental impact of physically constructing power plants).
-Range. Even the newest electric production cars have a range significantly lower than what we think of as acceptable. This equals more frequent fill ups, which means more dependance on power plants, which worsens environmental impact and further depletes fossil fuel supplies.
Then there is the issue of what happens when you run out of "juice". Currently, you're facing a wait of several hours to fully charge an electric car. Yes, there are "fast-charge" systems available, but keep using them and you'll destroy the lifespan of your cars batteries. Which brings me on to:
-Cost. Putting aside the frankly laughable purchase cost of current electric cars, there is the futher cost of fuel and maintennace. Yes, fuel. I think you will find that constantly recharging your car at home will not be as cheap as you imagined. And as demand goes up, so too will the price of electricity.
If public charging points are made available, you can be sure that their use will not be free.
Keep using fast-charge systems and you'll have to soon replace the batteries themselves, which I can pretty much assure you will be monstrously expensive (and will probably occur as soon as your warranty/service plan runs out...).
See, electric cars are not practical for three main reasons:
-Source of energy. Drawing power from a coal-fired powerplant just isn't doing the environment any good. Yes, there are environmentally friendly sources of electricity, such as windmills, hydro-electric plants and geothermal steam systems.
But most of these are only able to produce power in small amounts - just enough to fuel the relatively low number of electric cars on the road today.
If we all drove electric cars, that power supply would dry up pretty quick. And good luck finding enough area to build more and more of these facilities (not to mention the environmental impact of physically constructing power plants).
-Range. Even the newest electric production cars have a range significantly lower than what we think of as acceptable. This equals more frequent fill ups, which means more dependance on power plants, which worsens environmental impact and further depletes fossil fuel supplies.
Then there is the issue of what happens when you run out of "juice". Currently, you're facing a wait of several hours to fully charge an electric car. Yes, there are "fast-charge" systems available, but keep using them and you'll destroy the lifespan of your cars batteries. Which brings me on to:
-Cost. Putting aside the frankly laughable purchase cost of current electric cars, there is the futher cost of fuel and maintennace. Yes, fuel. I think you will find that constantly recharging your car at home will not be as cheap as you imagined. And as demand goes up, so too will the price of electricity.
If public charging points are made available, you can be sure that their use will not be free.
Keep using fast-charge systems and you'll have to soon replace the batteries themselves, which I can pretty much assure you will be monstrously expensive (and will probably occur as soon as your warranty/service plan runs out...).
- 11,169
- Sweden
- eran0004
Then why burn coal to get electricity? Elect a government that invests in green energy = problem solved.
Funny thing, because a small gasoline-powered car, like the 2012 Scion iQ, gets 37 mpg, while the 2013 Honda Fit EV gets 118 mpg-e. Additionally, the fuel cost per mile is three times as expensive in the gasoline car than in the electric car.
When it comes to range, most of the driving is short. The average American drives less than 40 km per day, and the current generation of electric cars does a lot more than that. There's plenty of battery to drive to work, drive home and charge the batteries during night. As electric cars gets more common, battery switch stations will start to appear, where you can simply switch your empty battery to a fully charged one in about one minute.
When it comes to emissions from electricity versus petrol, the average US electric vehicle produces 115 grams of CO2/km, while the average petrol car produces 250 grams of CO2/km (including the CO2 emmissions from producing and transporting the fuel as well as the actual burn). In the worst case scenario, if you live in a region where 100% of all electricity is from coal powerplants (shame on your government if you do) the emissions from an electric car is the same as from a petrol car. If you, on the other hand, live in a region where the electricity are from nuclear powerplants, the emissions are really low. Of course there are other problems with nuclear power...
Source for all of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Comparison_with_internal_combustion_engine_vehicles
EV's are expensive, but they're getting cheaper. How many could afford a car before Henry Ford revolutioned the production? I'm pretty sure the EV's will become cheaper in production. The times of great inventions are not gone...
Maintenance is actually cheaper in an EV than a petrol car. A petrol engine has hundreds of moving parts and a complicated driveline, while an electric engine only has a handfull of moving parts and a simple driveline. What's expensive is only the batteries and there will be improvements there.
On the other hand, the fuel cost is much cheaper than a petrol car, and as the petrol prize goes up and the electric cars becomes cheaper, electric cars will soon be cheaper than petrol cars if we look at the entire life-span of the vehicle.
Hydrogen is also interesting, but the problems are even bigger than for electric vehicles. First of all, hydrogen has to be produced - it's not a natural resource. Then it has to be transported to the refueling stations, and unlike electricity, it can't travel through wires. An electric car can be charged anywhere if there's an electric outlet. How many hydrogen refueling stations are there?
Hydrogen is extremely flammable. It doesn't burn like petrol - it explodes. One spark somewhere and you'll end up with the Hindenburg disaster (which, coincidentally, used hydrogen to fly). I wouldn't be comfortable driving around in that, especially not with my family in the
- 621
- United States
a
Last edited:
- 283
- California
- RoadRocket77
I don't agree with going full electric and completely retiring the gas engine. Electric power tools like chainsaws SUCK. I've used 'em before and nothing beats a 50cc 2-stroke engine... yet. and I drive 100 miles ONE WAY to get to work. a wimpy 150 mile range on some RC battery piece of crap would leave me in the middle of nowhere with 50 miles to go to get home. I still say screw electric, go with biofuels like biodiesel or CNG/propane and hydrogen. because hydrogen "explodes" is why it would be so damn efficient. come up with a safe way to contain it and you got a breakthrough design that goes longer than any EV or gas could hope to. gasoline does the exact same thing in an engine. it is compressed in the combustion chamber, a spark plug ignites it and it EXPLODES. an explosion is needed to create the power to make the engine run. with hydrogen it would do the same thing, but you would need much less to get the same effect as gas. 25 gallons of gas would run out before 25 gallons of hydrogen.
And I sure as hell ain't gonna vote for some jacka$$ that's gonna raise fuel costs just to force us to drive a smart car. If that happens, I'll drive to DC myself in my V8 truck and leave a burn bag on the front porch.
- 88
- South africa
You can't honestly believe it's that simple? Surely? Seriously?
You're speaking in terms of efficiency, which is different to sheer range. By which I mean, a VW Polo is more efficient than a Land Cruiser (goes further per drop of of fuel), but overland exploration 'Cruisers can go for over 1000km with aux fuel tanks installed. Thats range. Of course electric cars may make more effective use of energy. But that doesn't change that fact that they cannot go very far before having to refuel, which is currently a painstaking process. Batteries simply aren't capable of storing enough power.
Regarding cost, yes electricity may be cheaper than petrol/diesel right now. But what about when more people start driving electric cars? Demand goes up, but supply remains constant - therefore price goes up.
Have to disagree with you on this, since I'm in a different part of the world to you. I know that myself and pretty much everyone I know drives way more than 40km per day.
Henry Ford revolutionised the assembly process - not the technology itself, he did not have to perfect the internal combustion engine. But I see your point, so I'll agree with you on this - however read my previous points regarding the cost of fuel itself.
Electricity is not a natural resource either - unless you count lightning, which is pretty much impossible to harness. Yes, it has to be transported, but if the trucks transporting it are running on hydrogen, it will go a long way towards reducing emmissions.
Also regarding your issues with hydrogen safety:
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/hydrogen/a/safehydrogen.htm
Hydrogen is not as dangerous as you may think - certainly not significantly more so than petrol/diesel.
In conclusion, I support the development of hydrogen over batteries for a very simple reason: Electricity is a resource that is already demanded by people and industry. Demanding that it fuel every car on the road is simply too much of a burden. That is why I honestly believe that hydrogen is a more feasible avenue of development.
Similar threads
