Unpopular Opinions- Cars in General

  • Thread starter Turbo
  • 1,718 comments
  • 167,812 views
XJ-S is awesome (maybe this is unpopular?).
01tajag2.jpg
The XJ-S is an awesome car bro... One of the most historic cars in Australian motorsport history is a Jaguar XJ-S owned by Tom Walkinshaw... Won Bathurst in 1985, steered by Jon Goss and Armin Hahne.
John_Goss_1985_Bathurst_winning_Jaguar_XJS_(14917976168).jpg
Unpopular opinion, I think not.
 
People who owned them (especially second hand) almost certainly have a considerably different opinion about how awesome they were than the handful of teams that successfully raced them in the 1980s.

But they'll have the same same problems as the aforementioned crossover/SUVs.
And unlike minivans, there isn't much that a modern wagon does particularly better than a modern crossover.
 
Last edited:
I've liked the ones I was able to drive. There's a few good reasons I don't own one of course. Main reason being the awful electronics.
Smokekit2.jpg
 
I can't stand Lamborghini, or any of their cars apart from the very obvious exception.

I've reworded this because I'm a tool
 
Last edited:
And unlike minivans, there isn't much that a modern wagon does particularly better than a modern crossover.
Which makes for quite a good unpopular opinion: I think crossovers are generally pretty decent. Not many I'd own myself, but I can't subscribe to the Jalopnik-esque desire to have wagon versions of everything.
Weren't they also susceptible to rust like many other old cars?
Fixed. The number of pre-1990s-ish cars of any origin susceptible to rust vastly outweighs the number resistant to rust.
 
[QUOTE="Tornado, post: 11513755, member: 75653"}
And unlike minivans, there isn't much that a modern wagon does particularly better than a modern crossover.[/QUOTE]

Wagons handle better, are faster, use less fuel and (for the most part) fit more stuff inside.
 
Wagons handle better,
A wagon is going to handle substantially better than a crossover that is probably almost identical mechanically?

are faster,
Faster than what? The crossover that probably is within a couple hundred pounds of an identically specced wagon equivalent?

use less fuel
Less fuel like the BMW 140 uses less fuel then a Corvette?

and (for the most part) fit more stuff inside.
More stuff than what? The crossover that is usually very similar in exterior dimensions but with another foot or so in body height?



The main difference between a modern wagon and a modern crossover made by the same company is usually maybe a couple inches of ground clearance and a more commanding seating position. Even weight differences aren't usually that big nowadays since they usually share nearly everything under the skin. You're not going to impress the couple looking to ferry kids to school by saying the wagon version pulls .01 better cornering G, accelerates to 60 .1 seconds faster, gets a couple MPG more (but with almost certainly substantially less range) and maybe carries marginally more stuff when they are substantially easier to get in and out of and have a better view of the road.
 
Last edited:
Minivan killed the Wagon, SUV killed the Minivan, Crossover killed the SUV. Something will continue the cycle, but I doubt it's a traditional Wagon as we know it.
 
Moreso crossover killed the wagon.
The wagon was already pretty past its sell by date in America by the end of the 80s, and the closest there was to a crossover at the time was the Cherokee. The only reason they really limped into the 1990s was because minivans were even more tragically unhip, even back then (hence GM's unmitigated disaster with the dual Luminas); and 4 door SUVs were thin on the ground.


There wasn't much of a wagon market left to kill by the time the RX300 and X5 came around.
 
Last edited:
First decent res photo in the search--I didn't pay much attention.

I was actually debating using them on my 280z because they do help you actually see behind you compared to typical S30 mirrors, unfortunately my car was just too rusted out to save in the end. Stupid Michigan winter...
 
You mean "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" isn't a positive attribute?

D:
Can attest to GM cars running bad longer. My last car was an '05 Chevy with 150k+ miles on it and relatively few issues.
 
You mean "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" isn't a positive attribute?
D:

Basically the car falls apart around the engine, but the parts are usually cheap enough most don't even notice the car nickel and diming them.
 
in my opinion, there are better alternatives to leather, hide and suede and they're overrated. Also, they probably come from food factories/farms, God knows the true quality.
 
Back