Unpopular Opinions- Cars in General

  • Thread starter Turbo
  • 1,718 comments
  • 168,000 views
I'd really enjoy a clean 996.2 C4S. That light strip helped the rear, and I feel the brakes/suspension from the Turbo would make it a nice halfway-house in terms of daily-driving compared to the equivalent GT3.

I'm not a massive fan of the front bumper on the C4S (and Turbo, come to think of it) but I'm definitely with you on the light strip. Money not being an issue I'd probably have some sort of hybrid between many models (C2 with Turbo brakes and suspension, GT2 front bumper, GT3RS rear wing). That's the thing with these luxury/sports cars, finding a used one that suits your needs can be quite the challenge.
 
A Japanese car needs an American truck engine to be fast.
Depends on your definition of fast and now much money you wanna spend.

Stock 2Js with more than 600hp are ticking time bombs.
Well, I never said they lasted for very long. A quick google shows that people seem to blow them up around the 700whp mark so I'll take your word for it.

With that said, trying to make 1000hp on stock internals for any engine seems kinda sketchy.
 
Okay, I love the 370z.

But I want it to die. It's just too outdated. Facelifts don't help it either.

Finally, Nissan is working on the next Z car. The guestion is, when will they reveal it?
 
The Versa gets a bad rap as "car as appliance".





Granted, it IS the epitome of "car as appliance", but it makes no pretensions about being anything else and I respect that.
 
The Versa gets a bad rap as "car as appliance".





Granted, it IS the epitome of "car as appliance", but it makes no pretensions about being anything else and I respect that.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to like the Nissan Versa. However, there's something still enjoyable about chucking around a compact car around a parking lot or on local roads. Something we're probably losing with the growing crossovers. That said, I've driven some fun crossovers....
 
I want to disagree but... Can't. It's by no means an undeserved win, making their cars last the night is no mean feat, but it does feel a bit hollow.
 
R5
I want to disagree but... Can't. It's by no means an undeserved win, making their cars last the night is no mean feat, but it does feel a bit hollow.

I’ll be honest, making a car last for 24 hours of non-stop racing at high average speeds is a technical achievement for the engineers, but watching this Le Mans was about as exciting as watching Mercedes win a Gran Prix in Formula 1.
 
I can understand what everyone means, the lack of competition, but that's not Toyota's fault. Ultimately, they worked hard over the winter with a rigorous testing programme to iron out the faults, and it showed with ultimately a fantastic performance with the two cars running like clock-work (bar the pit-in mistake by the #7 which meant it had to limp round the save fuel at one instance). And at the end of the day, then won one of the toughest races on earth, which is no mean feat.

Also to add, all the non-hybrid P1 guys ran into problems or incidents, as both Rebellions lost a fair few laps in the pits with a selection of small issues (RLM worked it out to be something like 6 laps based on time spent in the pits). And to be honest regardless of the chatter about EoT; which does need work, it was never going to be the closest of LM24's, but since the privateer guys are allowed to develop their cars unlike Toyota this season, lets hope things close up.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's daft to say they don't deserve praise. They've been the quickest cars at Le Mans for the last few years, with only bad luck getting in their way of victory. While it's a shame they didn't have more competition this year, and it's impossible to say whether the result would have gone the same way had Porsche and Audi still been around, it's not like having little strong competition is the only reason they won - they won because they've spent the last few years developing a car capable of winning at Le Mans. It's hardly Toyota's fault that the race wasn't exciting, either.
 
Toyota deserves little praise for basically winning the Le Mans 24 when it was handed to them on a silver platter.

Come back and win when there’s actual competition from other cars that can keep pace, then I’ll be impressed.
Exactly kinda ironic they win le man after Audi and Porsche leave :rolleyes:
 
Well, why the Hell not?

:P
A car's fanbase might be annoying or posey but what does that have to do with th actual car?

I'll always love a first-gen Civic Type-R, no matter how obnoxious the "VTEC gang" gets. Annoying followers doesn't make a car any worse than it is.
 
A car's fanbase might be annoying or posey but what does that have to do with th actual car?
It was a joke...hence the smiley intended to indicate it as such.

That said, it isn't so much the fanbase as it is the drivers. And what would make one dislike other drivers despite not actually knowing them? Asinine behavior. Spend 30 years sharing the road with people exhibiting asinine behavior, noting commonalities with what they're driving, and maybe it's not so surprising you associate certain vehicles with particular behavior and dislike the vehicles themselves as a result. It's almost as if certain vehicles even encourage certain behavior.
 
Not sure exactly if this is unpopular, but I personally think Honda attracts bad drivers. I've dealt with Hondas tailgating me, cutting me off, swerving through lanes without using signals/indicators, tailgating other people, and one CR-V driver drove towards me on the wrong side of the road. Oh, and sometimes hogging lanes. However, this is only my experience based on driving or riding along across the eastern side of the US.

With that said, I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, because I can easily be wrong about this.
 
^ I can't disagree or agree with you. I don't live on the east coast so I don't know if you are right about Honda drivers. Where I live, bad drivers drive all sorts of cars from different makes.
I might be wrong but, people my age don't tend to be interested or care about Veteran Cars. I'm talking about cars made from the 1920's and prior. I for one LOVE cares from these eras. A lot of my buds really hate or dislike these cars because they are "ugly, slow, uncool, etc."
Sure "most" were slow, but this was 80, 90, 100+ years ago. Cars then really had a high sensation of speed. IMO cars then were beautiful. (sure you had many oddly styled vehicles of the 1880's and 1890's) but they were all different and stood out from one another. The cars were all hand-built by trained hands and used the highest quality materials. No cheap plastics or robots used. The brass era (1905-1915) was the beginning of mass production and sports cars. The Ford Model T was introduced and many sports cars came to the market. Two famous American sports car rivals, the Mercer Raceabout and Stutz Bearcat were made.
Cars of that era have a real authentic and mechanical feel to them. I drove a few brass era cars and holy cow they are fun!
You think your 90's sports car feels very direct and mechanical? No, not until you drive an antique like one of these and you'll realize that
YOU are part of the machine. NOTHING is electronic and the controls are complicated. It all adds to the pleasure of early automobiles.
I just think that younger people don't care about cars that were made from a great generation. The dawn of the motorcar.
1913 Mercer Type 35 J Raceabout
1913-Mercer-Type-35-J-Raceabout-961x641.jpg


1914 Stutz Bearcat Series A B
maxresdefault.jpg
 
I'd say the exception to that is when the car in question is catered to them.

Reminds me of how manufacturers are trying to cater to the "murdered out" crowd. Black on black everything....
18tdi-althelios601.jpg.ximg.l_full_m.smart.jpg

2017-silverado-special-editions-03.jpg

jeep-cherokee-night-eagle-ii-2017-201630669_11.jpg


And they're always owned by the overly aggressive drivers on the road. :irked:
 
I might be wrong but, people my age don't tend to be interested or care about Veteran Cars.
I don't think it's an unpopular opinion to say that - more a statement of fact. The cars are so far removed from people who were born in the 80s/90s/00s/whatever that they seem little more related to modern cars and motoring than horses and carts.

I have a passing interest in them - I always enjoy the early 1900s stuff when it's at Goodwood, and the history too given the car has been one of the most significant inventions of the last century-and-a-bit - but I think what'll spur the real interest is, effectively, when all the people currently interested in them (and able to fix them) die, and the values drop like a stone.

Most people interested in cars like that are old themselves, and they've had a lifetime to accrue wealth and accrue the cars themselves, which pushes up the price of the vintage stuff just as boomers are pushing up the prices of 50s-70s cars. But when the majority of the people who own those cars are no longer around and there's no next-generation willing to take them on, values will fall. I believe it's something that section of the hobby is already concerned about.
 
Personally, I do have respect of cars from the era. Though, I can't say I have a huge interest in them aside from the racing machines developed during that time such as the early Bugatti race cars and the Bentleys.
 
Here is one unpopular opinion:

People who buy Audi A1/A3, Bmw 1 series, Benz A series, is because they cant afford a proper Sedan, coupe, estate etc. of these premium german brands.

Americans don't know how a proper car is supposed to handle.
 
People who buy Audi A1/A3, Bmw 1 series, Benz A series, is because they cant afford a proper Sedan, coupe, estate etc. of these premium german brands.

Or you know, they still want luxury but don't feel the need to buy a land yacht.

Americans don't know how a proper car is supposed to handle.

Ah the old True Scotsman fallacy, been awhile since I've seen that classic.
 
Back