emajnthis

The Azera's are nice but the rear end looks gross. The one thing i always hate about Hyundai's are the center consoles. It seems like they try so hard on the entire car and then just have no clue what to do with the stereo and climate controls, so it always looks generic, cheap, and out of place. They're surprisingly roomy inside (with the exception of the Tiburon) and aside from the cheap interiors, their motors and transmissions are very reliable. Definitely test drive a Mazda6 (speed if you have the cash) and a Legacy GT (okay so the GT is way expensive but it's worth it), the Accord V6's are horribly inemic regardless of transmission type (MT or AT) but make up for it with the interior; be warned that the climate controls are kind of awkward in the Accord. I haven't test driven a Fusion, the TSX is an Accord with a better motor so i'd recommend that if you have the money. Now that i think of it, go test drive a WRX (regular one, not an STI), they're fast, they have AWD, climate control, and very nice interior room. And the MotoRex thing, i'm glad he's put in jail they're all a bunch of money laundring idiots. When i was over in California with my brother we went over to Motorex and aside from them totaly screwing people for the cost of Skylines they're also the laziest people on earth. Two mechanics showed up just to eat lunch and go home and they had four cars on lifts.

V6 outperforms Honda and Toyota's V6 (Power to weight is much stronger), they no longer are using Mitsubishi motor/transmissions, and they hired the former head engineer from BMW to help them build motors. I took one for a test drive, i'd honestly say that you're not going to get a better sedan for your money anywhere, so long as you can look past the cheap plastic they use on the interior. I'd say take one for a test drive then take anything in its class out for a test drive and you'll be cleverly surprised.

The NSX wouldn't be so bad if it just used a better motor, anything, even a suped out F22 is better than that V6. You can get them cheaper if they're old, but even a 91 with nearly 100,000 miles is still going to run you in the twenty's, and that's for a car with a tired motor, more than definitely less than perfect condition, and the crappier (but not by much) V6 and transmission.

Well let's start here: It's US debut was 91, and there's generally a year hold out from Europe Japan, so its official debut was 1990. It's biggest selling point was a monocoque body, maintenance so simple raw meat could do it for you, and a more civilized daily driver like feel with track car performance (as opposed to race car feel with super car performance) and in its 15 year run a consistent 90,000 price tag. The dispute is not whether the NSX is a "Good" or "Bad" car, but whether or not it's worth 90,000 dollars! In its specific time, there were plenty of cars that were much better than it (and consistently so even today) even at its debut. In Japan, the 1989 R32 Skyline GT-R still posted better times than it in All categories at less than half of its MSRP, and by 1993 the Supra Twin Turbo also with better times (way better times, especially in the 1/4, i remember because i raced one: 13.1 vs 13.9) but at half of its MSRP, and both of which were not hand built production cars. Also in 93 you had the Twin Turbo RX-7 R1 which posted the same times as the NSX, and let's not forget about the Corvette which also posts better times at half of its MSRP. Even the 1990 300ZX Twin Turbo posted the same times as the NSX and that's only because it came with T-tops and a cast iron blocked motor (which was probably one of Nissan's worst motors to date). Trust me when i say that i can go on (I didn't even get much into the domestic market), but with a whole slew of house hold car names from a slew of loved car companies i think i've made my point. The NSX is good at what it does, but not good enough to justify spending 90,000 dollars, especially when you consider the limits of which you can customize its performance (without spending another 90,000 dollars). Favoritism aside, this car is simply not worth it. **(all times are based on the American version of the vehicle, the NSX showed no difference from the Euro/Japan based model to the American model, in fact it's actually worse in Japan because of the gentleman's agreement. You can be sure that most of the Japanese models (sans NSX) mentioned are far better in Japan, for instance their 300ZX's come in hard tops and their RX-7's are equipped with 280hp.)**

Traffic sucks here in the District too. I love watching racing, but by the time Sunday rolls around i'll be lucky if i can stay awake through a race let alone scold drivers through the television.

On Sundays they show nothing but racing for most of the day on the SPEED channel. I really don't have free time during the week for TV so i'm glad i can catch big races on Sundays along with highlights of previous races.

If you wanted an SI you might as well buy the RSX; you get better seats and more horse power.

You have to sympathize for him, because he had such a good race to have his cylinder heads go haywire. For F1 i noticed that Ferrari hasn't been top tier for awhile though BMW stays pretty consistent (generally top three where abouts, with a win here and there). I'm still surprised to see Renault/Nissan leading the way, i haven't seen any of the other companies that are going to tout their F1 technology (Honda, Toyota) in top ranks, so it makes me wonder if it'll be worth it when their respective cars are released (NSX, LS-H).

I watched the first round of the GT champs with both the new Aston Martin DB9's and the lonely GTR34. Basically for every one Aston there were about 6 C6's and Vipers. Porsche had some old GT3's and a 911 Turbo and there were maybe two CTS-V cadillac's. Viper took first (Vette broke down with 5 laps to go) Cadillac took second and the Astons and the Skyline were somewhere in the twenty's (a couple places up from their starting position). The Aston's laid down some pretty good track times considering they were just put together not even a couple days before the race, you could tell they weren't quite setup right because they were having awful wheel hop in the corners. The Viper that won was smokin, same with the Cadillac, they were setup to perfection handling the tight corners and bolting out of the Apex's. Really fun to watch, also caught the end of Formula 1 and saw that Renault won the track (Ferrari was in sixth and back) and BMW and various others in the ranks behind, kind of unusual, as when i normally catch F1 Schumacher wins with BMW close on their tail.

LOL, that movie was funny without the subs, the subs just made it hilarious; go Bollywood.

that's true, but is it so hard to properly incorporate the two? I mean if you're going to show an engine shot of the Eclipse at least have a turbo in there, and if you've shifted into first gear once, there's no point in doing it twice. It's not the action that ruins the movie, it's the details. I got the same experience from this that i got from a Rambo movie as a kid: Fast and the Furious gets you caught up in the action of it all but once the movies over, or you go to watch it again you laugh and point at all the inconsistencies. Much like how Rambo never reloads, or will have an injury in one scene and then the next scene he'll be perfectly fine. It's fun to watch, but would have satisfied the technical nut in you if they just put two seconds worth of effort into the material; it's as if they finished the movie and didn't watch it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, F&F is entertaining to watch (well the first one, the second one just seemed so long and half assed), but in terms of satisfying the car enthusiast appetite it really leaves you starving.

I watched the first one with my brother expecting something great but instead got a whole bunch of hyped up hollywood crap (20 minute quarter miles? shifting into first gear twice for no reason? The Hood shot of the Eclipse showed had no turbo but then has blow off when shifting? The Charger and the Supra were cool but that was about it). I only watched the second one for the Skyline GT-R but then after seeing that it was pretty much all CGI and then it gets wrecked, i walked out of the theatre. I own neither and caught the rest of teh second one on TNT. I'm actually going to go see this one since 1) it's drifting, and I Love drifting 2) they're using cars from japanese based motorsport companies 3) Different director. Main reasons I may see a different movie is 1)bowow 2) F&F franchise, so it has the potential to be the absolute worst of the three.

As odd as it sounds, Japanese people actually love American cars (especially classic american Muscle and gangster boats) but are generally reserved for those with deep pockets as its very expensive to import an American car. In fact the D1 drift Mustang got second place last year and an American sponsored G35 got first. I don't really see it as a disgrace to put a different motor in a Mustang, it's just the Japanese putting their spin on it, kind of like how people put LS1's in their RX-7's or 350 crate motors in their 240Z's.

i kept my eyes open for it in the preview and didn't see it, but i did see the D1 Mustang, and a slew of other great drift cars.

Awesome magazine, it's just so comfoting knowing that people aren't blowing small (and large) fortunes to make a ride that kicks nuts. It is possible to get supercar performance on a carpenter's budget.

I can't believe someone else reads that magazine, my brother and I find that magazine to be a humble releif from the "spend your life savings on your car" magazines. I don't have a subscription yet but i believe the last person who won the last challenge they held (i think it was $2000 budget race car) was a guy who jammed a Vette motor in his CRX and still had change (got the motor from a junk yard, and paid under 1000 for the car).

Pheh. You're comparing 1989 technology to 2004 technology. You're right, buying a new NSX doesn't make sense, but that doesn't make the NSX any less incredible. Wait for the 2008 NSX replacement, then make a judgment. 381384[/snapback] Actually it's 1990 technology vs. 1999 technology (if you're counting it by the Japanese release) as the NSX was released in the US in 91 and the S2000 was released in 2000, but even so the technology in the NSX is still more advanced than what was put into the S2000. It has nothing to do with technology, it has everything to do with formula, the NSX's V6 (and any Honda V6 for that matter) sucks, and it took them almost two decades to realize that. If technology was the issue then people wouldn't be comparing brand new exotics against the McLaren F1 for good measure (also built in 91).

For the first time in a F&F movie they're going to use cars that are fast in real life. The Veilside RX-7 (yes that orange/black car is an RX-7) is heavy but has some insane HP number under the hood unlike their last RX-7 used in the first movie. And i can't recall what company makes that 350Z, but other recognizable companies like Signal Auto's and C-West's S15's and a few Skyline's are definitely from Japanese based Motorsports companies and not from some rich guys garage or singular franchise. It already loses points for putting Bowow in it, so the cars and the track racing better make up for the letdown in compitent acting.

I went to test drive a few Jeep's with my brother and they are so nice inside and have a very commanding presence but are Stupid friggin expensive. Chrysler's are great, but I can buy a comporably equipped Ford or GM classed vehicle and still walk away with 5-6 grand. I Love Chrysler's Hemi, but they're charging top dollar for any car equipped with it, and the rest of their vehicles use gas hogging Mercedes motors.

you're not the only one who's brought up those similar arguements; just about every car rag has done one, though my favorite was the S2000 vs the NSX (same 0-60 and 1/4 mile is only .2 seconds slower). That is one good/bad thing about the NSX is that it hasn't changed since it was conceived (by change i mean performance) so you can buy a first year 90's NSX and still perform the same as a brand new one (maybe even better since the new ones have the Targa top) so whoever buys a new one is a fool. EDIT: Alfa Romeo is going to come out with an AWD coupe, i think its using the V6 but i'd have to go back and read the article on it.

Must have missed that episode, good facts. I have driven both though (RX8 350Z) and they are two completely different driving experiences, so i can't imagine people who want an RX8 would put the 350Z in the same category as they fulfill different driving senses. The EVO is probably the only car from Mitsubishi i would purchase as my friend who is a master mechanic at a Nissan dealership (formerly Nissan/Mitsubishi dealership) tells me that the EVO's are the only cars that Mitsubishi seems to give a spit about as they're built pretty well. But i would definitely take a WRX (not the STI) over an EVO any day. At least one thing makes me happy about those lap times, and that's the NSX only pulling .2 seconds faster than everything else (that matters) on the board but costing anywhere between two to three times what all of those vehicles cost. That further proves to me the total crapiness of the NSX, now if only everyone else would remove the scales from their eyes and see that. EDIT: I just took a look at the track their racing these cars on and I would hardly consider that a "real" track. If you look at the top standings they start to get funny, like a CLS55AMG beating a Viper SRT10 and other such oddities.

but the point Seven is making is valid, the 350Z is for people who want a true bred RWD sports coupe. I don't know what track you're running but the 350Z will totally burn an RX-8 around a track, the RX-8 doesn't have sufficient torque to pull out of the Apex's (I'll admit that it's suspension is more than sufficient thus is typical of Mazda: slow motors, great suspensions; i loved how you could red line it all day but even at redline the torque is completely vacant). I'll also admit its easier to drive (handles like a dream actually), but since it doesn't use a conventional motor, you run the risk of someone seriously screwing up your car even with simple maintenance. The STI/EVO are rally inspired turbo sedan AWD cars that are really in a completely different class.

HP is completely irrelevant when it comes to what really pulls your car off the line: torque, something that Toyota has always been bad at (Supra being the exception). The MkIV Supra and the second Gen MR2 were the only great sports cars to ever come out of Toyota, and if it wasn't for a little movie called Fast and the Furious, the Supra wouldn't even be a recognized name. Not to mention their motors as of late claim all this HP but where's the torque? At least Nissan motors have the torque to support their HP (hence the great numbers on road tests). Not to mention some poor guy is going to pay 40,000 dollars for a hyped up Solara. And the biggest point that always hurts Toyota is weight, my Supra was a friggin Porker that couldn't take a corner and it used an Inline 6, i can only imagine how much worse it will be with a V8. Personally, if you're going to blow 50,000 on a Toyota you may as well just buy the better performing ZO6 Vette, or save 10grand and buy a 450Z (VK45 V8 that is used in the the M class and the FX, and if you're sick of displacement names then you should go yell at BMW, Mercedes, and Ferrari 'cause God forsake them to ever use displacement on their badges ever again). I'm not saying that the Supra will be a failure, but given Toyota's sports car credibility as of late (no Celica, no MR2, and salesman have to try and sham people with the Solara as their "sports" car), i'm definitely not holding my breath (also keep in mind that i used to manage sales for Toyota and found them to be highly overrated, i used to wonder why people would just bend over whiel i charged them a premium for utter non sense). And just a little bit off the topic at hand, but did anyone else realize that the new GTI weighs in at 3300lbs!? that's the same as an EVO/STI/350Z!

Forgive me for coming in kind of out of nowhere, but even in the show the VF-2SS was (as far as i can remember) never shown in the atmosphere, the VF-2JA was the primary atmospheric fighter. Seto Kaiba the YF-21/VF-22 seemed (IMO) more largely based on the design of the YF-23 than the F-22, as the 23 was very thin and sleek and had at the time what would be considered a variable wing design (the rear flaps of the wings could do more than just swivel up and down but could also split in half and serve as a type of airbrake and assist in amazing maneuverability) and also in relation to the Macross universe lost to it's competition over politics (but unlike Macross didn't get a second chance). Personally i liked most of the MII mecha, especially the VF-2SS and the Metal Siren, but i'd have to agree that while the VF-2SS would make an ideal space fighter, that it would make an awful atmospheric fighter and is probably only in the design as a safety if atmospheric entry becomes necessary.