re: Thoughts on the 2015 Ford Charger...err Mustang??

quote:

---

Think about what you posted.

---

Back atcha. You said

quote:

---

...but you're insinuating that all cars will look the same in the future.

---

I "insinuated" nothing. Don't add to what I say. I said

quote:

---

Only one shape is the most aerodynamic.

---

Given a requirement for the size of the model (seating, cu. ft. needed to carry shite, etc.) there are is a minimal amount of leeway in the design to achieve the lowest drag. This improves mpg to help CAFE numbers. Therefore

quote:

---

Parts of that may be true...

---

Seriously!!
What I am saying is

quote:

---

All cars must stay close to this shape due to CAFE standards.

---

That is not in the future. That is right now and has been so for a very long time. Having come from an era where '59 Buicks were common, I see almost every car on the road today looks like just a minor few design cues from any other.
You bring up the Challenger(I owned a new 1970). Chrysler has stepped out of that cookie cutter cutter look farther than Camaro by designing the Charger and Challenger. I never addressed them because Chrysler is able to make up the difference in other cars in there lineup. It is a corp. average. Therefore

quote:

---

There is only so much the designers can do within these constraints.

---

still rings true.
Trucks and SUVs are a drag on the increasingly tightening averages.
Also I said

quote:

---

All cars look like some other car in one way or another.

---

I suppose you addressed this with

quote:

---

Challenger for 2015 and retained it's brick aerodynamics...and full size trucks are still a thing.

---

To this I point out that I did not mention trucks. Please don't add to my post.
The next part to discuss is

quote:

---

but all cars aren't going to look the same...that's bogus

---

This is more than insinuating. This is predicting. You killed this part of your sentence before you started it with

quote:

---

I'm sure there is a certain design standard to be met for all cars going forward,

---

Hell yes, there is. It's called CAFE and those requirements are scheduled to go up from the current 27.5 (23.5 truck) to 37.8 (27.8 truck) in 2016 and 54.5 mpg by 2025. Only so much can be done with mechanical advances and hybrids. Are you telling me that cars that look the same today won't look like each other in the future? Are you promising the Challengers won't fall to these standards? How far into the future are you thinking? And will trucks that you bring up not be a "thing"?

One more thing.

quote:

---

I don't need to. Quite a few independent drivers out there that are much more competent than those at Motor Trend and they know how to wring the real potential out of cars. Same thing with every Camaro and Mustang test, Motor Trend is always close to the bottom.

---

This entry that you ed to is 100% correct. Motor Trend has always been this way.

You said this:

quote:

---

Only one shape is the most aerodynamic. All cars must stay close to this shape due to CAFE standards. There is only so much the designers can do within these constraints. All cars look like some other car in one way or another.

---

This just isn't true. You can cut up what I said all you want...but what you said isn't true.

There is not only ONE aerodynamic shape (please show me what it is, if I'm wrong). All cars do NOT have to stay close to that shape provided the mechanics of the car can make up for the design to meet CAFE. Designers have always been constrained irregardless of CAFE. All cars DO NOT look like some other car (though you phrased it in a very "catch all" manner, likely so you couldn't "lose" any rebuttles) - my mom's Jaguar XF doesn't look like a Ford Fusion.

ETA: Maybe you need to elaborate on what you mean by "look the same"...bc I think that is where our differences lie.

quote:

---

This entry that you ed to is 100% correct. Motor Trend has always been this way.

---

I wasn't rolling eyes at the part about Motor Trend being a bottom tier publication (which I don't think it is, anyway), but good job making assumptions.

I was rolling eyes bc the guy I responded to is know-it-all in any car thread. The people at Motor Trend do it for a living, I'm sure they know what they're talking about. Regarding the article I referenced, it was a 1LE vs a GT, the 1LE is a pricier package and is more handling oriented, so it's not really a surprise MT liked it better vs. the Mustang.

Most cars built today have a short box trunk, ie the fusion and the jag in those photos

It's a Ford, so it will probably fall apart in 75,000 miles.....but that's considerably better than any Chrysler product.

I say get one. It's a fantastic addition to any trailer park.

quote:

---

You should have said the shape of cars is the similar...not looks.

---

I said exactly what I meant and provided pictures to prove it. Compared to cars of yore those that you chose make my point. They are all of the cookie cutter cars with styling cue differences. They all stay right near that lowest cd shape. Thanks.

quote:

---

Because by your standards, a 1970 Impala is similar in shape to a 1970 Galaxie 500...

---

You add things into what other people say when you are face to face also??

quote:

---

Yes, I said always..

---

Uhhhh, what other meaning is there for "always"? Put periods of time in your remarks mebbe??

quote:

---

That being said, it certainly explains why you get so butthurt when a stranger challenges your opinion on something and rather than just have a discussion you'd rather resort to being arrogant and condescending.

---

"arrogant and condescending" and a "prick"?? .. yeah, to someone that challenged my statement without explanation. Just consider it deserved. Note to junior: I'm the one that has provided proof of point soooo thanks for being a dumbass that argues from the heart (not head) and can't recognize a person that could advance your car knowledge by untold numbers.

quote:

---

The writers of MT, and all other publications, do that for a living...

---

You've said similar before. You failed to read and understand something I said earlier. Slightly differently this time, MT has consistently shown over the years a bias toward European cars. As European and domestic have gotten more alike they may chose domestic. The fly in the ointment is THEIR DATA NEVER MATCHES OTHER PUBLICATION'S DATA .... AND THOSE GUYS DO IT FOR A LIVING TOO. Their data never matches ours either BUT ours matches other publications.
You have opinions but you have no facts, experience, history, etc. in the automotive industry. I'm really wasting my time because of the division in knowledge. Your life if totally in info from a rag and the cars you see on the highway. I did a brake job on a friends Chev. 2500 last night while watching the football game. I've done this kind of stuff for longer than you have been alive. Think next time before you call someone's post "bullshite" but can't back it up. Ask me nicely and you can help prep our Cobra body for paint. Now do you want me to school you on motorcycles? Ever rode a rotary engine bike??