You didn't ask a question, nor would you be intelligent enough to a) posit a question worth a response or b) understand same.
We know you are.
Fabrication and half-truth on your part, combined with grasping at straws. And yet every reasonable person understands precisely how it is possible to be nearly blind without glasses and yet still be able to pass a vision examv - put your damn glasses on, dumbass!
Again, your insults most precisely describe yourself. You have a very unique and yet pathetic mental illness.
Here's a clue - Jim and I disagree. But he, unlike you, is able to at least articulate his thoughts in a manner such that I can understand the point that he's trying to make, and he doesn't come across as a complete moron.
You'd do well to follow his example and start making some goddamned sense.
Or continue to let everyone think you're retarded, that's always on the table too.
How could anyone respect something that works 99% of the times? and even then does a good job at annoying driver with unintended shifts?
i don't understand the porsche reference since i never owned one, but i do prefer audi a4 to the taurus (improper (soft) suspension tuning, slushbox) and the japs (various reasons, mostly NVH)
excluding opel what exactly is not true in the statement "fine German machinery"? can't make a blanket comment on their reliability in the states but the driving experience definitely surpasses japs, on average
little things seem to be thought through : you can feel the people been doing this for over a decade vs 60something years in the land of your own personal sun
Yes, jim's question you "answered", irrelevantly, to the point of supporting my opinion you are functionally illiterate.
GM does not manufacture "most modern autoboxes".
Therefore, your "answer" and "cite" are incomprehensible, since they involve 1 (ONE) model of GM "autobox".
Your cite would be woefully insufficient evidence to condemn even that model transmission. Have someone Google "hasty generalization" and explain it to you.
Jim writes (to you): "why the FUCK do you make some many ridiculously contradictory statements??? at this stage, i just plain don't believe a single damned thing you say."
Not even your "cite" agrees with you.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Your nonsensical answer indicates not only do you not understand the question, you don't understand the premise you forwarded.
In addition, your "cite" actually refutes what you report to be the "problem" with your transmission, in uppercase: " I FEEL IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION WHICH DOES NOT SURFACE UNLESS YOU DRIVE IN THE MOUNTAINS."
What is missing from your reply is the attribution for that comment..
Nate irrelevantly injects his ragged-out 944 shitbox whenever he thinks it might impress someone, and "fine German machinery" whenever he means his ragged-out shitbox "Scirocco" and wants you to think he means late-model MB/s, Audi/s BMW/s, etc.
It is of no consequence, just evidence of his habit of self- aggrandizement. -----
oh, I don't know much if anything about 944. I was assuming cheaper 911s are not much worse than the original.
cayman reviews were pretty positive througout the lifecycle of that model in the prosche lineup, i have to assume the predecessor was okay too.
i for one like older simpler car that you don't mind so much whenever you fender bend and, snowstorm comes, that's pretty much a given every few years :-[
gpstard refuses to believe that an aged and used example of a car that was good to begin with can be more pleasant to drive than a brand new example of a shitty car.
You asked the question, but apparently you were to busy doing whatever it is you do to look for the answer. It is public information available to all. It took about a minute to find it. He clearly advertises himself as a PE which implies there is a public record to confirm this and that he doesn't mind people looking for it. He also has an easily accessed website and provides a legitimate email address in his posts. He doesn't hide behind made up names and BS email address, so I am guessing he is not concerned with a simple post confirming his PE license.
you're clutching at straws. i've dismantled a 944. it's brilliant at one thing and one thing only - convincing the clueless to part with ridiculous sums of money for nothing. it's little better than a bug in terms of mechanicals, and its materials have more in common with a low end chevy than anything else. putting those two factors into the perspective of price tag, and you have a first class rip-off.
It's one of the best handling cars ever made - and don't take my word for it, all the enthusiast mags of the time agreed with me. The mechanicals have absolutely nothing in common with a Beetle; all of the non-Porsche DNA in it is Audi/WCVW (which makes sense, as it was a joint Porsche/Audi project originally, when it was the 924)
perhaps you're thinking of a 914? your criticisms would be valid applied to that vehicle, although I still have to admit to a soft spot for them. It still rightly failed in the marketplace despite its goodness, as the Datsun 240Z performed slightly better and cost a lot less (this is the important bit - the 914/6 was wayyyy to expensive for what it was, and the 914/4 was a little disappointing in the power department,) thus becoming wildly popular and the 914 was sadly relegated to a footnote.
And, I'll stand by the statement (although I didn't explicitly make it) that I'd rather drive either a 944 or 914 than a lot of newer vehicles.
aren't "enthusiast mags unbiased and completely objective? no, i thought not. and aren't you the guy that thinks leaf sprung solid axles "handle well"?
then you evidently don't know beetles.
formatting link
i.e. cheap and retarded bending trailing arms.
so what? it's still just cheap junk.
it's whatness? it's a piece of cheap, ill-fitting, poorly machined, poorly spec'd garbage.
the front engined porches were garbage. cheap nasty castings, poor materials, rust prone, soft liners, cheap fall-apart interiors - utter garbage.
what you need to stand by is the wall of getaclue.
I may or may not have said that they handle acceptably, and they can - if set up right. A well designed IRS is always going to be better; a poorly designed IRS may well be worse.
OK, so there's similarities in the hubs... but that's it, a Beetle uses a trailing arm type front suspension, a 924/944 uses struts. Completely different.
see above
I respectfully disagree, I have found it to be neither junk, nor (sadly) are the parts inexpensive although the whole car used can be.
The only major design "flaws" I can think of off the top of my head would be the cam belt driven water pump (944/968 only - the 924 still used the Audi engine,) requiring frequent and expensive service to prevent undesired valve/piston interfaces and also the non-collapsible torque tube design that required removal of a whole mess of stuff for a simple clutch job (eventually rectified for the 968 series.)
Are we talking about the same car?
The 914 wasn't front engine, so I'm not sure what you're attacking here... those criticisms don't apply at all to my experiences with the 944s (unless you mean that damned console lid hinge... that is kind of crap.) I have no experience with the 928. The 914 *was* rust prone but the 944 was after Porsche introduced galvanized body panels, so they actually tend to hold up well rust-wise so long as they're washed every now and then.
If you say so... keep driving those prices down. It'll make it less painful for me to buy another someday :)
don't limit yourself with facts or analysis there nate - keep your options WIIIIIIIDE open.
you don't know your bugs.
formatting link
yeah, see above.
yeah, you find enthusiast magazines to be objective and unbiased.
you're right - i was thinking of the 924. i guess i was confused by the word "porsche" because the 914 doesn't qualify - it's just a body kitted bug. without even bothering to try not to be crappy. it certainly doesn't address anything about the bug's useless suspension.
no nate, anyone that hands over the fruits of their labor in exchange for a 914, 924 or 924 is a sadly deluded individual. on that basis, the hive mind will /never/ be enlightened enough pay what it's actually worth.
Do you argue that there have been cars that have been provided with ostensibly independent rear suspension just for the sake of being able to put "IRS" in the glossy color brochures? And that those cars don't actually handle as well in the real world as a well set up live axle car?
Heck, if we're going to pick nits, a whole mess of watercooled VWs with "independent" rear suspension actually have a twist beam/trailing arm rear suspension that while independent in name really isn't (OK, it's an independent rear suspension with one hell of a sway bar) and those cars can be made to handle very well indeed (for FWD, that is.) I believe it was the VW Corrado that was at one time considered to be the FWD equivalent of the 944 as the pinnacle of handling. (although, having driven several, I still prefer the A1 chassis cars just for sheer lightness and nimbleness, and there's enough cross-pollination that everything that made the Corrado good can be pretty much bolted onto an A1.) Not that Germany had a lock on good handling, mind you - the Honda Prelude was right up there, and in Honda's defense, on paper their suspension was way better, although it didn't actually translate to the immense advantage that you'd expect in the real world.
To cut a long ramble short - sometimes a seemingly simplistic suspension design can actually work really, really well if it's put together by people who know what they're doing. Porsche (at least historically) has been able to pull that off... Heck, if they can make a 911 handle well, they have to have something going for them.
not seeing your point. Look at the pics in this thread
formatting link
I see a double trailing arm front suspension and a swing axle rear.
That looks NOTHING like a 944's suspension, which is strut front and trailing arm rear.
formatting link
See what? Clearly you're confused as to what car has what type of suspension.
Where did I ever say that? I find that sadly, the magazine that you can trust, if it even exists at any given moment in time, is sadly not likely to stay that way. That said, I've never heard a 944 criticized as "cheap junk" (nor would I categorize it as same) except from the gold-chain-wearing crowd that considers a Porsche to be a "lifestyle accessory" and wouldn't know oversteer from an overbite.
One man's "useless" is another man's "kick in the ass to drive." A 914 is still more fun to drive than 99% of the cars on the market today, despite its shortcomings. Sadly, due to overbearing safety regulations, we'll likely never see the likes of it again, although I would like to give a new Lotus a try to see if it compares.
Like I said, keep driving those prices down. More fun for me.
While you're at it, could you keep running down Volvo 1800s and BMW 3.0s as well? I'd like to own those someday as well. I'm sure you probably consider those cheap junk as well.
what oxymoronic garbage. people that know what they're doing don't bother with crap. the fact that you think leaf springs and solid axles can "handle" just illustrates your experience poverty on this.
you're sadly out of date. modern 911 is multi-link, highly complex, and the result of the fact that other cars were running rings around them.
that's because you're looking at trailing and swinging. BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE FREAKIN' VEHICLE I CITED.
get a clue. beetle front suspension changed, per the cite you're apparently incapable of reading. [sheesh, i've still got the workshop manual somewhere.]. the "super beetle" was macpherson. and your p.o.s. is just a dressed up super beetle.
and that 944 crap is just bug suspension. ridiculous.
no, i checked my facts.
formatting link
as would have you if you were either honest or had any actual interest.
whose words are these?
"It's one of the best handling cars ever made - and don't take my word for it, all the enthusiast mags of the time agreed with me."
as opposed to an "engineer" that doesn't know macpherson from trailing arm? which you apparently don't.
i'm sure that if i drove a donkey cart, the 914 might be better. in some respects. maybe. but by saying that, all you're doing is showing that you're clueless, inexperienced and have never driven anything decent.
wow!!!!! can i smoke some of that? [not sure i can handle it though - it seems like it's real strong.]
yeah, you go try an elise nate. than come back and tell us how closely comparable it is to your p.o.s.
er, i think you just did that yourself - your enthusiasm for a vehicle is a proven guarantee of its inferiority.
The fact that you disagree with this shows that you're stuck on theory and not practice.
And it still has most of the weight hanging out in back of the rear axle. Porsche themselves realized that and tried to replace the 911 with the 928 ages ago, but the die-hard Porsche owners didn't accept it.
I don't know what vehicle you're trying to compare to what vehicle. You said 944 and bug. That's what I was looking at.
Beetle Super Beetle. Specifics, they're important.
Does it work? Yes. Does it work well? Yes. So what's your point? are you simply getting all snobby because Porsche didn't choose to unnecessarily design a special part to serve the purpose that an easily available off the shelf part serves the purpose. (and no, the late 944 suspension isn't shared in any meaningful way with any VW at all.)
I suppose they should have designed their own relays and FI controls as well, because the off the shelf Bosch units are just too common?
I'm having a hard time "fact checking" you because you are not being clear and precise as to what you're saying. First you're confused as to the difference between a 944 and a 924 and a 914 and now you're confused as to the difference between a Beetle and a Super Beetle (while looking quite similar, they're really very different underneath.)
Bullshit. Simply looking behind a tire is enough to discern between a strut type suspension and trailing arms, although you clearly are quite confused.
And a lot of modern cars are closer to a donkey cart in terms of driving experience. Gratuitous insult noted.
Go drive some new cars.
I'd love to!
Riiiight.
So tell me, what do *you* think is a good car, and why?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.