ugly cars!!

[Dr_Snooz]

the original insight is by far better than the honda prius

Damning with faint praise? I've driven lawnmowers that ran smoother than the Prius and were constructed of higher quality materials.

[derolph]

the original insight is by far better than the honda prius, i mean new insight... not an ugly car by any means and yes antares they were very functional.

Well, clearly, "ugly" is a matter of opinion. I have a friend who owns 2010 Insight I think it looks much nicer than the original Insight, and the newer ones are certainly not less functional than the original ones.

[2drSE-i]

Of course ugly is a matter of opinion. IMHO the Aztek is bad, but this is worse:

[derolph]

Of course ugly is a matter of opinion. IMHO the Aztek is bad, but this is worse:

Now, there's one we can agree on. LOL

[Vanilla Sky]

I have some. ALL Acuras with beaks.

[Dr_Snooz]

I always thought the Element looked okay. It was the Scion box from the same era that caused me physical pain. Now's it's been reincarnated as the Nissan Cube, which is even worse. I can't say I find most newer cars in the least bit attractive. Even the latest OMG Lambo, the Reventon, has wierd jutting angles and unseemly growths everywhere. It's just a bad time for car design. Although, I do like some of the Hyundais, and Bimmer has righted itself since getting rid of Chris Bangle.

[87accordlxi]

Damning with faint praise? I've driven lawnmowers that ran smoother than the Prius and were constructed of higher quality materials.

Funny, I recently sat in a new Prius C and the interior materials felt like a 80’s Hyundai. The regular Prius wasn't as bad though.

[Vanilla Sky]

The Prius C is where hybrids need to grow, back down into the small car market. I wish the CRZ got first gen Insight fuel economy. I know people knocking down 50MPG with first generation Insights.

I'd also love a serial hybrid truck powered with a diesel generator like a locomotive. Couldn't give 2 shits what it looks like.

[Austin01]

awee these are really ugly cars and I don't believe that they are still availble in market for sale.. I don't know people what see in these car, I mean what are the features..I also find a car which is really very ugly.

[2oodoor]

..tick tock





Oh and Im still undecided on the new new beetle, one looks real good to me and then I see another one and it looks so wrong so crossover. Color, wheels and trim make a world of difference between these.

[87accordlxi]

..tick tock




Oh and Im still undecided on the new new beetle, one looks real good to me and then I see another one and it looks so wrong so crossover. Color, wheels and trim make a world of difference between these.

There's a new Beetle parked on our street. Looks like a base model with the old-school chrome dish wheels. I dig it

[derolph]

awee these are really ugly cars and I don't believe that they are still availble in market for sale.. I don't know people what see in these car, I mean what are the features..I also find a car which is really very ugly.

I guess you're talking about the Prius since it was the car mentioned in the post preceding yours. I believe the most appealing feature is clearly the fuel economy. My friend who owns a late model Honda Insight has gotten over 60 MPG with it. That's a pretty darn good reason to own one.

[derolph]

I always thought the Element looked okay.

Actually, I think they're not too bad. The color two-tone scheme on the one posted by 2drSE-i is something definitely I would not want to own. I often thought the boxy styling of the Element just seemed odd; it seems like an abandonment of aerodynamic styling the generally pervades auto design today.

[stat1K]

while i'm sure the insight has better build quality (well not that sure) the resemblance is undeniable...

sure the fronts are different but the overall profile is just regurgitated... i've been in one and to say they feel nicer is a bit of an overstatement. the seat material was very poor, much worse than my 08 fit. a lot of car manufacturers have been skimping on the insides not just honda though...

while the element in base trim is meh, trust me i have one, the element in sc trim with a mugen kit is far from ugly in my opinion...



it is sad that new cars don't get nearly the mileage of the old cars, and really a lot of arguments say new cars have lower emissions. but my civic had super low emissions everytime i took it to get sniffed. and it was just an old inefficient d15b7 lol... the crz i feel would be much more capable than it's numbers... Fuel Economy of 2012 Honda CR-Z you can see average user fuel economy is much higher than what is listed.

[Vanilla Sky]

Statik, you haven't been in a modern car, have you? You haven't seen the Hyundai Sonotas knocking down 40MPG, or the Corvettes knocking down 35 on the highway.

In general, the EPA test cycle sucks for most people. A lot of people do fall right around the EPA numbers as intended, but there are a lot of people that don't floor it at every stop light.

[87accordlxi]

I'm reminded of the CRX HF. 25 years ago, the thing got 50mpg and I believe it was the cheapest model. Compare that to nowadays when you have to pay more for the Chevy Cruze ECO model - and that doesn't come close to 50mpg.

But I doubt manufacturers just choose to not make engines that fuel efficient anymore. Cars are way heavier now because of safety expectations, and consumers expect more and more creature comforts. Power windows & locks are an expected feature now, which is why I was shocked recently when pricing cars and saw that the base Kia Rio came with roll-ups. So maybe what's happening is that affordable mass-market engine efficiency technology isn't keeping up with the rate at which we demand larger, heavier and more feature-laden cars.

[Vanilla Sky]

Yeah, you kinda need to compare apples to apples. Find me a 4,000 pound car from they 80's that gets 40MPG and we'll talk.

[stat1K]

i'm not sure i understand your question? i drove a brand new elantra that got "40mpg" highway according to the sticker. Sure it got 40, going 55mph on the highway with cars and semis trying to murder me. When driven at a reasonable speed for arizona freeways it got right at 26. I don't understand where the difference comes from in these cars. That's more or less my point. My 1990 civic (albeit underweight compared to today's cars) got 40 with me jamming on it everywhere. Every day every stop at least a 4k shift out of first, if not 7200. the worst mileage i could muster was when my cat was destroyed somewhere in mississippi on a cross country drive, i still got 32.

So why when you drive a "modern" car does the mileage suffer SO greatly under load than my 1990 honda civic with "antiquated" technology by today's fuel/combustion/ignition standards? My fit gets 40mpg highway currently with hx wheels and doesn't weigh too much, but it too suffers from the vast difference between highway and city mileage numbers. If i drive it mostly city miles i'll get near 32. That's a 20% decrease.

Also your question definitely came off very condescending, nothing new from you, but had you read any of my posts you'd know that i have a 2008 honda fit, and a 2004 honda element. i'm not sure how "modern" my vehicles need to be to meet your standards?

anywho this threads about ugly, not inefficient. sorry to get off topic.

[Vanilla Sky]

I don't know, call it a sampling size error, but I know of 2 people, with a total of 3 Elantras, that are beating the 40MPG estimate not on the highway, but on average. Not hypermilers, no crazy shenanigans with adding fuel elsewhere and calling it an MPG gain.

For what it's worth, I have a 2008 Saturn Astra. I wouldn't consider it current. No direct injection, no infinitely variable valve timing, no super lean burn mode, no turbocharger on a low displacement engine, no super high compression ratio. When it's running right and not throwing a CEL (it's like a VW in this sense), we get about 32MPG on average, mostly city driving. That's not bad for a car that weighs 3,600 pounds, and can't even match the numbers that you can pull off in your (albeit lighter) Fit.

For what it's worth, I meant to say Elantras in the above post, not Sonatas. I don't really keep track of what snooze machines car companies are building.

You seem to be the only one that has an issue with my tone. I don't know why, but it seems that you have come to believe I am an old man, and you read my posts as such. Most of what I say is sarcastic. When I addressed you, I didn't intend for it to come off as condescending. It was a genuine question.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what is "normal freeway speed" out there? In my neck of the woods, the limit is 70, and you're being passed by everyone unless you're doing 80. If you're on I4 and you're not in downtown Orlando, 90 seems to be the target speed.

[2oodoor]

Oh shoot oh shoot no he didn't throw the old man card

Ugly is....Chevy Spark. Lots of cargo space though.

[cygnus x-1]

2012 Elantra base:
28/38 CTY/HWY EPA
148HP
131lb-ft
2701lbs
0.049 HP/lb


1990 Civic base:
28/33 CTY/HWY EPA
70HP
83lb-ft
2127 lbs
0.033 HP/lb



If you drive it like you stole it the 1990 Civic likely will get better mileage because it's significantly under powered compared to the recent Elantra. Other things to consider are that EPA fuel mileage testing standards change periodically, as well as do fuel mixtures, so comparing late model cars to older ones is not so straightforward. I also believe (no numbers to back it though) the majority of the country is now using gasoline blended with ethanol, whereas that wouldn't have been the case 15 or more years ago.


C|

[cygnus x-1]

Oh yeah, ugly...








Fifty Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years: Tata Nano - BusinessWeek



C|

[stat1K]

I don't know, call it a sampling size error, but I know of 2 people, with a total of 3 Elantras, that are beating the 40MPG estimate not on the highway, but on average. Not hypermilers, no crazy shenanigans with adding fuel elsewhere and calling it an MPG gain.

For what it's worth, I have a 2008 Saturn Astra. I wouldn't consider it current. No direct injection, no infinitely variable valve timing, no super lean burn mode, no turbocharger on a low displacement engine, no super high compression ratio. When it's running right and not throwing a CEL (it's like a VW in this sense), we get about 32MPG on average, mostly city driving. That's not bad for a car that weighs 3,600 pounds, and can't even match the numbers that you can pull off in your (albeit lighter) Fit.

For what it's worth, I meant to say Elantras in the above post, not Sonatas. I don't really keep track of what snooze machines car companies are building.

You seem to be the only one that has an issue with my tone. I don't know why, but it seems that you have come to believe I am an old man, and you read my posts as such. Most of what I say is sarcastic. When I addressed you, I didn't intend for it to come off as condescending. It was a genuine question.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what is "normal freeway speed" out there? In my neck of the woods, the limit is 70, and you're being passed by everyone unless you're doing 80. If you're on I4 and you're not in downtown Orlando, 90 seems to be the target speed.

when you ask questions the way you did or do it comes off very condescending like i said. limit is 65 on most highways except the 10, goes up to 75 outside of phoenix. If you're not doing 80 on the 202 you're in the wrong is pretty much what its like.

2012 Elantra base:
28/38 CTY/HWY EPA
148HP
131lb-ft
2701lbs
0.049 HP/lb


1990 Civic base:
28/33 CTY/HWY EPA
70HP
83lb-ft
2127 lbs
0.033 HP/lb


If you drive it like you stole it the 1990 Civic likely will get better mileage because it's significantly under powered compared to the recent Elantra. Other things to consider are that EPA fuel mileage testing standards change periodically, as well as do fuel mixtures, so comparing late model cars to older ones is not so straightforward. I also believe (no numbers to back it though) the majority of the country is now using gasoline blended with ethanol, whereas that wouldn't have been the case 15 or more years ago.


C|

stock for stock you'd say that right? my car was dyno'd at 127whp and right about 106lb-ft. it was a d15b7 not a d15b2 and i was not dpfi. i had an sohc zc head, mpfi with a z6 manifold, 4-1 header, 2.25" dc sports exhaust, cat delete, cold air, obd1 conversion and the car weighed 2100 with me in the driver seat. i understand why it got 45-50 driving gingerly but it would literally get between 38-40 everytime.

[Vanilla Sky]

In my experience, the more power a car makes, the better the fuel economy can be. I know someone that had a 400WHP FRC Corvette that could still get 30+ on the highway and mid 20's in town. Since you can't really use 400WHP in town that often, the car was babied a lot. You can just about idle those cars around in town from the factory. That helps with fuel economy. I'm willing to guess that you're having some of the same things going on with your car. Chances are your tune was a lot better than the factory tune ever could have been, since it was tuned to your engine, not loaded with a generic program for that engine.

[Vanilla Sky]

Ugly...

Corvette Summer Trailer (1978) High Quality - YouTube