It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
- Last Active
Ain't it the truth regarding the limited colors available -- and, at the risk of being creamed here -- why do all these high-buck German cars always seem to have black interiors? I ONCE got a black interior (and that was in an Acura TL) because the dealer discounted the car so seriously once he found out that I would walk out rather than have a black interior car. I got rid of this car as quickly as finances and family would allow -- I get inside of a black car and my mood darkens, my optimism vanishes, the interior seems so tiny, hot and constantly dusty.
Yet, you walk into the Audi dealer and there is this beautiful A6 3/0T Prestige, sport package, upsized wheels, and every functional and fun option man or god has created, all for the bargain basement price of $68K and the dealer ONLY has them with black interiors.
Have we become so uncreative, so bleak, so moribund that we can only "see ourselves" in black cars, gun-metal gray cars, white cars -- all with black on black on black interiors?
Now, as you know, I resent seeing a $ next to the color -- and ONLY black gloss or white gloss are free colors, but the interior options usually provide several no-charge options at least once Premium Package (which they all have) is included.
My dealer actually, now, has a lot of cars on the lot and on the "overflow lot" several miles away from the dealership. But they're all black, dark-silver, gray or gloss white -- most with the dreaded (by me) black leather interiors. Reminds me of:
"And they're all made out of ticky-tacky; And they all look just the same."
Black cars with black interiors must be the PC equivalent for cars these days -- well except they offend the hell out of me.
Oh gawd, have you, lately been invited to a fund-raiser at someone's country club (with valet parking)? We were invited to a fund-raiser to raise money for inner-city disadvantaged kids; "business attire" was specified, so you trot out the dark suit, tie and shiny shoes and pull up to the valet behind a line of black, gray, silver and white German cars (and the odd Lexus or Jaguar) all the while unable to suppress the lyrics: "And they're all made out of ticky-tacky; And they all look just the same." It was all for a good cause, but it certainly was a sad indictment of where we've come to.
I keep telling myself that I'll bite the bullet and pay for the paint color next time -- we'll just have to wait and see if I can actually pay extra for a paint color other than black or white.
What a world, what a world -- I'm melting, I'm melting [sic]. . . .
One of the key comments -- and one that I agree with -- is that the advantages that diesel (engines) have over gasoline is/has diminished. The thing is, do we know how much we've seen the gasoline engines catch up with the diesel?
Clearly forced induction and small displacement engines have contributed to this. Now, or at least it would be fair to say "soon" we will have the ability to synthesize "gasoline" from termite (well sorta) waste and we just keep finding more and more ways to extract energy from the planet in many forms, including natural gas and shale, etc.
I saw another TV show -- which of course means it's true -- that said something to the effect that we have about 99 years worth of traditional fuels -- that we know of -- available to us (at present rates of consumption) in the US.
In 99 years, or even 59 years, I would assume we'll find ways to manufacture or harvest or extract energy from sources that today are too expensive or from sources that we currently aren't even aware of.
Perhaps diesel is done -- but, isn't it true that diesel contains more energy per drop and has (historically) been some 33% more efficient than gasoline. Moreover, with filters and converters and adblue, haven't we reduced pollution? Of course, perhaps this event will mark the turning point for the love affair Europe has had with diesel and the surging love affair Americans have started to have with it.
With the claimed ability to manufacture fuels from bio-substances (garbage, not food, hopefully) and with the claims that we will be able to figure out how to make fuel from water and make it affordable, maybe we've breathed new life into the internal combustion engine.
With respect to the "reason" for the lie postulated as "VW didn't want their cars to have less pep and less MPGs if they had made the cars pollute less, it seems like a reason that still doesn't make sense.
The engines, mostly, where this cheat was perpetuated were the VW and/or Audi 2.0L, correct? Wouldn't it have been possible to apply the pollution corrective measures on a 2.2L engine to keep up the HP and torque and perhaps suffer an MPG or three drop?
Again, this seems like a pressure cooker left alone with the heat on high -- it was only a matter of time before the thing would blow up (spraying beans all over the place). How could anyone think this cheat would not be discovered? I guess I am amazed that it took this long for the ruse to be brought to the light of day.
So now these folks are all getting fired. My take is the people who ordered the cheat and the folks who were in a position to blow the whistle and didn't ought to face some PERSONAL consequences beyond being fired (with some kind of generous exit package one would imagine). Perhaps a "programmer" who wrote the lines of code could be spared, perhaps. But the programmer's manager who told him/her to write the code, should be in a "you are personally liable" position at least somewhat.
Did the board know? Or do that have provable, plausible deniability?
Driver of a late model Lexus merges onto I-75 south, immediately moves to the left-most lane, slows to 50 (apparently setting cruise control) and using one free hand, starts holding the phone to his ear -- the conversation apparently goes on for many miles, although I broke protocol after a few miles and committed one of the most vile acts anyone can do behind the wheel . . . I passed on the right after my repeated attempts at turning on my left turn signal were ignored.
I'm all for most freedoms -- really. But, you can't yell fire in a theater (unless there really is one) and expect to be covered by the first amendment. I guess, technically, there is no reason you can't hop onto a major federal highway and drive in the left-most lane at 50 MPH (the speed limit here in Ohio has, in many places, now been bumped to 70); I also assume passing on the right side (or suicide) isn't illegal. But, and it pains me to say this, I would vote for laws that would disallow both of these behaviors, were such items placed on a ballot. But, then again, I am also in the minority that votes.
Just another reason I can't imagine the frustration of owning/driving an RS7 or M5 or CTS-V, etc, where in wide wide world of sports can such machines be driven using more than a fraction of their engineer-imbued "talents?" Not that a Prius is all of a sudden looking good.
One more note - I would imagine that driving in Italy would be a free-for-all (and Rome, actually, is). But, other than perhaps a slight decrease in speed, the folks driving on the Italian Autobahn (the autostrada, as I recall), behave pretty much exactly like the Germans -- lane discipline, left lane to pass and the lanes get faster the further left you go, period. Folks respond to a wink of your turn signal to get over and, from what I can tell (other than in Rome) there is no road-rage.
Although many of our Interstate road surfaces are pock-marked, I generally think we have a well thought out (mostly) highway system here, that is rendered far less efficient that it could be by either ignorance, stupidity or lack of driver training. Instead, here, we rely, in this order, upon: Enforcement (sort of), Engineering (a somewhat distant second) and Education (a very distant third.) I would think we could drive faster, experience fewer delays, fewer hours lost per person, per year, etc, if we just made getting a driver's license require a bit more rigor. One would think, considering the death-rate, that getting a DL should require no less preparation and education than getting a pilot's license. My wife got her pilot's license before she was old enough to get a driver's license -- and she thinks that getting a DL is about like getting a box-top off of a box of Wheaties.
Something is wrong with that.
One last note: I love test driving all kinds of cars, despite my completely above-board bias toward Audis, German cars and European cars, generally. I have taken so many folks on test drives these past 5-10 years, I can't remember just how many. Not one (other than my wife) has ever had ABS engaged (that they know of -- although I wonder if they just don't know what ABS braking feels like); and the thing is, when I -- in a large deserted parking lot -- get them to engage ABS, the moment the pedal pulsing starts, they [so they say] instinctively know to release the brake to the point the pulsing stops.
I have been through 4-two day Audi Driving Experiences (on ice), 1-two day BMW Driving Experience (not on ice) one Porsche Driving Experience (1-day) and a Cadillac driving experience (also 1-day). Every instructor literally starts the training with the following exercise: accelerate to about 50MPH from a dead stop and when you reach the orange cone laying on its side at the end of the "runway" press the brake pedal "as if" this is a panic stop. To a man/woman instructor, the command is "when the pulsing is felt through the pedal, press the brake as hard as your leg can press -- imagine your goal is to BEND THE BRAKE PEDAL."
The reason given for this "press harder" instruction is always, "braking force will continue to increase the harder you press, even with Brake Assist (which bases braking force somewhat on the speed at which the driver presses down)." I've seen this impact myself on dry, wet and icy pavement.
Yet, when I try to get someone who is testing a new car to brake with any degree of urgency, the instant the pulsing is felt, they release the brake -- which, were this a real emergency could increase the probability of a crash.
We need to license drivers much, much more rigorously. And, despite this old fashion notion, I think knowing how to drive a manual transmission would be helpful too, much in the same way it is said that video games are helpful prerequisites for so many endeavors.
I happen to love my DSG transmission, but in a heartbeat, going back to a six-speed manual wouldn't be anything but fun.
We really are doomed!
Traffic flow = the "Natural Speed Limit." Several studies show that if the speed limit on a given highway is 65 and the flow is 80 - 85, that the flow remains virtually unchanged, when the speed limit is raised to 75 or 80 even. The flow of traffic like the ebb and flow (rise and fall) of the stock market really does have a mind of its own. Efforts to enforce (and seriously fine) lane protocols would do far more to increase the safety of many of our highways than "speed traps" will ever do.I'll give them a chance to move over.. but, I'm not sitting in the fast lane for 5 miles behind someone doing 10 MPH under the traffic flow. At some point, you have to go around. What if they were doing 30 mph?
There will be folks who drive at 110MPH when the speed limit is 65 or 80 -- that doesn't change. If the natural speed is 85, the "NORMAL" range will be 80 - 90MPH. Go figure.
Me, I do pass on the right, but only after sincere and polite attempts to get the Left-Lane-Bandit to move over, I'm crazy, I know, but I do have physical symptoms that arise when I pass on the right -- it seems like breaking a societal covenant restricting and preventing us, mostly, from having "stupid attacks."
Thankfully, I can't recall someone driving at 30MPH in a 70 zone in the left lane, I would think I would probably use my voice command cell phone to call 911 to report a very dangerous situation, then I would pass on the right and get the hell outta Dodge!
I have a couple thousand miles on my Continental DWS 06 UHP A/S tires.
While very good from mile one and better after mile 150, now at a couple grand miles on the road, I can offer this:
These tires are really UHP tires, they do not, from my perspective here in SW Ohio, need to apologize or explain why they are a compromise shoe. I can think of no attribute of this tire that makes me long for a MAX Perf (summer only) tire instead. I do not track my car. I do not take my car off normal highways, roads and streets. I generally enjoy taking corners and curves as aggressively as possible (given traffic and other safety considerations, of course). When conditions and traffic (and the long arm of the law) permits, I have been known to exceed 100MPH (usually on Interstates where traffic is thin and widely spaced).
I like a tire to be quiet. I do not want ANY tread noise. Not gonna tolerate it.
The handling, braking, "quietness", comfort and anything you can think of that describes performance of these tires is (are) exemplary. While not cheap, the tires will not require you to take out a second mortgage, and they should last some 40,000+ miles and still remind you they are (mostly) still UHP tires.
Unless you have no need for cold weather or "light-snow" traction, these tires should be given a good look-see and test drive (if possible). I don't want to make this too dramatic, but I cannot think of any tire that I have ever had that exceeds the performance of the DWS 06 Continental Extremes.
I sourced these from Tire Rack; and after they were mounted and road force balanced my S4 was given a 4-wheel alignment.