JohnC wrote:Your subjective preferences are very important to me, thank you for sharing them
...says the one subjectively blowing off a wide array of cars for having "awful interiors".
Also, it's 6.2L.
Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
JohnC wrote:Your subjective preferences are very important to me, thank you for sharing them
Waco wrote:Funny, I don't notice the interior of my vehicles much at all when I'm actually having fun driving. When is that? All the time.
clone wrote:JohnC wrote:Nah, they did not. For "Initial Quality Study" and "Vehicle Dependability Study" they only (supposedly) survey the consumers. They visit the manufacturer's plants to award the (largely irrelevant, which almost never gets mentioned anywhere) "Plant Assembly Line Quality Award" which has 0 relevance to "quality" and "dependability" awards. You can contact their "Corporate Communications" department, they will explain it in details to youJohnC wrote:Thank you.
Dunning - Kruger.
Waco wrote:a wide array of cars
ludi wrote:Waco wrote:Funny, I don't notice the interior of my vehicles much at all when I'm actually having fun driving. When is that? All the time.
In that case, I invite you to sit inside, say, a 2008 Pontiac Grand Prix...as a driver, or a passenger. I've done both and that car doesn't have an interior, it has four interiors that were chopped up and then glued back together at random to form the most mis-matched bits of cheap plastic ever found this side of a Harbor Freight clearance bin. I was also once in the passenger seat of a rental Chevy HHR around 2009 or so, and the lock buttons and door panels had ragged mold-seam edges in plain sight, ready to slice open some unlucky finger. ERTL can and has done better.
A good interior is unnoticeable precisely because it doesn't present itself -- it just looks good and functions correctly. A bad interior, OTOH, is an aggravation everywhere you turn. One of my favorites is the later 201x Toyota Siennas prior to the '11 redesign -- most of the interior is pretty good, except that the front door pulls and window controls are installed in a large piece of silvery plastic that flexes, squeaks, and threatens to separate at its snap-seam every time someone touches it. The most frequently used piece of interior hardware after the steering wheel has some of the worst build quality in the vehicle, and it is painfully obvious to the user.
Waco wrote:I'm quite familiar with the crappy plastic bits inside of most GM cars (my previous car was a 2007 Cobalt SS Coupe). Lots of things rattled, it felt cheap...but it didn't matter.
As long as a car has a functional interior in the basest sense I'm pretty happy.
End User wrote:A Caterham Superlight R300
JohnC wrote:Thank you for your concerns about my signature, they are duly noted. I would like to point out to you (and everyone else) the fact that M156 engine is marked as "6.3 Liters" in all of the official documents, press releases as well as public websites, such as Mercedes' own configuration and model information site:
http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAsse ... on_507.pdf
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/engineering ... 8&lang=eng
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/legacy/ve ... &model=C63
It is known as such to majority of people, regardless of actual volume measured in cubic centimeters, therefore I am using most widely accepted measure to prevent the confusion for majority of people, especially the ones not familiar (or not caring enough about) with exact engine volume measurements in centimeters or inches. This forum also has a physical limit on number of characters used in user's signatures, so writing the engine volume information in cubic inches or centimeters or to an exact thousandths decimal point is not very desirable due to extra characters needed. Is there anything else I can educate you (and others) about?
JohnC wrote:Yeap, pretty much a marketing trick - MB just "rounded it off" to a 6.3 number Pretty common thing between car manufacturers - for example, GM does it to their LS9/LSA engines (6,162 cc rounded to "6.2").
Captain Ned wrote:Just like a 5.0 Mustang back in the day was really a 4.9 (4942 cc). Really pissed off Mustang drivers to tell them it was a 4.9.
Jive wrote:Considering that I own a 2013 E92 M3
Jive wrote:Yet, even your own press release (Page 2) and Mercedes AMG website (Click "Specifications") that YOU linked to educate ME on the M156 very specifically states that the engine capacity is 6208cc.
Jive wrote:But that 1% of people that care or know or care to know will laugh at you when you tell them the actual engine capacity is 6.3L, rather then 6.2L.
Jive wrote:Considering how upset you seem
Waco wrote:Lots of things rattled, it felt cheap...but it didn't matter. That car was a stupid amount of fun to drive and the parts that mattered (the seats, steering wheel, pedals, and shifter) all felt great.
duke_nukem_3D wrote:Yikes! My apologies for starting such a controversial thread. I meant no ill intentions with it. Was simply curious as to what others thought of the level playing field in the industry when it comes to things like GPS, HID/LED lights, push-start and other electronic gizmos that used to differentiate different tiers which can now be had on any car. This was the "commodity" idea I was referring to. Apologies to anyone I've offended.
JohnC wrote:No need to apologize, it's always fun to see how overly serious/jealous/protective/naive or stereotypical people can get when discussing different brands of cars in different price ranges
JohnC wrote:You assume too much. I enjoy driving my car no matter how many actual cubic centimeters is there under the hood. It's the others who seem to be upset about my forum signature. Of course, they are always free to just turn off the "user signatures" forum option.
Samlind wrote:the whole Ford Touch system which is amazing (credit to Microsoft).
Samlind wrote:GM's Volt which was the first major company to build a true electric car - the onboard engine is just a generator and the drivetrain is wholly electric.
duke_nukem_3D wrote:Yikes! My apologies for starting such a controversial thread. I meant no ill intentions with it. Was simply curious as to what others thought of the level playing field in the industry when it comes to things like GPS, HID/LED lights, push-start and other electronic gizmos that used to differentiate different tiers which can now be had on any car. This was the "commodity" idea I was referring to. Apologies to anyone I've offended.
JohnC wrote:it's always fun to see how overly serious/jealous/protective/naive or stereotypical people can get when discussing different brands of cars in different price ranges
mnecaise wrote:I've been lurking, following the argument and enjoying it passively. Had to respond to this though:Waco wrote:I'm quite familiar with the crappy plastic bits inside of most GM cars (my previous car was a 2007 Cobalt SS Coupe). Lots of things rattled, it felt cheap...but it didn't matter.
It does matter, even in a "commodity" automobile. Why pay for a poorly built vehicle, rewarding the manufacturer for their bad engineering, when you can find a higher quality vehicle at a similar price.
mnecaise wrote:As long as a car has a functional interior in the basest sense I'm pretty happy.
You can do better than that. By your description, we can just leave everything bare metal and vinyl. I have a stripped 1970 C-10 pickup truck chassis that would apparently meets your requirements.
peartart wrote:Let's be honest, unless you are on a track, if you are having fun while driving either you are needlessly putting other people in danger or you have a very sad idea of fun.
JohnC wrote:I do not really care about what "floats your boat" or what you think of flappy paddles
JohnC wrote:Thank you for your concerns about my signature, they are duly noted. I would like to point out to you (and everyone else) the fact that M156 engine is marked as "6.3 Liters" in all of the official documents, press releases as well as public websites, such as Mercedes' own configuration and model information site:
JohnC wrote:Yea, "performance car" owners can be extremely... "obsessive" with the numbers related to their "metal idols", that goes for all brands (although perhaps more so when it comes to Camaro and Mustang products). At least Ford and GM were "rounding it off" to a proper tenth place...
Captain Ned wrote:I think your ox is fatally bleeding.
JohnC wrote::lol:
PenGun wrote:JohnC wrote::lol:
So, is that thing fast? My 93 Lincoln Mark VIII will bury it's rather pitiful needle at 240Km. The computer determines how fast you can go and my W3Z2 is the only Mark VIII one that does not care.
Lincoln took a 93 Mark VIII and shaved off the mirrors did a few other things and it went 180+, measured at Bonneville.
http://www.markviii.org/LOD2/bonneville.htm
So does the Mercedes go?
Disclaimer for the fearful: I do this at 3 in the morning on a very wide 4 lane bypass and the only things in danger apart from me are the deer. That's why I like the very wide verges, I can see em'. (HIDs from a 96).
PenGun wrote:So, is that thing fast?
JohnC wrote:PenGun wrote:So, is that thing fast?
Yes.