TR Forums

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.

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.

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 you

JohnC wrote:

Thank you.

Dunning - Kruger.

An unusual way to say "you're welcome"

Waco wrote:

a wide array of cars

{{Citation needed}}

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.

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. 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.

As long as a car has a functional interior in the basest sense I'm pretty happy. I understand that many people don't think the same way but those are also people who tend not to care all that much about really driving. You know, the ones who consider cars commodities.

My Lincoln Mark VIII is not. My Suzuki Swift may very well be.

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.

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.

For purposes of full disclosure: I currently drive a "commodity" Honda Accord.

Yes, yes, apparently people who care about driving enjoyment should only buy a "stripped" go-karts like

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?

You don't need to educate me with regards to anything automotive related. Considering that I own a 2013 E92 M3, the most direct competitor to the C63, I am well aware of what your car is and ISN'T. I am aware that MB has decided to market the M156 as a 6.3L for the general population, I am also aware that this is NOT due to mathematical reasons of rounding up as you said in an earlier post, see here:

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").

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.

I say again, the engine is marketed not as a 6.3L engine due to rounding, but rather, as others have said in this thread, the engine was "marketed as the '6.3' to commemorate the famed Mercedes-Benz M100 engine, Mercedes' first production V8. It displaced 6.3L." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M156_engine
Since you went out of your way to find the previously linked press releases, i am sure you can take the time to find an official MB press release that says the same exact thing.

You're right that the majority of people refer to engine size in "liters", rather then "cc". 99% of people wouldn't care or know or wouldn't care to know that the M156 is actually 6.2L rather then 6.3L. 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.

Considering how upset you seem, i find it quite comical that Ned mentioned this earlier:

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

Yes, I know. Mineral White, isn't it? Beautiful color, though I am not sure about that "loud" Fox Red interior color...

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.

I know that. I specifically wanted to list its volume in liters rounded off to the same tenth decimal place as Mercedes does for a specific reasons I have listed.

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.

And I should care about such minority of people? Why?

Jive wrote:

Considering how upset you seem

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.

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.

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.

I take it you are still in your early 20s and/or don't do a lot of long-distance driving.

Seeing as how it's not an either/or proposition, I'll take a car that's fun AND doesn't drive me to distraction with squeaks and rattles. If all I wanted was a rally vehicle I would strip out the interior anyway to save weight.

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.

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

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:

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

Says the worst offender in this entire thread?

Now why would you said that?

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.

Typical BMW owner. Nothing to see here, people, move along.

Imho, if it's German it belongs at the junkyard. Their cars are very overpriced, overweight, overpowered and unreliable. Just expensive poseur crap. Why even bother? Not to mention that (according to sig) this BMW is automatic anyway. Sure, that DSGSMGABC will give you an extra tenth of a second faster shifting time but is it nearly as involving as a true manual that a real enthusiast would choose? Not on your life.

OK 20 years in Detroit doing dimensional inspection, R&D and QC work with state of the art equipment for just about everybody - Mercedes, BMW, the Koreans, the Japs, and the homeboyz including Tesla.

Detroit caught the Japanese in quality levels about 2005. The irony is of course the Japanese were taught about quality system by the Americans. The Demming Prize is the award given in Japan for quality.

The Germans have complex, sophisticated design, and proportionally more things to go wrong and they do. I watched my boss struggle with his $125k AMG, and when he got fed up he bought a ZR1 (for about the same money).

Innovation - the US without a doubt. A few examples: the whole Ford Touch system which is amazing (credit to Microsoft). The Tesla. 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.

Despite the Euro's love of them, diesels are not going to save us. Fuel cells are promising - and Toyota and GM are ahead. Battery technology may also step up, Tesla being the most successful.

Samlind wrote:

the whole Ford Touch system which is amazing (credit to Microsoft).

Why? It wasn't the first infotainment system in cars, nor was it the first to bring touchscreen interface or voice commands or a combination of all of these.

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.

No. Before Volt, there was GM EV1, Chrysler TEVan, Toyota RAV4 EV and many others. Also, Volt is a plug-in hybrid car, not fully electrical. Read up about its powertrain more:
"While in this series mode at higher speeds and loads, (typically above 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) at light to moderate loads) the gasoline engine can engage mechanically to the output from the transmission and assist both electric motors to drive the wheels, in which case the Volt operates as a power-split or series-parallel hybrid".

If you want to actually give examples of American innovations in cars - list features like HUD (intruduced in 1988 on Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme), or traction control (Buick's MaxTrac) or in-vehicle air conditioner system (Packard in 1939 or Crysler in 1953).

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.

I for one am not offended. I pointed out my car as a "commodity" vehicle only because, well, it is. These guys are arguing over their favorite brands and a lot of top of the line automobile models are being thrown in the mix.

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

This. I'm rather enjoying the arguing. It's like the old school days when people would argue over which was better, Chevy or Ford. Usually a friendly argument settled by buying someone a beer or making a trip to the local track. All in good fun.

Perhaps we should arrange for a TR day at a drag strip somewhere... Unfortunately, my truck isn't ready yet, still in about a thousand pieces.

Edit: text got broken when I hit the submit button.

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.

The interior was poor, the rest of the car was phenomenal. That's all that really mattered to me (especially for what I paid for it).

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.

I don't think I'd have any issues with that. My current car is pretty much bare metal, a little vinyl, and the barest amount of carpet imaginable.

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.

There are plenty of ways to enjoy driving without breaking laws or being dangerous.

JohnC wrote:

I do not really care about what "floats your boat" or what you think of flappy paddles

You responded to my post in 11 minutes. You care.

If it'll make you sleep better - you are free to assume that and anything else you want to.

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:

Yet you responded favorably to my anecdote of the '80s Ford 5.0 that was a 4.9. It would seem you only care about mathematical accuracy when you are not the target.

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...

I think your ox is fatally bleeding.

Captain Ned wrote:

I think your ox is fatally bleeding.

Oh dear... Is there no hope for him at all, doctor?

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:

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).

I have to say that the Mark VIII was the only Lincoln I ever wanted...and it was solely because it was a 2 door luxobarge with a great engine.

PenGun wrote:

So, is that thing fast?

Yes.

JohnC wrote:

PenGun wrote:

So, is that thing fast?

Yes.

So ... how fast?

Fast enough. You can find official numbers on an official site.