So I have toted the Dakian philosophy in many threads now and I was a little curious what made other people click. Please try and be as descriptive as possible when describing your personal car beliefs.

Weight is the Enemy
As cars develop they naturally get heavier, to compensate for this the vehicles have been getting more horsepower. The best cars are in fact the old ones. A first gen miata is lighter than the new one, A first gen MR-2 is lighter than the newer one (not the MR-S). Almost all cars gain weight and size as they age. This kills most sedan based cars and almost all family cars and SUVs are killed as well.

Every Car has Potential
Without exception given an unlimited source of fund there are no limitations a car cannot exceed. However certain cars have more room for tuning than others. A second gen MR-2 can be made to dance in circles around a racecourse but a Ferrari already dances around a racecourse, therefore you're not going to improve a whole lot. This eliminates almost all exotic cars from the Dakian Philosophy. Also I would like to note than many of the lesser exotics are eliminated as well. TVRs and Lotuses included. This does not mean that I don't enjoy the cars, I simply wouldn't want to own one.

Luxury Items do not Belong in a Vehicle
Power windows, power locks, sunroof, traction control, ABS, flappy paddles, anything that involves electronics in general is pretty much useless. Electronic fuel injection being exempt because of its superior tuning capabilities. Basically if it involves an electric motor its out of there. AC and Radio are also useless. Windows were designed to be put up and down for a reason, and radios are just simple distractions. Cars are about driving. Straight shift, 3 pedals, steering wheel in front of you. Power steering is most often exempt.

Engines
Cars with < 2500 lbs: N/A small displacement motors.
Cars from 2500 lbs to 3000 lbs: Small displacement turbo motor or N/A motor
Cars from 3000 to 4000 lbs: Small displacement turbo motor or large displacement N/A motor
In a nutshell. Exceptions exist and there's not really any room for superchargers. Cars with more than 4000 lbs are almost always excluded.

Cars that I would like to own
RX-7 any generation (duh)
MR-2 Either generation
Miata any generation
MR-S (MR-2 Spider)
Volvo 240 Turbo
Supra (Any Generation)
Nissan Silvia Any Generation
Toyota Soarer (SC300 and SC400 and only after massive reworking)
Honda Civic (EG & EK series, or the 92-95 Hatchback and the 96-99 Hatchback)
Toyota Celica Alltrac
And the list goes on. Mostly Japanese because they fit the best with the Dakian Philosophy.

Cars that I respect
TVR
Lotus
Older BMW M series
Ford Mustang
Holden Monaro
Koenigsegg CC8 and CCR
Porsche all models (yes even the Cayenne)
Certain Ferraris (older ones namely)
1st and 2nd gen VW GTIs
Old VW beetles
Audi RS4 series
Dodge Viper
These are grey area cars that could be swung into the own it or hate it catagories depending on mood.

Cars I hate
Most Mercedes (190 Cossies excepted)
SUVs (Excluding those with real offroad potential)
Non M BMWs
All new VWs
Most Audis
Toyota and Hondas (Japanese Buicks)
Stereotypical American Sedans (Impala SS and Taraus SHO excluded)
Most Corvettes
And so on. Again not all hated cars are listed but a general trend is established.

So now with that out of the way I invite you to describe your own person car philosophy. Please no one liners. Honestly put some thought into it. If I was going to sum it all into one sentence it would go like this:

The closer a car is to being a racecar, the more I like it.

Eh, I like too many types of cars to even bother.

Its kind of interesting to write out. Helps you understand yourself really. Deep down no matter how many different cars you like, they all have a common bond.

Mine roams in Dakian turf. With the exception of Honda and Toyota, in an ideal world I have unlimited cash so I can make any car cool.

And Dakian, AE86.

yeah that's in the cars I would own catagory.

i will go along with dakian upto the power everything part .... that would depend on what the car is primarily supposed to do. If i am driving through rush hour traffic i want to be comfortable and not tired just by being in there.

and i hate TVRs so remove those as well.

Weight is the Enemy
Weight doesn't really bother me so much. It can always be stripped down. I want a car that looks good stock. That is the most important thing to me. Example, the first gen mr-2 is light but i hate the way it looks so I wouldn't buy it for myself.

Every Car has Potential
I'll have to go with Dakian on this one. I want a car I can mod and have fun with myself. I have thought of hmm if I get a Ferrari would I be able to have fun with it? Those exotics are so rare and great looking and stock, I would kinda feel guilty of putting new rims on it or modding it or something.

Luxury Items do not Belong in a Vehicle
Here I am going to have to disagree. I like having power windows, locks, power steering, ac and especially a cd deck. I could however live without ABS which I have. My friend is constantly comparing his civic hatch to my integra everytime he gets in and how you can just tell its more upscale. Plus he hates the fact that if we're out and I pull up next to him at a light or something and wanna talk he has to lean over and roll the passenger side window down.

Engines
Doesn't really matter as long as its got enough power to be fast enough for me. With Dakian's example, most honda's would fit under the N/A because the majority of them are under 2500. But we all know turbo Hondas will be faster on a street car the majority of the time. Unless it's got a K series swapped in, but that's just a totally different ballgame.

Cars that I would like to own
RX-7 FD
Supra MKIV
Volvo 240 Turbo (already had one of these would love another to work to the balls)
Nissan Silvia S15
Honda Civic (EG & EK series, or the 92-95 Hatchback and the 96-99 Hatchback)
Honda Integra Type R
BMW M3 e39 or e46
Subaru STI
Mitsu Evo

As with Dakian mostly japanese cars but of course there is that old muscle that I would love.

Is the car light?

Does it handle well?

Is it 'special' in some way? (i.e. MR2 mid-engined)

Is it small? (Smaller the better)

That's my checklist. I must have a minimum of 100bhp and 100lb/ft of torque. That's it for me.

i cant really put my mind to it enough to think about my "AUTO-PHILOSOPHY" but here it goes, sorry if it gets a little rant-ish, i am kinda tired right now, but here it goes

i am a slave to 2 Gods if you will, on the one hand i am a Die-Hard Muscle Car guy, you know, the whole "THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT" saying hold true for me, and on the other hand i have a passion for almost every other car out there.......except the Import Tuners, or more commonly called "Rice burners"

i know some people will be offfended by this, and it is nothing personal to all of you out there, it is just somthing in my AUTOMOTIVE-PHILOSOPHY. i see this all the time at my highschool: all of those guys that want to take thier moms old honda civic (nothing against the honda owners, i am going to extremes here) and cuts the springs improperly so that the under belly of the car scrapes the ground, rips the exhaust off and slams a huge 4 1/2 inch tip on the back. meanwhile getting these MASSIVE graphics to stick along the side of the car, and not to mention the "After Market" company decals that they supposedly have components from but most likly do not. most of the time these wanna be "Fast and Furious" teenagers will rip the interior our of thier cars to "Save weight", i have over heard this once before some guy was asking for a ride: looking to the guy in his little Honda almost sitting on the ground and said "hey man, can i get a ride?" and the driver replied "Oh, i would but, you cant, i dont have any seats because i dont have an interior." and sure enough, this guy has ripped out the entire inside of his car, dash, back, carpets, headliner, console, instrument pannel (he just had a few dials screwed into what was left of hit instrument pannel) it was bare metal inside, no inside door covers, he even removed the glass from his windows just to save weight. with his "Carbon fiber" hood, that was actually painted black to look like carbon fiber, i dont know who he was kidding, and a HUGE bookshelf wing on the back. what was he thinking, REAR down force on a Front wheel drive car? i dont get it, am i missing somthing? who knows. next he has the cheap, over-sized "racing" wheels and these old slicker than ice tires on the front and then spare donuts on the back. when you see it driving down the road (you will hear it before you see it) you sit and stare at just thinking, WTF. and now after you have done all of this crazy stuff to your car to make it be faster. and all of the guys that i know that have these cars dont even race. now they are just stuck with a silly looking car that dosnt even have a seat for your girlfriend, that is assuming that you have one on the fact that she probly left you because you have that rediculous car. what has the world come to? the things kids do to thier cars...

i have nothing against all of you guys out there that actually do this, thats fine, if you wanna do that to your car, im not gonna stop you, more power to ya' in my opinion. i just dont understand why?

i also have nothing against TUNER cars, they look good if they are done right, examples: ///M, AMG, SVT... i can go on. and not to mention on top of looking good, the cars arent just all show and no go, if you know what i mean

i pretty much have respect for almost any car, from the FIAT 500 to the PAGANI ZONDA. cars will get you from point A to point B, some do it faster than others, and you may look better doing it in some cars than in others, but when you break it down, a car is a car is a car. 4 wheels, a power plant, and a driver.

personally.. i don't like to be restricted to rules and such. i :heart: all cars. big and small.. however.. i like to ask "what is the car's purpose? and does it serve it's purpose well?"

doesn't matter what kind of car it is.. if it accomplishes it's goal and does it in an efficient manner.. the more power to it.

be it delivery trucks, suvs, sports cars, passenger sedans, hatchbacks.. etc.

See jekyll you're grouping all import owners together into one group as if they are all like that. The rice phenomenom is, fortunatly, slowly dying done. In my area now, the majority of civics are clean and quick. Just take a gander over at honda-tech and you will see some badass clean cars. Dare post a car that has a bodykit or non oem wing and you will be flamed for 10 pages straight and never went to show up again.

What happened in your case was you got a bad first impression of import owners and it stuck because of that dumbass. But trust me there are some hot imports, especially hondas out there. Speaking of which I think I'm going to go make a seperate thread for all of you guys to see the collection I've been building up.

I used to think like you Diesel. Then I got dropped on my head or something

My tastes vary too much to narrow it down to any kind of philosophy. But one thing that seems to be consistent is my preference for the clean/subtle/simple everything. I don't like body kits, I don't like crazy wings, I don't like quadruple turbos, and I don't like spinners But I DO like loud

I love topics like these.... they require some thought.

I don't honestly believe there is a perfect model for a car that does everything right, it's not possible... because driving styles are totally different even for the same person (i know mine alter a lot...)

so i narrowed it down to two models. I'll do the hard one first.

the PRACTICAL model
this one is harder because there are multiple goals to acheive, rather than the second model (sports) which has just one- superlative performance. Requires much more serious thought. Here are the goals.

1) Efficient. An everyday car should be easy on the wallet. Also, some people just HATE filling up every week (count me in on that one.) 30+mpg in mixed driving is what i consider to be efficient.

2) properly set up for everyday driving.
This is where engines like Toyota's 2ZZ-GE and Honda's K20C/F20C fall flat on their faces. A practical car should have power, but having it at the redline is useless. What a car needs is good low end power with a decent spurt of top end fizz. This is because most excercises requiring power are done at the low end of the tach- for instance, popping into a short gap in traffic, or getting a good start off of a stoplight to get out of a turn lane. Only situations like long passing maneuvers (on a two lane) or highway onramps require top-end power. This is why turbodiesels are good... nearly instant low end torque.

3) Proper gearing. For the love of god.
Most all manufacturers make the top ratio in the gearbox an overdrive, meaning it's crap for accelerating. For the love of god, make it a tall one- it's only used on highways anyway. Shame, shame, shame on honda for gearing the Civic Si so that it pulls around 3500rpms at 70mph! that's ridiculous. Once you've accelerated, passed, or whatever, you need a gear to stick the car in to shut the motherf*cker up.

4) a well controlled ride.
This seems to be a foreign concept. A car should be sprung firmly enough to not feel floaty, but it shouldn't be harsh. This is one thing that Volvo is very good at getting wrong... their base models are much too soft (i HATE the suspension tuning on my 850, it feels so terrible on a curvy road) and the T5's are too stiff (wow, like... not uch roll but holy crap, it's bumpy.) Acura's good at this, Honda too. (Accord).

5) However, don't isolate the controls.
Being an auto buff, there are things i'm not willing to give up- and accuracy to controls is one of them. Steering should be responsive, free of slack (Jeep G. Cherokee: fail.) and quick, but not Evo-quick. Brakes shouldn't be grabby and electronically controlled (Mercedes: fail), they should be linear and strong and predicatable. Gearshifts should have short, light throws, well defined gates. Clutches should be progressive and linear, and positive feeling, predictable. These are the basic things that make a car "good to drive" but don't compromise them.
6) Interiors are important. In fact, they're critical.
To be honest, you never see much of the car you're driving. You see the inside of it. This is where the emphasis of design should be. However, extravagent interiors suck. Frankly, i'm not a big fan of power-everything. Power locks and windows are fine; because it's hard to control them all from the driver's seat if they're not. However, i'm not a fan of power seats OR leather seats. Power seats eventually wear out, and then they don't move at all. Also, they're slower to adjust than manual ones- especially sliding forward and back. I think all convertibles should have a manual sliding feature for rear seat ingress. Anyways... leather sucks. It's cold in the winter, hot in the summer, sometimes looks tacky, isn't always comfortable, and looks OLD by 70k miles. By comparison, my velour seats (which are kinda loose-felt ish) looks brand new. They grip you better, they never crack and fade and stuff. However, heated seats are a must- especially with a diesel, because you can't crank it over and let it warm up, it doesn't do anything! So... heated cloth seats with no power adjustments. However, seatbacks should be adjusted by a lever, not a knob... knob adjustment seatbacks make making out very tedious! The layout of the interior should be driver-focused: i.e. BMW, Volvo... how the controls are tilted towards the driver. one, asymmetry is cool. Two, the driver is usually the one operating the vehicle . Simple enough.

7) more on interiors: quality
Interiors like Mazda's RX-8 or Nissan's 350Z don't impress me. They're nice looking layouts and nice looking materials, but they aren't high quality materials... and they 'age' quickly with use. Hard plastics scratch easily and look like crap. Fake wood trim is worse than just black plastic, honestly. Save the money on the fake satin finish console, manufacturers, and put it into better quality dials like Acura or VW makes. They're wonderful and raise the classyness level quite a bit. Electroluminescent gauges are a major plus- they look great and visibility is wonderful at night.





as for sports cars- this is simple, i'm not even going to do an outline.

low weight is the MOST important aspect of a sports car. Lower weight means quicker acceleration, quicker responses, higher lateral grip, higher stability in transient maneuvers, shorter and more reliable braking, better fuel economy, slower use of consumables during hard driving (brake pads, tires, fuel etc.). It is MUCh better to lower a car's weight than to just give it more power.

high end power and a great sound are a must have.

Short, close gearing.

a limited slip diff.

a front longitudinally mounted engine, a transaxle in the back and rwd. for balance and predictability, and crispness to the handling.

powerful, reliable four wheel discs with ABS and EBD.

eh... that's about it!

I like unique and innovative cars (Fiero, Mr2, Miata). To me a car needs to be functional above all else. I like to draw straight lines between my cars. Luxury cars need to stay luxury, Sport cars need to stay sporty, and Trucks need to maintain the rigid ability they were made for. I like cars that to get somewhere (figurativly) you have to work on them. What fun is it to buy a car that has 500hp and does the quarter mile in twelve flat ?. I like to work on my cars and make them into who I am and let them reflect who I am and what I like. Every car can be improved upon, albeit some more than others. Porsches and Ferraris are nice, but have no practicality. I also like Muscle cars, It is true there is no replacement for displacement. I don't care it it handles horribly, it wasen't made to corner, it was made to run in a straight line and thats why I want it. Also I agree with Dakian about the accesories, Power windows, Power locks, Radio, all that is not needed. I do have to disagree with the transmissions though. I believe autos should still be produced, while they may not be as much fun to drive there are some times when you just want to cruise along and not have to worry about shifting gears.

My dislikes in cars are cars that are modded, but for the wrong reasons. Example Imports that have cut springs and 28s, but stock struts and shocks. They have a fancy hoodscoop, but no CAI. They have a big tachometer, but an automatic transmission. I don't mind the graphics so much.

well. not so much as in one group, i know that there are all kinds of tuned cars, imports or not. that was an over exaggerated almost a parody of a sight that is more common that not nowadays.

i know what you mean about CLEAN cars, oh yes, IMO, if you are going to tune a car, PLEASE keep it clean, not too over done with colors and chrome, and what not. thinking about it i think the CLEANEST looking import favorite, is the Rx-7. i know i may be eating my own words here, but the Rx-7 is a very sexy car. very smooth lines that flow together very well in a compact package.

i have alot of respect for the tuners that make sleepers. my very first impression of import tuning was back in 99' when my brother just got out of highschool and was upgrading his 92' integra with engine mods only, and he refused to change the exterior, thank god. over the years he put new exhaust(low profile), new valves and heads, port polish, headers, and other stuff i cant quite remember. but when he sold his car about a year ago, he was putting out around 200-220hp. that is my first impression of import tuning, and maybe that is why i have respect for sleepers. who knows...


BLACK FIRE: when are you going to make that thread, if you ever need any help, just ask , i got some hook ups'

Already done

Hmm putting down 200 - 230 hp in a 92 integra. Must have been pretty built. I'm going to take a wild guess but was it the gsr with the b17? Those things are rare as fuck. Only year they made them.

off the top of my head, im not quite sure, i could ask though

Too many variables but here is a quick run down of how I decide on cars.

Looks:
What do I think of the looks? Can I look at it everyday and think it's sexy. Does it look good enough to leave stock? What is the potential to improve on the looks of the car? How do the lines work with the car? Does the color compliment it? Looks are subjective but they are the first thing you notice about any car. I need to know if I can love how the cars looks in stock or modded form.

Interior:
I have to like the interior layout, and the interior has to bond with me. Unless it is a strict race car there will be no interior...

Weight:
I like my cars to be light and nimble. Is this a porker for its size? I hate to drive a car and feel the weight of the world on my shoulder. I dislike the feel of a car not being able to carry itself around a corner. That can ruin a driving experience alone as it will also affect the handling of the car...which is something I hold dear.

Handling:
There cannot be a slouch in this department. This is a rating that sits above horsepower. This is the major factor in my decision. Can the car handle? Can it stick to the road and cut through corners like a hot knife through butter? Does the suspension give good feed back? I do not mind a stiff suspension and I hate soft suspension. I want my organs rearranged!!! The handling and weight go hand in hand. If the balance of the car feels good then I will definetly need a change of pants.


Engine:
I like low displacement, high powered engines. I would prefer I6 and higher engines including Rotary engines (rotor nut). 4cyl engines will get consideration if they are FI, or boxer. Although there are some very nice 4 bangers out there...I just need more cylinders...


Cars that I would like to own
Cosworth Escort
RX8
FC & FD RX7
2nd & 3rd gen Supra
G35C
M3
STI
RS200 EVO
Celica All-Trac

Cars that I respect
Mustang
EVO
F40 (I want)
Koenigsegg CC8R
S40r
S60r
Acura TL
Lotus
Many more but cannot think of any.

Cars I hate
Corvette
Most GM vehicles.
Majority of Toyota
Majority of Honda
Majority of Kia
Many more but cannot think of any.

Cars fall into one of three categories for me.

1) Cars I would buy. These have to be practical for my situation. This means it needs to be able to carry my stuff (wagon), be efficient and suitable for city use (small), and have the proper number of driven wheels (four). It should probably not make me want to vomit in my mouth and the more subtle the better. My favorite is the WRX wagon but only because they don't make an STi Wagon. Other cars in this small category are the Evo, the Matrix awd, etc. If I had a family and correspondingly more money, I'd only really expand the criteria to larger cars, which means Volvos and the Legacy. If I lived somewhere with not-so-hot roads, I could be pursuaded to invest in an XC90 but thats a reach. Of course if I lived way out in the boonies, I'd need an honest-to-god Truck, and that would be either a Toyota or a Unimog. I like super-high-tech, but I respect barn-door engineering too.

2) Cars I would take if I won them in a contest. This is a larger but still small list. I like cars that have a purpose, and that fulfil that purpose elegantly. Since I'm not paying for them (replace with "am so rich I could buy them with the change in my couch") I can sacrifice a large amount of utility and efficiency in exchange for sheer hotness. I don't have iron-clad rules for this one, its more of a feeling. Cars like the Elise/Exige, RX-7, MR-2, and maybe some Porsches fit in here. I'm not a huge fan of HyperSuperMegaCars but I admit Aston Martins are cool. I'm also not a fan of the sedan-cum-Limousine segment, but the A8 is fairly swank. Jeeps are nice too.

3) Cash Value Cars. If I won one of these cars in a contest, I would insist on fair market value. Perhaps I would take it for a spin around the block and annoy my friends with it, but after that its going on ebay. I'm not saying they're bad or wrong or anything, I just don't care. Anything made in the US in the last...wait, ever is on this list. Again, I'm not saying they aren't or can't be freaking awesome in the hands of their fans, they're just not for me.

[Edit: I can't type]

my personal philosophy is this:

your own personal car says more about you than any other first impression. i can tell alot about you before you open your mouth by what kind of car you drive. Guys with minivans...lost testicals to wife...probaly has issues with anger...anger issues are much more profound if individual is bald and has a moustache.

however if a guy pulls up in something like a first gen RX-7, and ancient 911, anything with a Triumph badge...or distinct british heritige...then i know i want to talk to you at the party.

if the guy pulls up in a new 997 or 996...this is where it gets tricky. if he has owned it for a long time (see this dont work with the 997) then i also want to talk to him. but if he just bought it...he may be a yuppue who wishes he bought a BMW

as for my personal cars. I hate cars which are boring and designed without passion. except in some situations (i.e. my civic. its boring...but it does have a je ne se qui to it...and is a Special Edition) I love cars with history...those cars that made the accountants nervous...the ones that could have been the most sucessful car in history...or the one that sinks the company (read Miata, 240Z, 911, 914, boxster, RX-7, RX-8, 265 Dino, McLaren F1)

and finnaly, It is much more fun to drive a slow car fast, then it is to drive a fast car slow.

Cars i love

Miata
Boxster
any 911
914
924 Carrera GT
959
RX-7
RX-8
Triumph TR6
MG A
Ferrari 308 GTB
240Z
MR2
DB9

Cars I hate

-Mustang (because people will buy it because it has a horse on the grille)
-Corvette (because people will buy it thinking its better than a 911)
-Neon (because it is = to giving up)
-PT Cruiser (because...you have ran out of ideas)
-Any car from another Division which GM/Ford/Chrysler have re badged (300C, entire new GM lineup, Crossfire, Ford 500) and call "all new" (because these companies think the north american market is too isolated and stupid to realise thay are atcually 5-7 year old cars that the japanise and europeans wont buy any more)
-The new beetle (because to call it a beetle it has to be cheap and have its engine in the back...um lets see...nope and nope)
-The nissan 350Z (because it is not all that great...and dosent look that good)
-any SUV...they are dangerous to the people in them and those out side of them...

Engines...

an engine needs to be more than a hunk of turning iron. they need to have something unique about them...and they need to fit the car they are in. examples of great angines that do this are: Ferrari V12, Mazda Rotary engines (12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, Renisis, 20B), Porsche flat 6, BMW inline 6, Jaguar inline 6.

they also need to be period correct. ie...i would not critisize a jaguar e type for not having variable valve timing...but i would critisize a Corvette C6 for having a pushrod engine.

and thats about it.

Interior quality/"Fit and finish" is over-rated
As long as the seat is comfortable, the steering wheel feels good, and I can reach the pedals the rest is just "extra". Admittedly I spend most of my time with a vehicle on the inside driving but I'm not staring at the GD dashboard I'm looking out the windows making sure the crazies aren't going to hit me.

Gauges without numbers or some frame of reference are worthless
It should be replaced with an idiot light. "Gee my water temperature isn't in the red yet, must be OK."

Standard transmissions are a lot of fun but an automatic isn't necessarily evil
Yeah, heresy, kick me off the forum. I don't value your opinion either.

Just because a truck isn't 4WD doesn't mean it's worthless
Just try fitting a big screen TV in your 4x4 Explorer. The most offroading my truck does is driving around in the yard which, although muddy and wet, doesn't require any more than my 3.55 LS and probably not even that much.

There is no be all, end all motor
Although a good V8 is pretty close it's just not right in some cars.

Horespower per liter is stupid
It is what the small displacement guys say to make it seem like their motor is good/efficient. I'd take a 7.3L 235 Hp V8 over a 5.4L with the same HP any day of the week. Kudos if you know what motors I'm referring to.

Big wheels are only as good as the large brakes behind them
I'd go with 18" wheels on my truck if only because I could fit larger rotors.



That's all I can think of for now. I'll edit this and add more as I think of them.

I couldn't agree more

Never hold back whem making a flagship vehicle

Where is the "puckered lips kissing ass" icon when you need it.

I kid, I kid.

I guess I might need to be dropped on my head too.

My 'car philosphy" is simple..

You are what you drive...

Mines simple;
Cheap
Fun
Fast /Agile
Reliable
Good gas mileage

=Corvette/Miata

what if you drive a beater because you have to?

"Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars. If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer. We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche. What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time. In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety." The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important."

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Seems like the safety rates are equal

I don't have a philosiphy, i just buy mainly what pleases me but I do keep this in mind.
Anything more than 30k SHOULD NOT be ugly.
Drive what you want, it's your car not theirs.
If it looks like shit it's not for me.

Cars I absoloutely hate with a passion
Lamborghini Diablo- It's not appealing at all, lost it's touch . Too much of a fanboy car.
All Corvettes (C6 and Z06 exception)
All Dodges
Toyota Supras
Honda Civics, Accords
Saleen S7- Yes i hate it. It's too overrated. It doesn't even look that nice.

I'm too impatient to create an entire writing about my philosophy on cars. So I just wrote a short rebuttal to Dakian's:



I appreciate cars as versatile machines. I don't think that it is wrong for a car to be heavy, and I have no problem with electronic gadjets in cars. (especially ABS) If all cars were lightweight without any sort of "luxuries" we would all just be driving go-karts.

Luxury Items DO belong in a vehicle
tosay otherwise is just stupid

Curb weight under 3000 lbs.
Precise manual transmission.
Firm suspension setup offering neutral and stable handling.
Broad torque curve with top-end power.
Simple interior layout.
Usable trunk space.
Reasonable fuel consumption.

I don't think its fair compairing the Triton to the powerstroke

I knew that that it would be you to recognize the motors.

1.) Weight - the less the better. it's all very well having sixty-zillion horsepower but you won't be going anywhere if your ride weighs ten tonnes.
2.) Chassis - power is nothing without control! A good chassis should be light and stable, able to absorb bumps but still provide thrilling and rewarding handling.
3.) Engine - America, it's all very well having a 400BHP V8, but when its 8.5 litres that's just ridiculous, and too much torque also makes a mockery of good chassis'
it needs to be naturally aspirated, high revving and plenty of BHP at high revs, red line at something like 8000rpm, there should be some torque just for day to day usability and it should keep a tap on cylinders, anything bigger than a V10 and it's booooring!
4.) Practicality - ah well you buy what you need, fuck it if you say Caterhams should be comfortable, there not made for that just as a Range Rover isn't made for lapping Silverstone at top speed.
Favs-
Ariel Atom
Lotus Elise
Caterham 7
Land Rover (Defenders or Range Rovers)
TVRs
Morgans
Lotus Elan
Lotus Exige
RX-7/RX-8
Anything with an 'M' badge, and most things with an 'RS' or 'AMG' badge too!
Radical SR-Types
Westfield XTRs
Ultima GTR
Most Astons
You get the idea...

Hates-
BMW X5's (sorry Porschedream, but that's just me... )
Merc ML's
Most SUV's
Dodge Vipers
Corvettes
Evos/Imprezas (Brilliant cars, but to be honest I find their costant need to out do each other rather tedious.)
Mc Laren F1, F 50, Diablo well most fanboy super cars...

atleast the cars improve over time, when car companies compete we win

i was thinking the 454SS versus fords triton...

and no it's not fair to compare the powerstroke! it kills the triton.

Simply put, cars are products. Just like microwaves, cameras and toilets, and if it appeals to a market then it's done it's job. But personally...

I love almost all cars. If the Pontiac Aztek was the only car on earth I would love it. However it's not and it sucks.

Driver - Most important is the driver. I understand not that many people are into cars the way we are, but I still think part of getting your license is attending a high performance car control course, where you can use a skid pad, slalom, emergency lane change, etc. Not only would there be safer drivers on the road, but many would realize the advantages of a low-center of gravity and not block my view with their SUVs and lifted pickups. I have issues with the whole SUV phenomenon and that's been discussed before so I'll leave it out.

Performance - I guess I still stand by the saying "take off everything that doesn't make the car faster." As many mentioned earlier, low weight is key. Generally I don't like any cars over 3000 lbs. Next important would be a low center of gravity, with most of the weight between the axles, with a slight rear bias. Another must is good, linear brakes and sticky tires. And of course, a smooth engine and transmission. Maybe I'm spoiled by Hondas and Miatas, but I hate rubbery shifters, shifters with long throws, and shifters with hard to find gates. The engine isn't too important, as long as it's smooth and it's not underpowered. Overall, the car must be balanced. The brakes can't be too strong for the tires, the engine can't be too powerful for the chassis, etc. It all has to work as one. With a car like this and a skilled driver, electronic aids aren't necessary. Rollbars and safety harnesses should replace airbags.

Practicality - Well some of the stuff mentioned above must be compromised when you often drive on crappy roads, do a lot of freeway driving, fight traffic, have passengers, or need to carry supplies. This is where it's okay if the car is more than 2000 lbs. With the added weight, I find it preferable to add power brakes. With cruddy roads, change the "stiff" suspension to "firm." With the traffic and freeways, add a higher top gear, a longer wheelbase (maybe), cruise control, a stereo, and A/C. That to me is luxury. Unfortunately I only have the stereo.

Tuning - The way I see it, tuning a car means bad design. The car didn't fill the niche you were looking for, and so it must be modified to meet your requirements. If you enjoy working on it, or if you are racing and you are just tweaking it for the specific track, that's something else entirely. Also, I don't include customization as part of tuning - that's personal/aesthetic thing. On that note, don't confuse what you can put on your car with what you should put on your car. This goes for consumers as well as manufacturers.

Symbolism - Generally a lot of us reject the notion of cars as status symbols. I still agree with that. However, there is the fact that certain cars represent certain things to certain people. A person may buy an SUV as a form of escapism because they hate their job and the SUV represents getting away from it. Now, in that case, there might be a better solution - forget the SUV and fix your life, perhaps - but people are known to choose the path of least resistance. (Not to generalize all SUV buyers, this is one case. GM says it's because they're insecure with not being single anymore). There's also the symbolism to reflect what you do. Some guy might be able to outperform others in just an econobox, but gets a sports car to reflect his passion or to be taken more seriously. I find that "cars that have potential" for tuning is another form of symbolism.

on a sidebar, i'd say the one car that can do it all, for me at least, is the Legacy GT.

Love:
BMW M coupe
Brabus Smart RoadsterCoupe
Fiat/Bertone X1/9
Lotus Elise
Mazda Miata
Mini Cooper
Porsche Boxster
Subaru Legacy GT
Toyota MR-2
VW GTI

Hate:
Pontiac Aztek
SUVs that pretend to be offroaders but aren't (ex. Ford Explorer)
SUVs that say they handle like cars but don't (ex. Cadillac SRX)
most Mercedes and Buicks
cars that are disgustingly over 3000 lbs.
"sport" versions of cars that offer no performance gain (ex. Corolla S)

atleast the XRS has 170hp

I have a final comming up, so I wont go into to much detail, besides I can sum up what my car philosophy is with one sentance.

It has to be fun.

My car weighs 3800lbs, makes 210bhp, is RWD, has a supercharger, and above all else it's fun as hell. It has power windows/locks, a sunroof (an absolute must), cd player & all sorts of other heavy comfort items. However, as long as it is fun I'll enjoy it.

Cars I like/would like to own:
VW Corrado
Subaru SVX
Mitsu Galant VR4
Dodge Stealth TT
Toyota GT4/Alltrac
Chevy Corvette
Dodge/Mitsu Starion/Conquest TSi
Ford SHO
etc, etc...

I read an article in "atlantic monthly" which was all about the pre-concived safety notions. they found alot of really neat things

1)because SUV's in the states are classified as "light trucks" they dont need to mee the same crash standards as a car...and therefore are less safe than a car in many situations...especially a roll over, which is more likely in a SUV than in a car.

2)SUVs cant avaoid accidents as well as a car.

3)people were shown a series of SUVs all with the same dimentions and every aspect the same...with out badging...the only difference between the cars (besides slight apperance) was the number of cup holders.

the partisipants of the survey were then asked to drive the vehicles and rate them on how safe they "are" (how safe they feel in them) and in something like 80% of cases they chose the vehicle with more cup holders.

their study found that SUVs are more likely to be in an accident...and you are more likely to be hurt in an accident if you are in a SUV.

sorry to thread jack...

so i guess you don't mind paying more for petrol then. why not make a 10L V8 with crap assed compression and get 235BHP...that would give you great bragging rights.

technology has advanced to a point that we can get 235BHP from a 1.3L engine (kudos if you know what motor I'm talking about!), with out turbocharging...so why stick way back in the past with huge engines with realitively little power? wouldnt you want to be able to get 600BHP from that 7.4L engine? or have a lighter engine that gives you the same BHPO figures...but dosent bog down a chassis?

Now poke that pathetic 1.3L motor in a 1-Ton truck and tell me how great it is.

You:

Point: missed

Edit: What motor are you talking about? It doesn't sound like it's stock.

it is completely stock...and ill let you sit in suspense as to which engine it is...i know there aer 5 or 6 people who know which engine im talking about.

my point was that you can get the kind of bhp those huge engines make with a much smaller NA engine.

now if you are talking about torque...then that is a completely different kettle of fish. you still need displacement to make the kind of insane torque big trucks have...but for bhp...you no longer need to build engines with giant displacements (nudge nudge to chevy)

i think hes talking about rotaries

its the wankel . surprise surprise.

Oh man the suspense is killing me.

And yes I was talking about torque. I made a very general statement "horsepower per liter is stupid" and provided an example. My point is that it's not a great way to compare motors.

im curious why you didnt mention torque in your post...but that is besides the point.

BHP/L tells you quite a bit about an engine...and can be used for comparison if you are talking about simmilar applications...

but personally...I would rather have a smaller displacemnet engine giving me the same figures than a larger one. too much wieght...changes the dynamic of the chassis...if you can do more with less why not. why use a 7.0L engine making 500BHP when you can use a 5.2L engine making the same figures? less riciprocating mass means a higher theoretical RPM...lighter engine, better fuel consumption and more space to work with...allowing you to mount the engine as you see fit...not just shoehorining it in there