yea, seriously, if you abandon your flagship sports cars completely its :facepalm:
nsx and supra need to come back.

True. There would be no GT Mustang without the v6. Although, now the v6 stang and camaro are fun cars to drive with decent power. Still...

Don't get me wrong, the LF-A is awesome from a nerdy engineering standpoint... But it's not accessible to the common man.

Mitsubishi Motors is just a terrible manufacturer currently, but imagine if they had no Evo or Lancer Ralliart (which is now turbo AWD). Their lineup would be worse than Hyundai's. Ugh.

yea seriously. it would be like if ford abandoned the mustang and were like 'hey we made a 250k super car, isn't that fun!?

It's not feasible to own one unless you are a billionaire. Or rather, you probably shouldn't. It's almost Veyron status.

so, dreamer missed the whole thread.

No, I have read it all.

ok good, i was scared you missed all the fun.

I went out to lunch and came back to two full new pages.

I think most of the points have been pointed out about how the car in the commercial really does not have good brakes, tires, etc. They are advertising the new features which are computers driving for humans.

put a sleepy driver behind the wheel of a volvo, 458 italia, or a lotus, and they are still a hazard. i think the nanny's are just enablers. they make people feel like its ok to drive home if they are dozing off.

This can be said of many modern automotive amenities. ABS, traction control systems, back-up cameras... People only learn to be as sophisticated in operations as the system requires. And I've noticed it in completely different arenas. If machine operation is difficult and somehow requires skill, some people will master it, others will learn just enough to get by, and some will simply operate it at subpar, dangerous levels. If you hand them help in the form of software shortcuts, the masters will become frustrated with whatever sandbox you throw them in, the "just get by" crowd learns less and becomes less sophisticated, and the subpar people are somewhat buoyed up by the nanny systems, but are nonetheless still terrible operators, because they don't understand what it is they're supposed to be doing.

Kind of an off-topic rant, but I think people operating vehicles over 6000 lb GVW should have to have a special license + training. That's heavy enough for you to get in serious trouble and endanger lives if you don't know what you're doing.

So basically any truck, SUV, or very heavy car/crossover = special license + training.

I think that all licenses should require re-testing every so often. And I mean everything: written, driving tests, supervised excursion. It should happen.

:icon18: haha. Though I do dislike how the worlds machines are loosing most of the direct metal to man feel it does make me feel a bit more safe as we all know the average driver is terrifying at the least.

Cars have gotten the best of me and I have gotten a few scares on the road in the past that I know if I didn't have any motorsport background I would have not been here. With this, the average joe who went to the DMV and got a piece of plastic is putting everyone at risk with a 3000+ pound machine.

The modern automobile maker is trying to prevent accidents in a way of aiding the inexperienced. Sure we can make brakes better, but if you do not know how to use them they are good as useless. Things like ABS, traction control, and new technologies are coming to aid the typical highway driver to a 'safer' road experience.

I do wish there was more R&D on the parts that most of us here enjoy such as brakes, tires, etc. but the masses don't agree- they are still trying to figure our what that vdc button does!

Maybe a gutted option of the safety features.. that is cheaper is the way to go..:tup:

-Scott

F*cked up as it may be, this is the mentality that bothers me the most in modern society. Let the government or some large corporation do the thinking for the sheep. Take the responsibility off of the consumer, as we assume that he/she is lowest common denominator. And our academic institutions should lower their standards, and the driving test shouldn't be hard, because you know, morons need to graduate/drive, too.

If you want a real rant, I could provide one. :bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

I know it's not PC, and it won't win me too many friends.

i vote for a shado rant.

I vote for a real rant, preferably involving eugenics and euthanasia of imbeciles.

lol maybe another day. I'm at work.

Just wish that people were held to higher standards, instead of us instantly needing to bulk up our vehicles on superfluous driver aids. Just my opinion, but I feel that people should learn to f*cking drive their 2-ton rolling death machine before they go doing 90mph in it.

Agreed but until someone realizes that our driver training programs are bogus our driving powers alone cannot stop them.

the370zforum, UNITE!

-Scott

Theres a huge disparity in insurance premiums i think. So a motorcycle, costs about 75 bucks to insure for a year. If you crash, you might die or become seriously injured, but you're probably not going to kill anyone else or total anyone elses car with your bike unless you are going REALLY fast. Then, you have a sports car, like the Z, which is somewhat light, has a powerful engine, and has really high insurance premiums. then you get 5000 lb death machine Escalade, and it has lower insurance premiums than the Z. If it the premiums were based on potential damage caused to other vehicles, the SUV should have the premiums. if it were the overall safety of the vehicle, the motorcycle would have the highest premium. if it was dictated by the replacement cost, the escalade would have the highest premium. so tell me why the hell sports cars have the highest premiums.

Insurance statistics are bunk anyway. But they have to have something to point at while they are extorting us courtesy of government requirements.

Yes. An intelligence test for all drivers would be nice. All others can have nanny-mobiles without steering wheels.

Then there are the really really old ladies behind the wheel of a car and they can barely see over the dash. Now, that sounds like a cliche but I was almost killed by one in a pristine Cadillac. Perhaps a annual driving test should be required for the elderly.

Yes and yes.

Problem is, we live in a Politically Correct society and people start yelling at you as though you're the next Hitler every time you mention something that excludes people who are less intelligent or less enabled.

yea seriously, we need to stop the suffering of women.:roflpuke2:

lol :)

But what can we expect from a society that cannot control it's own drunk driving problem?

The thing I think a lot of the people are missing in this thread (tbh I only read the last few pages) is that the large majority of people consider driving a huge chore.

Most of my friends who are not big into cars don't care what they drive as long as it is "safe" and gets them from point A to B. If given the choice, they would probably automate the entire process in a heartbeat.

The "nannies" that we are seeing are just a result of that. I don't really think anyone is realistically going into a car with a "lane departure warning" or a "holy **** you're tired" thing and thinking that they are perfectly safe. I think most people jump for these things because it makes them think their car is "safer."

What we really need to do is completely model ourselves after Finland in that department. Until kids learn to power slide during driving class, we aren't doing it right. :p

Godwin aide, that's because exclusion can quickly become a dangerous game.

As long as we live in a society that glorifies drinking (and to some cases, drinking and driving), this will continue.