| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
October 2004
|
|
OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 10:21
|
 |
today... i was behind an XR6 non turbo... and this ST162 stopped next to the side of the XR6 at the lights. Then when the lights turned green, both were giving it, so i thought i might as well give it a bit... i couldnt keep up, but the crazy ST162 over took the XR6!!!.... something that i thought wont happen... but W0000t
hmm.... 182Kw vs 103Kw .... 1700Kg vs 1100Kg
the 162 rocks ! 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane, QLD
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 10:34
|
|
xr6 has 9.1kg's per kilowatt of power
where as the st162 has 10.6kg's per kilowatt of power
going by your listed figures
so going on that alone
mr ford cant drive
or mr toyota wasnt packing stock st162 running gear 
obviously there is more to take into account
but i would of been well impressed with the celica as well
|
|
|
Location:
Potts Point, Sydney
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 11:28
|
|
bah...its a ford 
FORD - Fucker Only Rolls Down Hill 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 11:57
|
|
| dimmy77_03 wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 21:28 |
bah...its a ford
FORD - Fucker Only Rolls Down Hill
|
how can you say that when you have a FORD in your avatar.
Granted it is an American ford but it is a ford nonetheless (sp.?)
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 11:59
|
|
I would certainly fancy my st162 against an XR6
If the celica was all over the XR6 i dare say he might be packin' a 3sgte. You hear a BOV?
|
|
|
Location:
Potts Point, Sydney
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 12:15
|
|
|
old skool GT500E's are an exception and some mustangs, no others
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 13:02
|
|
normal XR6's aren't that quick actually, they are pretty fucking pathetic, they run like ~9sec 0-100..... and ummm so does the celica, so yeah might have been packing a few upgrades, but its not hard to take a normal XR6.
cycleofabuse an interesting race for you would be an XR6 Turbo, they can't really launch very hard (but hey neither can FWD turbo) he'd still shit on you, but it would be better than racing a normal one.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 14:04
|
|
i find that hard to believe...sorry...
the new xr6's even non turbo are slippery, last time i drove an st162 it seems like a lazy heap of poo...hence my disbelief this is a correct race 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 14:09
|
|
| V8_MA61 wrote on Fri, 15 October 2004 00:04 |
last time i drove an st162 it seems like a lazy heap of poo...
|
LMAO 
lazy heap of poo -love it! Gonna use that one!
I dunno, I also find it hard to believe. But then again, I have beaten a VR SS before - I have a witness too! I think it comes down to drivers, mostly falco/commonwhore drivers generally being not very good ones.
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
south Melbourne/KL
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 17:40
|
|
|
its probably because jap cars have higher red lines and able to get into a gear change rythm!!!(is that how u spell it??)
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Toymods Club Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 14 October 2004 22:28
|
|
| b1gb3n wrote on Fri, 15 October 2004 03:40 |
its probably because jap cars have higher red lines and able to get into a gear change rythm!!!(is that how u spell it??)
|
Yeah, but big 6's have slabs of low down torque and don't really need to rev that high to make their power.
XR6 was probably an auto though which wouldn't help it get off the line that well.
I don't strictly dis-believe the story, mainly 'cos I don't know how the non-turbo XR6's go (have only been in a turbo one). My little Corolla has been able to keep up with plenty of 6 cylinders before though (up to a point anyway) so it wouldn't surprise me that an ST162 might fair a bit better.
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 03:40
|
|
| wiso wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 23:02 |
he'd still shit on you, but it would be better than racing a normal one.
|
No doubt the turbo XR6 would shit all over me hehehehe...
I'm always keen for a drag though, even if i know im gonna lose. I like to see others give their car some shtick.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 04:07
|
|
|
yeah but ten bucks says that the Xr6 was an auto so it even it up a bit
|
|
|
Location:
camden
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 05:49
|
|
| dimmy77_03 wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 21:28 |
bah...its a ford
FORD - Fucker Only Rolls Down Hill
|
So youve driven alot of fords then have you? got some first hand experience im guessing to make a statement like that ay. care to elaborate? i'd like to hear why fords are so bad in your opinion.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne Eastern Suburbs
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 08:35
|
|
I'm with dimmy... Ford= fixed or repaired daily. A stock BA XR6 sports the same powertrain as the BA XT. It's just made to look good... if you like taxis with bodykits.
I'm glad the st162 showed the xr6 who's the best, just keep in mind that it may as well have been a taxi.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 09:59
|
|
|
..Found On Rubbish Dumps
|
|
|
Location:
wollongong NSW
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 11:45
|
|
xr6 non turbo with one occupant vs. gzed ae86 with 3 blokes and stereo gear. who do you think won?
correct the xr6 never stood a chance. although we were playing with him a bit but when the ae86 had power applied we were goooone
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 14:34
|
|
| XiL3D wrote on Fri, 15 October 2004 15:49 |
| dimmy77_03 wrote on Thu, 14 October 2004 21:28 |
bah...its a ford
FORD - Fucker Only Rolls Down Hill
|
So youve driven alot of fords then have you? got some first hand experience im guessing to make a statement like that ay. care to elaborate? i'd like to hear why fords are so bad in your opinion.
|
your an angry man..
|
|
|
Location:
brisbane
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 15 October 2004 14:55
|
|
|
GOOOOZ-FAA-BAAAAH
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 16 October 2004 01:14
|
|
|
DROF=drivers return on foot
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 16 October 2004 01:26
|
|
The traffic-light drag race is about as accurate as teh fully sik seet ov da pahnts dyno.
Did the XR6 driver stall-up on the line? did he even floor it straight away? Maybe he lifted slightly on the shifts to save it from da redline..
ya know?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 16 October 2004 06:02
|
|
While i dont disbelieve this story,i must say the ST162's I have driven i was very surprised by! they are shite,i rekkon the driver of this one must weigh about 50kegs because 162's have no power whatsoever...as for saying Fords are fukked or any type of brand for that case, is just ghey! and somthing ud hear in Year 7 at the latest soo give it up
I went for a ride in my mates new XR6 non turbo, leather interior all the trimmings and must say the thing screemed and is a great cruiser and absolutely beautiful car all round...im an obsolute TA22 fanatic but I can still appreciate different cars and the purposes they were designed for...get in a TS50 and tell me the thing isnt a well balanced weapon!
fords are fukked on race day!
NAAA
yeh
Well i know you are I said you are so what am I?
Some of the threads and comments on here sound like a fukken primary school playground
|
|
|
Location:
London, UK
Registered:
October 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 16 October 2004 08:27
|
|
|
did you think for a minute that maybe the xr6 driver didn't give a toss and let him go by? perhaps he wasn't even 'giving it some' at all.
|
|
|
Location:
Potts Point, Sydney
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 16 October 2004 09:52
|
|
XiL3D -
1) i hate them so much because heaps of friends (older, so they dont thrash) had heaps of probs with theirs, and yes they rattle like theirs no tomorrow 
AND
2) some fucker hit me with his P O S ford and wrote my precious car off 
and what the other said too ^^
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sun, 17 October 2004 00:25
|
|
| dimmy77_03 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 19:52 |
XiL3D -
1) i hate them so much because heaps of friends (older, so they dont thrash) had heaps of probs with theirs, and yes they rattle like theirs no tomorrow
AND
2) some fucker hit me with his P O S ford and wrote my precious car off
and what the other said too ^^
|
my car is rattly as crap.. mainly interior fittings lol
gets annoying with little buzzing around
|
|
|
Location:
Potts Point, Sydney
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sun, 17 October 2004 00:53
|
|
|
yeh but your car is awesome, and its not a ford so it doesnt matter
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sun, 17 October 2004 00:59
|
|
| dimmy77_03 wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 10:53 |
yeh but your car is awesome, and its not a ford so it doesnt matter
|
hahaha
i need to take it all apart and put it all together with right fasteners
and i think i need to re-seat gearbox crossmember
the last ford i went in was a gtho ford falcon phase 3.. from 1969
now THAT was a nice ford..
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sun, 17 October 2004 23:33
|
|
|
It's whatever floats your boat. I don't mind the Fords, especally the old Mustangs and the GTHO's ,there are others but personally In the Holden vs Ford thing Go the Fords!!! as for the Celica vs XR6. Up the TOYOTAS!!!!!!! It would be possible to do as I find alot of it comes down to the driver as well. on paper the Falcon may sound quicker (don't really care though) there are many factors invovled in it so don't wright the ST162 off. those things are quick for what they are and so is the Falcon 6.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Mon, 18 October 2004 13:45
|
|
Ummm i could maybe believe it! I beat a XR6 EF model goign up this huge hill and i mean like we both put a foot down to pass everyone one and after a bit i was closing the gap and he saw it and beign the first nice ford driver every let me over with him still floored and i past him.
And yeah so maybe, and i can shit about Ford cause all the models of falcons form EA to AU over heatafter coming up the hill and ask us for water! I mean 8 out of 10 cars that do are theos model fords!
Also had one hit me ina park lot and not leave a note (left its ford head light protector broken next to my car! And nearly been totaled by one!
Nezza 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Tue, 19 October 2004 09:43
|
|
| mrsmart wrote on Fri, 15 October 2004 18:35 |
I'm with dimmy... Ford= fixed or repaired daily. A stock BA XR6 sports the same powertrain as the BA XT. It's just made to look good... if you like taxis with bodykits.
I'm glad the st162 showed the xr6 who's the best, just keep in mind that it may as well have been a taxi.
|
Actually that is looking at things the wrong way around. The base model falcon was given the same upgraded driveline and engine of the new BA XR6 range so that the entire range could revel in the new 24 valve 6. The turbo version is just the icing on the cake.
Both sixes N/A and turbo deliver a table flat torque curve right up to redline, and produce more kw's then all but the series III AU V8's
Im not about to comment on a race that i did not witness and obviously was not a part of, but will say that both cars were engineered with performance in mind and having driven both found that they both have their charms, and flaws
BTW....FORD = First On Race Day, or Full Of Rust & Dents....but hey, rust=weight reduction
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown, NSW, Austra...
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Tue, 19 October 2004 10:17
|
|
|
Although i havent driven a BA, i have driven Ef-Au models and i wouldn't describe them as slow, its a shame lsd isn't standard anymore. Anyway i would hardly describe trafic light drags as a good indicator of performance
|
|
|
Toymods Club Treasurer
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Wed, 20 October 2004 01:12
|
|
Seeing as I drive an '04 BA XL ute (although its on LPG so only 156kW vs 182kW) I wouldn't find this too hard to believe.
The XR6 ute is only 182kW, they're heavy & if they're auto (I bet 90% of the non turbos are) not that quick off the line.
Mine's got a definitely power kick at 2500-3000rpm as the cam timing changes, but redline is before 6000rpm.
Think if it this way too (I've done this), he liked the look of your car & wanted to see how it went. How better to do it than start to "race" you, otherwise you would've taken off normally.
Oh, and the Ford road car craps all over a Holden. At least Holden have now ventured into 80's technology with their engines now
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Wed, 20 October 2004 01:16
|
|
HOLDEN= Holes,Oil Leaks,Dents,Engine Noises! 
|
|
|
Location:
Potts Point, Sydney
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Wed, 20 October 2004 05:34
|
|
|
FORD - Four Old Rusty Doors
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 21 October 2004 09:32
|
|
| wagonist wrote on Wed, 20 October 2004 11:12 |
Oh, and the Ford road car craps all over a Holden. At least Holden have now ventured into 80's technology with their engines now
|
I assume this is a reference to Holdens V6 finally gaining Overhead Camshafts?
Sorry to break the bubble for ya buddy, but twin-overhead cam engines are a concept exactly 100 years old. They were first used to set the marine speed record 99 years ago, by a company called Delahaye. Peugeot ran 7.6L cars that won Grand Prix's in 1912 that used DOHC's, beating cars using 14 Litre engines.
16Valve Twin-Cam 4-Cylinder, 1912 style:
Don't make me explain the packaging and weight benefits of pushrodded "Dinosaur" engines. Nor should I need to explain the physics of valve area, airflow needs etc. etc. that render DOHC setups virtually unneccesary below 5,500rpm.
Can ya dig it ?
[Updated on: Thu, 21 October 2004 09:47]
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 21 October 2004 09:51
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Thu, 21 October 2004 19:32 |
| wagonist wrote on Wed, 20 October 2004 11:12 |
Oh, and the Ford road car craps all over a Holden. At least Holden have now ventured into 80's technology with their engines now
|
I assume this is a reference to Holdens V6 finally gaining Overhead Camshafts?
Sorry to break the bubble for ya buddy, but twin-overhead cam engines are a concept exactly 100 years old. They were first used to set the marine speed record 99 years ago, by a company called Delahaye. Peugeot ran 7.6L cars that won Grand Prix's in 1912 that used DOHC's, beating cars using 14 Litre engines.
16Valve Twin-Cam 4-Cylinder, 1912 style:
Don't make me explain the packaging and weight benefits of pushrodded "Dinosaur" engines. Nor should I need to explain the physics of valve area, airflow needs etc. etc. that render DOHC setups virtually unneccesary below 5,500rpm.
Can ya dig it ?
|
so we should say welcome to 1910 then?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 21 October 2004 10:07
|
|
Maybe welcome to 1915
Bizzarely, side-valve "flathead" engines were still used in mass-production american cars in the late 50's and early 60's ! ! ! Thankfully, they're now constricted to lawnmowers and generators that only ever turn 3,600rpm. (used coz they're very compact and super-cheap to make, with minimal parts).
|
|
|
Location:
wollongong NSW
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 21 October 2004 12:15
|
|
| riceburna73 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 16:02 |
I went for a ride in my mates new XR6 non turbo, leather interior all the trimmings and must say the thing screemed and is a great cruiser and absolutely beautiful car all round
|
ive been in my boss's ba xl ute that is the base model the mtor goes great but i dont see why people pay extra for an xr6 non turbo when all they get is a base model with better interior and different lights for like an extra $15gs
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Thu, 21 October 2004 22:34
|
|
| WiLo wrote on Thu, 21 October 2004 22:15 |
| riceburna73 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 16:02 |
I went for a ride in my mates new XR6 non turbo, leather interior all the trimmings and must say the thing screemed and is a great cruiser and absolutely beautiful car all round
|
ive been in my boss's ba xl ute that is the base model the mtor goes great but i dont see why people pay extra for an xr6 non turbo when all they get is a base model with better interior and different lights for like an extra $15gs
|
Yeah, it's even the same suspension pack as the XL isn't it? The BA-II XR6-T looks like performance bargain of the decade though. With the tough Tremec T56 onboard now, it'll take just about whatever crazy-arsed boost upgrades APS can throw at it, until the diff lets go anyway.
Joy ! !
|
|
|
Toymods Club Treasurer
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Fri, 22 October 2004 08:08
|
|
No, the ute range goes:
XL, XLS, XR6, XR6T, XR8, Pursuit.
XL only has rubber floor, AC optional, ABS optional.
XR's have better suspension than normal Falcons.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne Eastern Suburbs
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 23 October 2004 02:11
|
|
| WiLo wrote on Thu, 21 October 2004 22:15 |
| riceburna73 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 16:02 |
I went for a ride in my mates new XR6 non turbo, leather interior all the trimmings and must say the thing screemed and is a great cruiser and absolutely beautiful car all round
|
ive been in my boss's ba xl ute that is the base model the mtor goes great but i dont see why people pay extra for an xr6 non turbo when all they get is a base model with better interior and different lights for like an extra $15gs
|
Yeh its a company car,so i dont think he really cared how much it was! I dont know all the differences between the models but it was a fukkn nice car.. i would have gone the auto tho,as driving around all day everyday in a manual gets a bit fukked after a while...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sat, 23 October 2004 14:31
|
|
| riceburna73 wrote on Sat, 23 October 2004 12:11 |
i would have gone the auto tho,as driving around all day everyday in a manual gets a bit fukked after a while...
|
It's people who think retarded shit like that who are slowly but surely killing manual gearboxes. Manuals just won't exist in 10 years for anything cheaper than a Porsche 911, coz people won't buy them. I keep hearing stuff like "I'd like to get the manual, but I've heard the shift quality isn't perfect." or "Yeah, I'd like to buy the manual, but I'm too much of a lazy fat slob to push a clutch pedal."
So in summing up:
LICK MY BALLS, people buying NEW automatics.
People buying 2nd hand autos are sort of o.k. though, coz they keep the prices of 2nd hand manual cars down for REAL MEN like me.
[Updated on: Sat, 23 October 2004 14:33]
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Sun, 24 October 2004 12:19
|
|
ive driven an auto for a year and a half before my conversion.. im NEVER going back
ever
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Mon, 25 October 2004 01:40
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Sun, 24 October 2004 00:31 |
| riceburna73 wrote on Sat, 23 October 2004 12:11 |
i would have gone the auto tho,as driving around all day everyday in a manual gets a bit fukked after a while...
|
It's people who think retarded shit like that who are slowly but surely killing manual gearboxes. Manuals just won't exist in 10 years for anything cheaper than a Porsche 911, coz people won't buy them. I keep hearing stuff like "I'd like to get the manual, but I've heard the shift quality isn't perfect." or "Yeah, I'd like to buy the manual, but I'm too much of a lazy fat slob to push a clutch pedal."
So in summing up:
LICK MY BALLS, people buying NEW automatics.
People buying 2nd hand autos are sort of o.k. though, coz they keep the prices of 2nd hand manual cars down for REAL MEN like me.
|
How many extra chromosomes do you have champ! I was refering to the fact as a sales rep you average 5-8000k's per month,there is no point having a manual when doing that many k's. Im not even going to bother replying to the other shite you have written because it is the gheyest theory I have ever heard and I highly doubt you are even old enough to have your licence anyway.
[Updated on: Mon, 25 October 2004 02:42]
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: OMG... XR6 (Non turbo) vs Celica ST162
|
Mon, 25 October 2004 05:28
|
|
Actually, the car company I work for ummed and aaahhed about developing a manual for it's latest 6-cylinder, citing "limited sales payback" on the cost to develop the 'box. This is partly because the new 6cyl-automatic is totally ace (for an auto), and most of the Manuals sold are plugged into the back of V8's. It simply didn't make economic sense to develop the manual. Fortunately, engineering had a win over accounting, and marketing decided to sell the new V6 "sports" model as the "Hero car" of the range.
Oh, I'm 25, and the theory ain't ghey. It's happening right now. Mercedes now confine manuals to about 20% of their range, Ford + Holden have made their AWD ranges auto-only, Aston Martin's DB9 is auto-only for the first 9-12 months of production, and they've hinted strongly that they won't be doing a manual for its replacement.
The disease is spreading, and can only be stopped by more people buying Manuals off the showroom floor. Believe it riceburna.
|
|
|
