| Re: Daily drivers, etc. | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: LS (lashdeep yahoo.com)
|
|
| Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 17:33:27 -0800 (PST) | |
Rick, great points.
There are easy ways to measure "best".
To me, "best" can be measured by performance and reliability.
Performance is sometimes measured by journalists who probably don't really know how to drive. Often, it's measured by test equipment.
When I analyze each, I look for reliable measures like Justin Bell's laptime or the 1/4 mile trap speed. The other numbers aren't worth much.
You can also look at dyno numbers and scaled weights. That will give you an indication of a car's performance...or, at least, potential.
Reliability can be researched by things like Consumer Reports. That is until you find out that a lack of cupholders can weigh into Consumer Reports "best" index. I don't care about things like that.
How do I measure reliability?
Firsthand is one way. That can be expensive. What's the next best way?
Maybe analyze or be involved in a friend's ownership experience? And not the mechanically challenged friend who takes his car to the dealer every time he hears a clicking noise.
No, the friends who race or track or compete in their cars. The ones that are technical and mechanically inclined who analyze, prep, test and implement everything they do. The ones who will let you inspect their car and all of the various systems up on a lift or spread out over a table.
Once you have a data set of 50 of those friends with 250 cars, the trends emerge.
The *real* engineering of a car or maker comes to the surface. There are makes with ill fitting interior panels and plastic buttons. There are others who haven't figured out how to make a timing *chain* or assemble the bottom end of an engine.
There are a lot of manufacturers out there touting themselves as "engineering" or "design" focused.
It is pure and utter fraud.
There should add "poor" or "unfinished" before the term engineering into their marketing campaigns. Even worse is that they've brainwashed their owners into thinking that whatever routine failure occurs is maintenance!!!
These are the same manufacturers that cannot build a margin into their product so they look to these recurring "maintenance" and parts sales to recoup their lost R&D costs!
Don't even get me started on forced induction or other "technology" that nobody needs. Cars should be simpler, more fuel efficient and lighter. Heavier, thirsty and more complicated is not progress. Machines in the world have been getting smaller, lighter and cheaper except for cars!
People should decide whatever "best" means to them and pick the corresponding car that satisfies their goal.
I could care less about backup cameras or suede dashboards.
To me a car must be quick, simple and require ZERO REPAIRS with even hard track abuse.
There aren't many manufacturers out there that can live up to that standard today.
Maybe I didn't mention it before but this will be our 7th car. We have the SUV, the fuel efficient daily beater, the newer track car, the vintage race car, the Italian exotic and the investment cars.
This one needs to be the new, modern, reasonably comfortable for 4, fast, stylish and VERY exciting car. It will be driven a few times per week and for "daily" type duties for some of those trips. We will likely also buy it so it will still have to be pretty special about 15 yrs from now. These are the items that are not so easy to measure but I know it when I see it.
LS
From: Rick <rolindsay [at] yahoo.com>
To: LS <lashdeep [at] yahoo.com>
Cc: The FerrariList <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:12 AM
Subject: [Ferrari] Daily drivers, etc.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/lashdeep%40yahoo.com
Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/
There are easy ways to measure "best".
To me, "best" can be measured by performance and reliability.
Performance is sometimes measured by journalists who probably don't really know how to drive. Often, it's measured by test equipment.
When I analyze each, I look for reliable measures like Justin Bell's laptime or the 1/4 mile trap speed. The other numbers aren't worth much.
You can also look at dyno numbers and scaled weights. That will give you an indication of a car's performance...or, at least, potential.
Reliability can be researched by things like Consumer Reports. That is until you find out that a lack of cupholders can weigh into Consumer Reports "best" index. I don't care about things like that.
How do I measure reliability?
Firsthand is one way. That can be expensive. What's the next best way?
Maybe analyze or be involved in a friend's ownership experience? And not the mechanically challenged friend who takes his car to the dealer every time he hears a clicking noise.
No, the friends who race or track or compete in their cars. The ones that are technical and mechanically inclined who analyze, prep, test and implement everything they do. The ones who will let you inspect their car and all of the various systems up on a lift or spread out over a table.
Once you have a data set of 50 of those friends with 250 cars, the trends emerge.
The *real* engineering of a car or maker comes to the surface. There are makes with ill fitting interior panels and plastic buttons. There are others who haven't figured out how to make a timing *chain* or assemble the bottom end of an engine.
There are a lot of manufacturers out there touting themselves as "engineering" or "design" focused.
It is pure and utter fraud.
There should add "poor" or "unfinished" before the term engineering into their marketing campaigns. Even worse is that they've brainwashed their owners into thinking that whatever routine failure occurs is maintenance!!!
These are the same manufacturers that cannot build a margin into their product so they look to these recurring "maintenance" and parts sales to recoup their lost R&D costs!
Don't even get me started on forced induction or other "technology" that nobody needs. Cars should be simpler, more fuel efficient and lighter. Heavier, thirsty and more complicated is not progress. Machines in the world have been getting smaller, lighter and cheaper except for cars!
People should decide whatever "best" means to them and pick the corresponding car that satisfies their goal.
I could care less about backup cameras or suede dashboards.
To me a car must be quick, simple and require ZERO REPAIRS with even hard track abuse.
There aren't many manufacturers out there that can live up to that standard today.
Maybe I didn't mention it before but this will be our 7th car. We have the SUV, the fuel efficient daily beater, the newer track car, the vintage race car, the Italian exotic and the investment cars.
This one needs to be the new, modern, reasonably comfortable for 4, fast, stylish and VERY exciting car. It will be driven a few times per week and for "daily" type duties for some of those trips. We will likely also buy it so it will still have to be pretty special about 15 yrs from now. These are the items that are not so easy to measure but I know it when I see it.
LS
central
wines-spirits est 1934
625 e street nw
washington, dc 20004
202-737-2800
From: Rick <rolindsay [at] yahoo.com>
To: LS <lashdeep [at] yahoo.com>
Cc: The FerrariList <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:12 AM
Subject: [Ferrari] Daily drivers, etc.
Hey Gang,
We are all quick to state which car is 'best' but without defining what constitutes 'best'. Consumer Reports would have us all driving Accords, or worse, because their definition of 'best' is the car for dumb-asses who consider a car a major appliance. Other sources define 'best' as
the quickest. I define 'best' as the car that fits my desires and may fit my needs.
I certainlly don't care what it costs to operate a Porsche SUV or that abortion they call the Panamerica. The 911s are quick party-pieces and their two little brothers are fun, if all are overpriced.
New Ferraris might as well be Lamborghinis or whatever. Out of the reach of mortals. I'm reminded of horses. Buying one is the cheaper part of ownership.
M-B still makes a nice sedan, now that they have shed Chrysler. BMW makes a nice car but the two M3s I have owned have been very quick maintenance nightmares.
Audis look nice now that the aluminum us mostly gone from the interior. I consider Audi to be VW's Lexus.
Don't know what I would buy today if I were in the market. The Fiat 500 Ferrari Tribute is pretty awesome. Is it even available
in the States? Pretty small for Houston highways (and amoung the monstrous beasts that many people here drive).
And I hate to admit it but about the most sports car bang for the buck is...wait for it...the new Corvette. A nice sedan with lots of trinkets for minimal cost is the Chrysler (Fiat) 200.
BUT, these are just MY definitions of 'best'.
Happy Saturday,
-rick
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/lashdeep%40yahoo.com
Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/
-
Daily drivers, etc. Rick, January 4 2014
- Re: Daily drivers, etc. LS, January 4 2014
-
Re: Daily drivers, etc. Clyde Romero, January 5 2014
- Re: Daily drivers, etc. Charles Perry, January 5 2014
-
Re: Daily drivers, etc. Fellippe Galletta, January 5 2014
- Re: Daily drivers, etc. LS, January 5 2014
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.