Analysis Paralysis

[venturaII]

I've never understood the complaint that the twins don't fit the mold as a DD for most people when they clearly were not designed to be for most people to begin with. If all the 'problems' people have with the car were 'fixed', they'd have a Camry, and then would bitch about it not being sporty enough or have enough character. WTF.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by venturaII

I've never understood the complaint that the twins don't fit the mold as a DD for most people when they clearly were not designed to be for most people to begin with. If all the 'problems' people have with the car were 'fixed', they'd have a Camry, and then would bitch about it not being sporty enough or have enough character. WTF.

I think part of the whole DD misconception issue is the North American perception that vehicles must be huge to be of any use. This mentality is restricted to over here. Many cars (and trucks for that matter) in Europe and Asia are much smaller yet they are the only family car for most people. The big sedans, minivans and SUVs people think of as "practical" here are much rarer. The Twins are positively cavernous compared to some of the cars used over there but they manage to get along just fine.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

... vehicles must be huge to be of any use.

...and immensely powerful....just to sit in traffic and idle.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Those lanes used to be standard carpool (double occupancy/motorcycles/and some EV cars) but then the government figured out how to monetize them. I was tolerant of it when they were carpool lanes (and even used them to my benefit on occasions) but the current system is basically pay to play. I'm surprised the 1% haters aren't all over these since it basically benefits those willing and/or capable of paying for the rates that rise as the need for the lanes rise.

Where I'm at, they're opening up the carpool lanes as "pay to play" for single drivers but also keeping them as free carpool lanes. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet or how they're even going to enforce it but it is interesting so I figured I would share.

[Xxyion]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

Where I'm at, they're opening up the carpool lanes as "pay to play" for single drivers but also keeping them as free carpool lanes. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet or how they're even going to enforce it but it is interesting so I figured I would share.

Yup, we have those here in California. You pay like 2-5$ depending on time of day just so you can get to your exit in 1/3 of the time. It's worth it here in CA imo.

[Ganthrithor]

Originally Posted by Xxyion

Yup, we have those here in California. You pay like 2-5$ depending on time of day just so you can get to your exit in 1/3 of the time. It's worth it here in CA imo.

Or buy a 918 / P1, right?

I really want to drive a hypercar with one of those green HOV stickers on the bumper.

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

But the torque though lmao

Seriously. Try driving an RX8 or a Geo Metro or something and then come back and bitch about torque in this car.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

PIVOT!



While everything else you wrote seems to be spot on, this struck a nerve with me. Carpool lanes don't work. Too many people were cheating, so most metros with carpool lanes now have them restricted with poles or walls. Since they're restricted, you can't get out of them once you're in there. Then it only takes one dipshit to drive along five miles under the speed limit to screw everybody behind him. And make no mistake, there WILL be such a dipshit.

So you offer a ride to a bunch of people you can't really stand or you pay an extra toll to use the express lane, only to be stuck watching the traffic in the "slow" lanes passing you. Everyone would be better off if they just got rid of the restrictions and made it a regular travel lane.

Don't have that issue here, but the carpool/HOV/toll lanes are usually 2 lanes so you can pass these numbskulls.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My question would be why would you buy a DD you don't enjoy driving, particularly if you can only own one car, given this is where you will spend the majority of your driving time?

The vast majority of all cars, not just the 86, when purchased new are daily drivers. Yes, some people buy new cars as a "toy" but it's really pretty rare particularly in a car that sells in the volume of the 86 (which, while not in Mustang/Camaro league in terms of sales still is produced in relatively large numbers for a sports car).

There is nothing about the 86 that makes it a non-daily driver to me (I've done that for almost 110K miles now). It's fun to drive, great on gas mileage, and hauls everything I need to get back and forth to work, plus some. No reason for me to buy another similar car (in size, capability) just because it has a few more doors are a little more legroom.

Not to mention I can pretty much carry anything in an 86 I could carry in a Civic.

Bingo. I will NEVER drive a boring car again when there are options on the market that are this fun for the price. Though a V6 Camry is far from boring when driven by a lunatic...

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The first time I ever saw an toll express lane was a couple of weeks back when I was in Atlanta. It was pretty much empty even though the rest were packed. I thought at the time "if that was just another lane it would relieve at least a bit of the congestion". Now of course there could be times when it is packed and I just missed them but it seemed like quite a waste.



Or have the right lane only law and enforce it! A truck doing 70.5 mph passing one doing 70.3 mph and blocking the left lane for miles is one of my few triggers for road rage.

The way they're setup here, it's more of a bypass instead of a normal lane, and was added later. Hell, just adding service roads where there currently isn't one helps (820 and Rufe Snow and 35W and 170 if you know my area will understand).

Two trucks passing is like being forced to watch two old people have sex. I will not comment on the crazy antics I've done to get away from these idiots.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I think part of the whole DD misconception issue is the North American perception that vehicles must be huge to be of any use. This mentality is restricted to over here. Many cars (and trucks for that matter) in Europe and Asia are much smaller yet they are the only family car for most people. The big sedans, minivans and SUVs people think of as "practical" here are much rarer. The Twins are positively cavernous compared to some of the cars used over there but they manage to get along just fine.

100% this. It's the same reason I get annoyed with all the sparkling clean lifted Jeeps and trucks around here. We get it, you have a small...member.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Poodles

Bingo. I will NEVER drive a boring car again when there are options on the market that are this fun for the price. Though a V6 Camry is far from boring when driven by a lunatic...

This is why I own a twin. I'm fortunate in that they are a relatively modest purchase for me, especially used. You get a good, reliable, fun car that will last you a long time for the price of the family sedans and compact cars that most other people are buying. Why not do it if your circumstances permit?


My next automotive purchase will be a not so modest truck because I want the ability to tow large things. However, I'll still be daily driving the twin all but one day a week or so.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Poodles

...100% this. It's the same reason I get annoyed with all the sparkling clean lifted Jeeps and trucks around here. We get it, you have a small...member.

Don't understand why you would be annoyed...people buy what people want and it shouldn't matter their reason, or even if the reason makes sense.

This applies to everything. No one needs the last 3 generations of game consoles, the 4 bedroom house when they have no kids, or even the medium size drink when the small would do just fine. For that matter no one needed a car when they could just walk, ride a horse or take the train.

[Adam_L]

Originally Posted by Breadstickz

ok I've gotta ask cause I seem to be missing something, what is this whole vaping and subaru thing?

And a big waist of money. Like the legalization of MJ , some can benefit from smoking it to relieve pain , but most that get the card and smoke do it for an escape. It's all really just a way to rake in tax monies, big $$$
You're better off pooling that money, and spending it on a turbo upgrade.

[Adam_L]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

This applies to everything. For that matter no one needed a car when they could just walk, ride a horse or take the train.

Multi-modes of transpiration are great, I'm all about that. However just about no one uses their horse (if they own a horse) to then ride it to work/ run errands. Substitute that for a bicycle, sure. Trains can work out fine and can be cost effective , but only in certain parts of the country/ cities.

It all boils down to what city (or traveling in between multi-cities) you're talking about and what the city offers in regards to transportation (bus , subway, etc), to then come up with a transportation plan for an individual. I'd take the subway ( if I lived/worked in NYC) , but there aren't any subways where I live.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

Multi-modes of transpiration are great, I'm all about that. However just about no one uses their horse (if they own a horse) to then ride it to work/ run errands. Substitute that for a bicycle, sure. Trains can work out fine and can be cost effective , but only in certain parts of the country/ cities.

Sorry, I was really more referring to when the car was invented (late 1800's early 1900's) more so than today, the reason for my use of the term "needed' in the past tense. Primarily my point being is that we could all get along fine without most of the modern conveniences, just doesn't mean we should.

I absolutely agree with you the "necessity" is situational but if that doesn't mean we should look down on someone for their choice of how to spend their money or time. If someone wants to sit in NYC traffic in their stretched Humvee, well more power to them. I'm not going to be angry at them, although I may think less of them for their choices.

[Capt Spaulding]

Car and Driver has a section in the October issue dealing with "self-driving" cars. It raises a number of interesting questions. Not a lot of answers, but very good questions.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I absolutely agree with you the "necessity" is situational but if that doesn't mean we should look down on someone for their choice of how to spend their money or time. If someone wants to sit in NYC traffic in their stretched Humvee, well more power to them. I'm not going to be angry at them, although I may think less of them for their choices.

I agree with you inasmuch as I agree that anyone should have the freedom to choose what they want, provided it doesn't impact me. Believe me, I love being able to be my own person. But that's where this example starts to fall apart, because the choices made by the majority of Amaricans who apparently don't mind being the puppets of marketing folk DOES affect me, in many areas. Market selection, fuel prices/availability, environmental impact, etc. It adds up. Just take a look at the new vehicle market here in America and then compare it to the rest of the world, and tell me it doesn't.