Low quality construction

[supramkivtt2jz]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

I'm going to guess you were a lot younger when you had that 00 mustang

Reasons:
1) you say you got more ***** in the mustang. Girls don't really care about cars so it probably just means you're fat now.

2) you clearly didn't poke around the mustang much, or else you wouldn't be complaining about the frs construction. When you're young you don't really care about these minor things, as long as it gets from a to b. Now you're old and cranky and wasting our time with threads like this.

Lol. Youre ****ing around on the internet and you claim im wasting your time. Whatever youre on this forum for, im sure your recent login time has been amazingly productive.

[shawnperolis]

Dude bought the wrong car and now he is mad about it and trolling on the forums. Should have bought an automatic V6 Convertible Mustang in bright red.

[norsamerican]

[Burrcold]

Yup this has troll written ALL over it.

[fistpoint]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csLgaK20SSY"]The 'Vette gets 'em wet - YouTube[/ame]

[FRiSson]

I think what you are forgetting is that automotive engineering has changed radically over the past 20 years. Automakers, lead by the Japanese, have figured out the difference between robustness and resilience. Robustness was the traditional path. You made an object heavier and stronger than it needed to be in order to resist powerful forces. That's why you find 1950's car fenders in junkyards with very little wear, just surfaces pits and pockets of rust. The irony is that robustness is not the ideal quality in a mobile object that endures millions of stress events in its lifetime. The reason is two-fold, you want an object to absorb and distribute stress, not concentrate force and become brittle. Secondly, there is a cost, both in resources and in wear in making an complex, mobile object more robust than it needs to be.

Then, starting in the 1980's with the gas crisis, car makers suddenly had to get the weight out of vehicles while simultaneously cutting emissions and keeping prices low in a highly inflationary environment. The results were bad, cheaper lighter parts, and new poorly-tested fastener systems frequently failed prematurely. This damaged the public's perception of light cars and nearly ruined the American auto industry.

However, the Japanese learned smarter. They built plenty of shoddy cars at first, but they looked at what went wrong. The result was that they figured out how to make cars last by building in resiliency. The result is that parts flex, attachments seem simplistic and flimsy, but in reality, they hold up for a really long time. The plastics and fasteners can take a lot of abuse and the lightweight sheet metal actually lasts, even when it has taken some dents and creases. The result is cars that are lightweight and resilient. That is why there are so many Camrys with their lightweight metal, cheap fasteners and huge expanses of plastic, still on the road. The Europeans have not learned the lesson as well. Their cars, while generally well-constructed have gained huge amounts of weight and complexity. A smallish BMW now weighs as much as one of the iron behemoths that Detroit made by the millions in the 60's and 70's. Now they are trying to cut weight by adding lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber. But this just adds to the costs of the vehicles.

So, don't make the mistake of feeling flex and give in a vehicle and deciding that it is cheap and poorly made. In fact, it reflects decades of smart quality engineering, that has created cars with greater resilience and longevity with cheaper, simpler assembly, more easily replaced parts, and that are much more economical to operate.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by norsamerican

anyone that tries to place a value on their cars by the amount of female undergarments that fall off by looking at the car clearly has other problems..imjussayin

in related news however i have had two females ask for rides in the car and laugh went it got loose in the turns...P.S. their panties stayed on. I dont want to clean the seats.

This. I've never understood the need to have a car that attracts girls. First, if I need a high end car to get a girl, that's probably NOT the girl I want anyways. Not into spending tons of cash on them to keep them "happy". Second, if your car is your best chance of picking up a girl you may want to focus on other skills....

[Hix]

So much troll in this thread...

I can honestly say I have none of those problems minus the window trim, but it holds out the water. I don't expect the car to be built like my E92 M3 and I don't understand why you do.

[Turbowned]

Did you want Audi build quality or a 2,7xxlb curb weight? Your choice. You can't have both for less than $30k.

[supramkivtt2jz]

Originally Posted by FRiSson

I think what you are forgetting is that automotive engineering has changed radically over the past 20 years. Automakers, lead by the Japanese, have figured out the difference between robustness and resilience. Robustness was the traditional path. You made an object heavier and stronger than it needed to be in order to resist powerful forces. That's why you find 1950's car fenders in junkyards with very little wear, just surfaces pits and pockets of rust. The irony is that robustness is not the ideal quality in a mobile object that endures millions of stress events in its lifetime. The reason is two-fold, you want an object to absorb and distribute stress, not concentrate force and become brittle. Secondly, there is a cost, both in resources and in wear in making an complex, mobile object more robust than it needs to be.

Then, starting in the 1980's with the gas crisis, car makers suddenly had to get the weight out of vehicles while simultaneously cutting emissions and keeping prices low in a highly inflationary environment. The results were bad, cheaper lighter parts, and new poorly-tested fastener systems frequently failed prematurely. This damaged the public's perception of light cars and nearly ruined the American auto industry.

However, the Japanese learned smarter. They built plenty of shoddy cars at first, but they looked at what went wrong. The result was that they figured out how to make cars last by building in resiliency. The result is that parts flex, attachments seem simplistic and flimsy, but in reality, they hold up for a really long time. The plastics and fasteners can take a lot of abuse and the lightweight sheet metal actually lasts, even when it has taken some dents and creases. The result is cars that are lightweight and resilient. That is why there are so many Camrys with their lightweight metal, cheap fasteners and huge expanses of plastic, still on the road. The Europeans have not learned the lesson as well. Their cars, while generally well-constructed have gained huge amounts of weight and complexity. A smallish BMW now weighs as much as one of the iron behemoths that Detroit made by the millions in the 60's and 70's. Now they are trying to cut weight by adding lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber. But this just adds to the costs of the vehicles.

So, don't make the mistake of feeling flex and give in a vehicle and deciding that it is cheap and poorly made. In fact, it reflects decades of smart quality engineering, that has created cars with greater resilience and longevity with cheaper, simpler assembly, more easily replaced parts, and that are much more economical to operate.

Thank you for the ease of mind and a legitimate reply. 99% of this forum can't take a punanny joke

[norsamerican]

That was a joke? It wasnt funny.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by supramkivtt2jz

99% of this forum can't take a punanny joke

If you're going to throw up a major O/T distractor you shouldn't be surprised when the bait gets taken up and the thread gets waylaid.

[disgruntld]

Originally Posted by FRiSson

I think what you are forgetting is that automotive engineering has changed radically over the past 20 years. Automakers, lead by the Japanese, have figured out the difference between robustness and resilience. Robustness was the traditional path. You made an object heavier and stronger than it needed to be in order to resist powerful forces. That's why you find 1950's car fenders in junkyards with very little wear, just surfaces pits and pockets of rust. The irony is that robustness is not the ideal quality in a mobile object that endures millions of stress events in its lifetime. The reason is two-fold, you want an object to absorb and distribute stress, not concentrate force and become brittle. Secondly, there is a cost, both in resources and in wear in making an complex, mobile object more robust than it needs to be.

Then, starting in the 1980's with the gas crisis, car makers suddenly had to get the weight out of vehicles while simultaneously cutting emissions and keeping prices low in a highly inflationary environment. The results were bad, cheaper lighter parts, and new poorly-tested fastener systems frequently failed prematurely. This damaged the public's perception of light cars and nearly ruined the American auto industry.

However, the Japanese learned smarter. They built plenty of shoddy cars at first, but they looked at what went wrong. The result was that they figured out how to make cars last by building in resiliency. The result is that parts flex, attachments seem simplistic and flimsy, but in reality, they hold up for a really long time. The plastics and fasteners can take a lot of abuse and the lightweight sheet metal actually lasts, even when it has taken some dents and creases. The result is cars that are lightweight and resilient. That is why there are so many Camrys with their lightweight metal, cheap fasteners and huge expanses of plastic, still on the road. The Europeans have not learned the lesson as well. Their cars, while generally well-constructed have gained huge amounts of weight and complexity. A smallish BMW now weighs as much as one of the iron behemoths that Detroit made by the millions in the 60's and 70's. Now they are trying to cut weight by adding lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber. But this just adds to the costs of the vehicles.

So, don't make the mistake of feeling flex and give in a vehicle and deciding that it is cheap and poorly made. In fact, it reflects decades of smart quality engineering, that has created cars with greater resilience and longevity with cheaper, simpler assembly, more easily replaced parts, and that are much more economical to operate.

I cant actually attest to this with my BRZ. Less than a month after I bought the car, I got rear ended by an early 90's Ford Ranger at a stop light. Scuffed the paint and put a (nearly invisible) crese in the diffuser. My reverse light assembly didn't pop out, the plastic itself held up just fine, the car didn't catch fire and explode, etc... Point is, most of these 'problems' you brought up are moot points in the end, because the parts will serve their purpose in the way they were designed, which -as the gentleman above so accurately pointed out- is to absorb and distribute stresses in order to maintain the light weight and relatively cheap cost of this car.

[NOHOME]

Supra......

There is an unspoken code on this board that any negative comments are going to get you torched. In large part this is a place where we all come together to tell each other what an amazing sub-set of the human race we all are in having the wisdom and character to buy such an amazing once in a lifetime vehicle.

Yeah, the car is cool. I bought it for the way it drives. A heavy car can be made to go around corners, but it can't be made to handle like a light car. My test drive confirmed that this was as promised, so I bought the car. I assumed, that being a Toyota and Subaru product, quality would be a given. After 22 years and 6 Mazda products, I took it for granted that once a car left the dealer lot, it never returned (I have warranty routine maintenence done by my own mechanic) This has not been my experience with the car so far.

Sadly, this has not proven to be the case with the twins. For whatever reason, quality did not make it past the "Almost hit the target" point. You can blame it n the rush to market, the two company cultures not working in tandem, or the need to eliminate weight, I will never know why the car is so brittle, it just is.

There is a phrase that I use to describe Healey 3000 sports cars: "A glorious collection of parts traveling in close formation". Time has shown that it does not make them any less desirable, they just is what they is. The twins may prove to be of the same ilk. In the meantime, enjoy the car for what it does, and don't expect any sympathy from this board if you complain about what you think it should do. The car is perfect, got that?