Car lovers?

People missed carburetors, too. But when you max out some tech or platform, times change.

Corvettes for a long time have sold themselves on being supercar beaters that are attainably priced. The physics have shown that they'd kind of maxed out being able to compete in that space with a front engine rear drive platform. You just couldn't get the massive power down that they needed to stay competitive, and they'd gotten pretty close to the edge on handling as well.

I love the C7's, but to me the C8 is exciting. I'd love for it to be successful.

I also think they're setting themselves up with this chassis for hybridization (see the NSX) and maybe even full electrification.

I'm not saying the C8 shouldn't or can't exist, and I understand that mid-engine is better in most aspects, but it's just not a Corvette anymore. The Corvette hasn't had a bow-tie on it in a long time. Why not make the Corvette a make and have two models? Who am I kidding, we live in a world where most manufacturers aren't making cars. Period. Trucks and SUV's baby. :eyeroll:

Side note: Every time I type Corvette I put an "r" on the end and have to delete it. Should the mid engine be the Corvetter?

r013nt0 wrote:

Jealous. ~$60k for a mid engine car is such a crazy deal. I really wonder how they are justifying this entire project.

I've been speculating about that as well.

The Corvette has always been its own platform (except for when it briefly shared a chassis with the XLR), so it's possible that production costs didn't really change much, since they're making almost everything on the car just for the Vette either way.

And they didn't really develop a new engine this time around, they just tweaked the LT1 from the C7, so that might have helped offset the R&D costs of a completely new chassis.

It could also be that the car is a loss leader for some upcoming GM rebranding plan, but I'd be really surprised if they let a reliable money maker like the Corvette go that direction.

Agreed with everything above.

But a mid-engine chassis surely can't mean a shared platform with any other car in the fleet, right?

So the only way to recoup the expenses is selling $60-100K Corvettes.

r013nt0 wrote:

But a mid-engine chassis surely can't mean a shared platform with any other car in the fleet, right?

Until they give Cadillac an electrified version in a couple of years.

Also, this chassis is developed more cost effectively than most mid-engined cars. IIRC, it's an aluminum chassis vs the exotics that have a carbon fiber monocoque design.

The transmission is a Tremec, so not something GM had to spend a fortune on developing something custom. And the suspension is more conventional than older Corvettes, ditching the transverse leaf spring. Also probably using leveraging Magna Ride development that will be used in a lot of GM vehicles going forward.

Mid engine doesn't have to be crazy expensive. See the Cayman/Boxter minus the Porsche tax, or going back a few years, MR2's, Fiero's, etc.

MR CTS-V Wagon when?

MannishBoy wrote:
r013nt0 wrote:

But a mid-engine chassis surely can't mean a shared platform with any other car in the fleet, right?

Also, this chassis is developed more cost effectively than most mid-engined cars. IIRC, it's an aluminum chassis vs the exotics that have a carbon fiber monocoque design.

Good point about the aluminum chassis. GM has been in the hydroformed aluminum chassis game since 2006 with the C6 Z06, so I'm sure they already had the production pipeline dialed in for it.

Everything I have read says that the Corvette is profitable and five years ago GM's president said that the Corvette was one of the top profit models in the company. That gives them wiggle room to raise cost without raising price, and I assume they know what they are doing to keep profit targets where they want them since GM is very financially motivated these days.

I’m thrilled with the new Vette and would like to buy one in ten years.

Blind_Evil wrote:
Fastmav347 wrote:

@Blind Evil, Why don't you look into a 4 door CTS? That body style is getting cheap, and you could probably still find lower mile examples of them.

I mentioned the CTS under option one, and my eye has been caught by the 2014 Vsport. Not as expensive as a straight CTS-V, not quite as quick, but still pretty damn fast. There’s a 2014 model with 29k miles an hour from my house on sale for $26500 that I might go see. My concern here is that I’m just not fond of the look.

Another option that has my attention is a 2015 or 2016 Mercedes GLA 45 AMG. They’re kind of uncommon, only one near me is a bit more than I would want to spend ($32500, 30k miles), and it’s missing an option I would want. My concern here is that the ride is harsh for a luxury brand, being that it’s essentially a hot-hatch, and that I’ve been spoiled in that regard by my caddy and the wife’s X3. But yo that acceleration!

I drove these today.

They’re both exhilaratingly fast, the reported 0-60 is about the same (4.2-4.5). The Mercedes is more brash with all its pops and shift noises and AMG flair, the Cadillac more slick and refined. I prefer the Mercedes, I think partly because the Cadillac is essentially a faster version of what I’ve been driving for four years and having new experiences is more fun than same old. I think the other part is that the Mercedes feels better in manual mode, more communicative.

Downside to the Mercedes is my wife predictably doesn’t like it. It has Recaro seats and she finds them very uncomfortable, also she isn’t thrilled with how the car seat I have fits in the back (I think she’s overreacting because she just doesn’t like the car much. It’s also the more expensive option at 32k, would be better if I could get them down to 30.

Downside to the Cadillac is that I’m not in love with the color (red), the wife doesn’t like that it lacks a sunroof, and the dealership rubbed me wrong a bit. They lowballed me on my trade and when they saw I was walking offered 2.5k above their initial. The upside is that it’s cheaper ($26k).

The guy from VINWiki does not recommend owning an AMG that doesn't have a warranty. I don't know what a standard warranty for an AMG is, but if it's the typical 35K miles, you might want to consider why that is.

Also, when you mentioned the V-Sport, I looked up V-Sport Wagons and now I want one. Like you said, not as horsey as a V8, but over 300HP ain't nothing. Especially coming from a 4 cylinder Mazda 3.

I think it is pretty ironic you are looking at trading in your coupe to get a more family car, and your top choice has Recaro seats and the smallest backseat space in its class. Seems like you might not be quite ready to make the jump yet.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I’m thrilled with the new Vette and would like to buy one in ten years.

Blind_Evil wrote:
Fastmav347 wrote:

@Blind Evil, Why don't you look into a 4 door CTS? That body style is getting cheap, and you could probably still find lower mile examples of them.

I mentioned the CTS under option one, and my eye has been caught by the 2014 Vsport. Not as expensive as a straight CTS-V, not quite as quick, but still pretty damn fast. There’s a 2014 model with 29k miles an hour from my house on sale for $26500 that I might go see. My concern here is that I’m just not fond of the look.

Another option that has my attention is a 2015 or 2016 Mercedes GLA 45 AMG. They’re kind of uncommon, only one near me is a bit more than I would want to spend ($32500, 30k miles), and it’s missing an option I would want. My concern here is that the ride is harsh for a luxury brand, being that it’s essentially a hot-hatch, and that I’ve been spoiled in that regard by my caddy and the wife’s X3. But yo that acceleration!

I drove these today.

They’re both exhilaratingly fast, the reported 0-60 is about the same (4.2-4.5). The Mercedes is more brash with all its pops and shift noises and AMG flair, the Cadillac more slick and refined. I prefer the Mercedes, I think partly because the Cadillac is essentially a faster version of what I’ve been driving for four years and having new experiences is more fun than same old. I think the other part is that the Mercedes feels better in manual mode, more communicative.

Downside to the Mercedes is my wife predictably doesn’t like it. It has Recaro seats and she finds them very uncomfortable, also she isn’t thrilled with how the car seat I have fits in the back (I think she’s overreacting because she just doesn’t like the car much. It’s also the more expensive option at 32k, would be better if I could get them down to 30.

Downside to the Cadillac is that I’m not in love with the color (red), the wife doesn’t like that it lacks a sunroof, and the dealership rubbed me wrong a bit. They lowballed me on my trade and when they saw I was walking offered 2.5k above their initial. The upside is that it’s cheaper ($26k).

When I bought my S4, I cross shopped the CTS V-Sports and the Mercedes CLA/GLA AMG 45's.

I decided the CTS-V Sport was too long for what I wanted. It's basically the same length as our Pathfinder, and I was coming from a 350Z and still wanted smaller. The Mercedes seemed fun, but was nowhere near as immediate as the supercharger in my S4. Plus, they were a bit more and didn't seem as optioned as either the Cadillac or S4.

I'm about to go start test-driving some 2-4 year old WRX STi's.

First time I've been car shopping for something quite so boy-racer-ey - any particular questions I should be asking?

e.g. any non-factory mods fitted?

Have you taken a look at one of the WRX forums? They are usually good places to find a list of common problems and things to look out for. I seem to remember they had a common head gasket problem, but that was like 8-10 years ago so probably not applicable to the models you are looking at.

In general, take a look at the tires (aka tyres). If they are not original and are a cheap off-brand then that is a general indicator of how the car has been taken care of.

As a former STi Hatchback owner, member of Chitown Subarus, and regular attendee of Subaru meetups, I can tell you this:

You could absolutely NOT pay me to own a used one. HELL no.

98% of WRX owners can't afford the car, don't maintain it properly, don't even buy winter tires for it, decide that diesel oil is what they should run, and up and flash their ECU without doing any supporting modification work.

r013nt0 wrote:

As a former STi Hatchback owner, member of Chitown Subarus, and regular attendee of Subaru meetups, I can tell you this:

You could absolutely NOT pay me to own a used one. HELL no.

98% of WRX owners can't afford the car, don't maintain it properly, don't even buy winter tires for it, decide that diesel oil is what they should run, and up and flash their ECU without doing any supporting modification work.

Yeah, but you just said you wouldn't own a second hand performance car of any brand or make

I do agree that STi owners are often of a type. But the age discussed here is in warranty range, and with a pre-inspection, I think you could do OK.

MannishBoy wrote:

Yeah, but you just said you wouldn't own a second hand performance car of any brand or make

I do agree that STi owners are often of a type. But the age discussed here is in warranty range, and with a pre-inspection, I think you could do OK.

That's true, sure. I own that.

But in this particular instance I have years of first hand experience with the community, haha.

I'll attempt to be more helpful.

I'd look for an older owner if you can. That'll likely limit you more to Rexxies, but in all honesty for most people the WRX is straight up a better car. First, it's faster 0-60 than an STi. Second, if you're talking 2015-ish the WRX has a brand new direct injected motor and twin-scroll turbo, whereas the STi is still using the ancient 2.5 from like 2 previous generations.

Also you'll avoid that

Spoiler:

godawful boy racer

spoiler. Actually swapping STi trunks for WRX trunks was a very popular thing with the older people in the scene. The car just looks way better without that thing.

The only thing you'll really be missing is the variable diff, and that only affects 2/10 people.

Edit:
RIP my beautiful girl, I still miss you!
IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/yVjpnWd/STi-at-CDW.jpg)

LeapingGnome wrote:

I think it is pretty ironic you are looking at trading in your coupe to get a more family car, and your top choice has Recaro seats and the smallest backseat space in its class. Seems like you might not be quite ready to make the jump yet. ;)

I don’t think you quite understand how unfriendly the situation is with getting her into a two door car. ANYTHING with four doors would be a huge improvement.

The GLA is small for a SUV, but the classification is BS. It’s a fine size for what it actually is, which is a hatchback.

Wife and I had plenty of room in the back. If I decide to go that route I would look for one without the Recaro seats, probably. And yes, buy a warranty.

After I made my post she found a Jaguar XF and loves it, wants me to try one. We didn’t have time to test drive though. I am well aware of the reliability reputation but apparently it’s covered bumper to bumper until 2022.

Jonman wrote:

I'm about to go start test-driving some 2-4 year old WRX STi's.

First time I've been car shopping for something quite so boy-racer-ey - any particular questions I should be asking?

e.g. any non-factory mods fitted?

The main thing is making sure it's bone, bone, bone, bone stock and has either remaining warranty or a service contract.

I have a 2013 and I bought a service contract. No issues in the 10k miles I've put on it, but I'm sure eventually I'll have issues.

My best friend also bought a 2013 three months ago. It spun a rod bearing two weeks ago. I insisted that he buy a service contract even though he was iffy about it, and luckily he did. Guess who's getting a free new short block?

They're great cars, but the EJ25 craps out sometimes and it's not cheap to fix/replace. And modded ones -- which are pervasive -- are even more prone to destruction.

[quote="Blind_Evil"]

LeapingGnome wrote:

The GLA is small for a SUV, but the classification is BS. It’s a fine size for what it actually is, which is a hatchback.

After I made my post she found a Jaguar XF and loves it, wants me to try one. We didn’t have time to test drive though. I am well aware of the reliability reputation but apparently it’s covered bumper to bumper until 2022.

I've noticed that vehicles that are the size of hatchbacks are now being called small SUVs. Insane how the classification can influence sales.

The XF Wagon is a beauty.

MannishBoy wrote:

When I bought my S4, I cross shopped the CTS V-Sports and the Mercedes CLA/GLA AMG 45's.

I decided the CTS-V Sport was too long for what I wanted. It's basically the same length as our Pathfinder, and I was coming from a 350Z and still wanted smaller. The Mercedes seemed fun, but was nowhere near as immediate as the supercharger in my S4. Plus, they were a bit more and didn't seem as optioned as either the Cadillac or S4.

While I don’t agree with LeapingGnome that I need something that’ll fit my daughter’s future basketball team, the small sedans are a bit too small for me generally. I would even go with a large if the car and price was right. I noticed now that I’m home that the XTS also got the V-sport trims.. but most come with wood parts inside, which drives me bananas.

I might drive a fast A6 if time permits, but Audi and I generally don’t see eye to eye in terms of design.

Also - I was kinda 50/50 on buying a new daily driver but getting my daughter’s seat back into my coupe today after driving around seeing cars with my wife really drove home the fact that I should go ahead and pull the trigger.

I wound up buying the Jaguar XF R-sport. Happy wife, happy life right? It’s feels just as fast as the CTS Vsport, more comfy than both the caddy and Mercedes, is priced at $4k under market according to cargurus.com, and fits the baby way more comfortably than the other two candidates. It has just about every feature I can think of, and the air conditioned seats really finalized the decision. I was surprised to find it doesn’t have a CD player but I guess that’s become common.

Best of all, it’s a CPO under free bumper to bumper with maintenance until November 2022. I could comfortably sell shortly after and make money, considering how good a deal I got. I’ll see if I can post pictures next weekend.

Congrats!

Thanks I actually looked with my wife and this is my first vehicle with four doors! Growing up.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Thanks I actually looked with my wife and this is my first vehicle with four doors! Growing up.

Me too with mine last year.

Very nice and congrats! What year did you get? I have always liked the XFs and they would be on my short list for sedan shopping. I haven’t driven an R version but everything I’ve read is that the engine is great.

2016, 14.6k miles, $27,988. I figure it was some rich person’s summer ride. Is there any security or privacy reason I shouldn’t link the dealer site? VIN is on there.

I think the car was discounted because it’s RWD in Massachusetts and the rich old people (houses there average 727k per Zillow) in the area where I bought it are afraid to drive without AWD. But I’ve been driving RWD here for 5 years without incident, and the car has pretty advanced stabilizing tech.

The only thing that drives me nuts about it is the centercaps on the wheels feature this dumb cartoony jaguar in red: https://images.app.goo.gl/qVJWrUQqY2...

I plan to look into replacing them, and the one on the grill if possible.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I think the car was discounted because it’s RWD in Massachusetts and the rich old people (houses there average 727k per Zillow) in the area where I bought it are afraid to drive without AWD. But I’ve been driving RWD here for 5 years without incident, and the car has pretty advanced stabilizing tech.

Sport sedans depreciate pretty quickly these days because everybody's shopping the SUV/CUV's. They were mostly all well under "market" on Cargurus last year, too. While the SQ5's I cross shopped were much closer to market.

That’s what I thought at first, but the dealer has two cars of the same make, model, year, and trim with 27k miles (close to double) stickered at $35k ($7k more).

Two week Jaguar XF ownership thoughts:

The car is really, really nice. It’s a definite step up in terms of quality of life from the Cadillac that was 3 years older. The ambient lights at night are Tron-level cool, I feel like it’s faster than 99% of the other cars on the road. Air conditioned seats are now a must-have for me. The sound system is mind-blowing; I had no idea Meridian was so head and shoulders above the Bose system in my last car that I thought was great.

However, something about it feels impersonal. Maybe it’s because the Cadillac was my first “nice” car, maybe it’s because I’m still coming to terms with 4doorness, but this one doesn’t feel as personally made for me, despite being cool in many of the same ways.

It’s actually good that I’m not head over heels for it, as there is a solid possibility it’ll be replaced in November 2022.

There are precisely ... three things that bother me.

One is the auto start/stop. You have to disable it every time you start the car. Can’t imagine the impetus behind that decision. I found that I could pull something in the fuse box but don’t want to yet.

Second is the positioning of the window controls. The seat memory buttons sit right where your hand naturally rests, and the window controls are further forward. I have to reach a little to hit them.

Third is the perception of owning and driving it. For some reason people think it’s a much more expensive car than it actually was. It cost me a little more than a new base RAV4 but the way people talk to me about it, you would think it was a Bentley.