The world is full of takes. You probably read at least one take each day on this website and during the weekend, our David pulls an opinion out of his heart and mind. Some of you are still reeling over the revelation that David Tracy thinks timing belt engines are a form of unreliable. If you keep abreast of global news, you may even be reading takes and not even know it. With that in mind, do you have an automotive hot take? Do you have a car opinion so spicy it would ruin a family dinner?
I have two automotive takes that some might call hot. Maybe they aren’t as spicy as David’s timing belt take, but I still stand by them. Are you ready? Here we go!
My first take is a conclusion I recently came to: Nissans are ok! Hold on, before you fire up that keyboard, hear me out. Yes, I’m fully aware that a number of Nissan’s models don’t bring much, if any, excitement to the table. The Sentra isn’t raising your heartbeat and the Rogue doesn’t really live up to its name. Yet, it’s hard to deny that Nissans come reasonably well-equipped for the price and as of very recently, they don’t make you feel like you’re being punished for a crime you didn’t commit.
I know that’s a very low bar, but it wasn’t that long ago when buying the base model of a car meant crank windows, optional air-conditioning, and optional radios. Seriously, there were cars sold in America a decade ago that didn’t even have a radio. A Nissan may not thrill you and the brand doesn’t have the best track record for reliability, but I see why people buy them. They’re cheap new cars with decent styling and decent features, perhaps bought by people who don’t care about cars one bit. And that’s fine! Some people just want a transportation appliance that won’t piss off the HOA and will last the length of the warranty. A Nissan should do that just fine.
Now that I have you all hot and bothered, I’ll lay down my second take: Automatic transmissions are fine!
Look, I love a manual transmission. I spent five years looking for a manual version of a diesel wagon that was sold in America only with a terrible automatic transmission. If a car I want has a manual version, I’ll buy it, and that includes my daily driver Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI, my BMW X5, both of my Japanese imports, and my Saturn Sky Red Line. If my Nova Bus RTS-06 was available with a stick I would have bought one that way, too.
I mean, I even made a fun flight stick shift knob for a Mercedes-Benz 240D. I need to make another one of those.
Yet, I have seen some disappointing developments in car culture. Some people covet the manual transmission to the point of being toxic about it. I’ve seen it right here in our own comments and I find myself baffled. It’s just a transmission, it isn’t that big of a deal. Nowadays there are reliable automatics that shift faster than any human can while returning good fuel economy.
There are people who either do not want to shift a manual or just physically can’t. There’s no shame in driving or liking an automatic. Is the death of the manual transmission a travesty? Of course! But direct your scorn toward the automaker, not the automatic transmission or the person who buys an auto. I will always champion your choice to drive whatever you want, because car enthusiasts aren’t just people who drive brown manual diesel wagons.
Whew, that felt good to get off of my chest. What are your automotive hot takes?
Topshot: Bring A Trailer; stock.adobe.com/cyrano
The United States should have its own version of a kei car class, new vehicles could be exempted from large parts of FMVSS if they comply with strict limits on exterior dimensions, engine displacement, and horsepower (and also add in a really stringent mpg/mpge requirement).
Also, we should waive FMVSS compliance for cars from foreign markets with comparatively strict safety regulations to allow private imports non-US market cars
I like this! Expand the “NEV”/”LSV” parameters a bit and I think there’d be a real market!
They’d probably need reactive armor to help survive impacts with SUVs and EVs.
Hot Take:
You aren’t going to King of the Hammers. Pedigreed off-road packages, like TRD, Pro-4X, Rubicon, et al, give you more ability than you have the cajones for.
When you modify beyond your ability and daring, you are spending so that you don’t have to learn to be better.
I think you’re overestimating how capable something like a TRD or a Pro-4x is. I absolutely am willing to send it fast enough to reach the limits of a Nissan Frontier with fancy shocks.
I don’t doubt that you would.
Another way to word my take would be “People that don’t approach the limits of a factory off-road package will spend thousands more to live even further away from the limits of their vehicles. Why?”
75k Jeep Rubicon.
Drive it home.
Rip out axles, wheels, tires, et al.
Spend 25k more to replace with ‘better stuff’
Drive on gravel roads slowly.
No, no you don’t. Nearly 100% of the time, you don’t. Let’s add: weight, cost, complexity, traction in snow. Let’s remove: some reliability, serviceability, fuel mileage. Okay, why do you need it again?
Depends on where you live. Place with crappy dirt roads and a lot of snow? Yeah, I do need it.
Agreed, there are exceptions, but few.
I’ve often thought about putting together a ‘mixtape’ video of people with 2WD (irrespective of tire choice) trying to make it out of my neighborhood on a snow day. While snow tires absolutely make a huge difference (both my wife and daughter’s AWD cars have them), there are some situations where they aren’t enough without a second driven axle.
Yup. When Iwe bought my wife’s cx9, we purposely looked for the fwd, for the reasons you said. And who needs awd in southern az?
EXACTLY this. Why sell any AWD anything in Florida? I get it, there ARE people who use AWD/4WD, but they are few and far between.
Understand your point. Yet Florida people do travel out of state.
And even though he has 4 wd, my idiot brother from Florida still seems to be able to get his Porsche stuck in the Colorado snow every time he goes out there.
exactly!!!!
Hurricanes. Try driving through flooded roads and washed-out road areas because you’re part of the recovery team.
What I don’t understand is why people who grew up riding around in a 1978 Plymouth Volare on bias plys think that they’ll die if they don’t have AWD and studded tires on their Rav4. How do people have such a short memory?
Look at what people used to get around your area 40 years ago. If it was exclusively Broncos and Subarus, then yeah you need AWD. If it was anything else, you’ll get along with was at least as well as people used to.
In their defense, I have noticed my driving skills are not what they used to be now that I’m in my 40’s. It’s not HORRIBLE, but I ain’t 23 anymore.
There were a hell of a lot more dented cars in the 70’s. (Rustbelt area)
Much like manual transmission arguments, why is this one a bother? How does everyone else in an AWD vehicle negatively impact you to the point of the hot take?
And this hot take is very geo fenced. Any place with road snow justifies awd. Can you survive without it? yes. is a car going to perform better than a 2wd version in the snow? yes. This feels a bit like me saying I don’t need airbags because I haven’t ever been in an accident.
All those people who have now the ability to outdrive their turning/stopping traction in winter is an easy impact to everyone else on the road.
In most places in the world with decent infrastructure to clear winter snow/ice: awd is unnecessary. Those days where you say that you need awd are most likely days that you should stay home regardless of the number of wheels you can spin.
Only white collars can stay home because its snowing. Everyone else is expected to work in person regardless. So while I agree, bad snow days are days not to drive, we aren’t exactly discussing a reality for a large portion the worlds population.
I live in the Rockies, a place where we expect a great deal of snow and have a ton of infrastructure to deal with it. Yet nevertheless, even Ken Block specifically stated how driving anything not AWD was not something he would own because of where he lived.
This is why this is a hot take.
Airbags and AWD are comparing different fruits. I absolutely need and want airbags.
Agreed. The amount of deaths, injuries by air bags is negligible, especially compared to all the lives saved by them.
I recall that some folks also felt that seat belts were not saving lives 60 years ago. The passage of time negated that take.
It’s obviously much safer to be thrown from the car in a wreck.
/s
I’d argue FWD based 4WD systems are better than AWD in many ways.
I like this take, where AWD/4WD makes sense. In Florida, no.
Yeah, I grew up at high elevation. We got plenty of snow. FWD got through it just fine. And it got me down plenty of shitty logging roads. What we need is reasonable ground clearance on FWD vehicles.
2 words: Chain controls. The highway department doesn’t care about your bald all seasons but chains are required if you don’t have awd/4wd. As a skier the answer is awd and snow tires and getting up early to beat the highway closure from spin outs on a powder day.
You’ve obviously never seen my 1/2 mi long driveway in the spring.
The C3 is the worst Corvette.
I’m pretty sure that’s not a hot take. The hot take is that the C3 is the BEST corvette.
It is! Those curves are amazing!
I think its looks are the best, but get under the skin and it’s disappointing.
I should have been more clear. The one thing about the C3 that people like, the styling, is the worst of any Corvette. It’s cartoonishly overdone. It looks like a cartoon car after slamming into a wall, folding up like an accordion. Give me the clean and simple lines of the C4-C6 any day of the week.
OK, I’ll give it to you. That’s a hot take. 🙂
And also wrong. 😛
It reminds me of the fastest car in the Godfather game, which I used to play with my brothers and cousins. Its all nostalgia for me
I think the ridiculous nature of it is why I like them, and I’m not even a Chevy guy! Sitting in one with those stupid front fenders flared up like a damn Batmobile is a primitive joy.
Vehicle safety inspections should be universal and way more stringent. Many of the cars on the road today, quite simply, shouldn’t be.
ETA: Including due to questionable modifications
YES. This would make my life way more difficult, but you are certainly correct, and I agree.
Actually hot take: Vehicle safety inspections are a horrible waste of everybody’s time and money.
Yes, there are a lot of vehicles on the road that shouldn’t be. However, mechanical failures of any kind cause a negligible proportion of all car crashes, even in non-inspection states, even in rust belt non-inspection states like Michigan.
When ~99% of crashes are caused by driver error, it’s stupid to try to reduce crashes in any other way than improving the drivers. Because the best vehicle inspection program in the world would effect, at best, a couple percent improvement.
I have no data on this, but I have to imagine making people replace their bald tires would reduce the number of crashes I see every time it rains here.
There’s a big curve in the highway on my commute home. It’s a terrible setup for a merge lane. If it’s raining, there’s more than a 50% chance the traffic will be backed up for over a mile due to an accident. The outside guardrail is basically never repaired to 100% because it gets damaged again in short order.
People either drive at a snails pace or wad up their car, there is no reasonable in between.
Agree. +1
It’s rare that I see crashes with old or poorly maintained vehicles.. it’s always someone in a new car who feels too secure in their cars ability to avoid crashes on its own so they’re texting or distracted more than usual.
Every time I see arguments in favor of inspections, I can’t help but think it should be very easy to conclude whether inspections are useful. All you need to do is compare accident/injury/fatality data between states requiring inspections and those that don’t.
As you said, 99% of crashes are caused by driver error (and a truly appalling percentage of these crashes involve alcohol intoxication). From everything I have read, mechanical defects account for an extremely small fraction of accidents. I haven’t seen any data that suggests states with inspections have any decrease in accidents, fatalities, or injuries, much less a significant one.
Until I see data to prove otherwise (and again, this should be an easy question to answer), I agree 100% that vehicle safety inspections are a horrible waste of time and money.
I’m not sure that on-site officers are doing a mechanical inspection to measure Bob’s tread depth when he rear-ended Trevor’s car in the rain – simply that Bob was at fault. Nor would they evaluate if Bob’s brakes aren’t evenly applying pressure causing, if Bob’s brake fluid didn’t long since need bleeding and changing, if Bob’s windscreen crack wasn’t there already, or if Trevor’s taillights were in working order before Bob put his car through them.
So I suspect data would not be cleanly available, if at all.
The data may not be clean, but you should be able to make inferences based on details of incidents that occurred. This research would be more in depth than just looking at how many cases the officer checked the box for mechanical failure. A few examples:
Using your example, you could hypothesize that states with inspections should have fewer collisions during rainstorms.
You could also look at things like inspection of suspension components. You could hypothesize that states without inspections should have more collisions during ideal circumstances (i.e. cars that crash on a straight road in good weather conditions) due to sudden mechanical failures.
You could also look into police logs for assistance for disabled vehicles. If inspections are effective, states with inspections should have less requests for assistance from stranded motorists.
Again, the data wouldn’t be clean, but it seems like this should be something that is easy to study.
Then it’s just bad data.
I don’t actually know what you mean by that comment.
Data used in research is often not optimal. The challenge of research is to effectively use data you have which requires an understanding of the limitations of that data. Good methods can allow you to draw reasonable conclusions from less than ideal data. This is why peer review of research is important. It gives at least some assurance that the methods and conclusions of any research are reasonable and scientifically sound.
Again, accident and injury data is readily available. It is possible no one has studied this topic, but it seems more like the safety benefits from inspections are minor enough to not be readily apparently.
You and I looked up the data. Everybody else is advocating for inspections based only on their feelings, with no factual basis.
Mechanical failures probably cause a lot of “vehicle stopped on the highway” traffic issues. Even if there’s no accident, there’s increased risk, and there’s also increased energy usage due to the backups.
Yeah, but inspections focus pretty exclusively on tire/suspension/steering/brakes safety issues, the goal is not to prevent breakdowns.
If those things go out while the car is on the road its going to cause either a breakdown or a crash.
Or so I’d assume, I live in a no inspection, no rust zone. But I can imagine if I did live in Rustylvania and if I did DD a DT special and if my rusted out suspension and/or long past end of life tires finally did give out catastrophically when I hit a pothole at 70 mph my day and probably that of many others would be made a lot worse.
Okay the, Hot take:
Drivers should have intermittent (each decade?). driving tests to maintain their license.
Visiting Michigan and Arizona: this is supremely important, often for vastly different reasons
And Ohio. The scarycreepy “Toledo stare” has to be seen to be believed.
1)The people responsible for Toyota’s new vehicles design should be fired and pay reparations to theToyoda family for destroying something great.
All their new shit outside the LC is gross. The seat camo, the pop up screens. The corners everywhere for no reason but to blind people when sun hits.
They went from tested and reliable if a little long in the tooth, to total shit that doesn’t stand out in anyway and no longer has reliability.
**This is for their off road stuff only, I don’t pay attention to their other cars.
2)ANYONE designing, or stamping approval on a pop up screen should be black balled from the industry and publicly shamed.
Cars should have horsepower limits by class. A compact shouldn’t have over 200, mid size 300, full 400. Maybe this has to be slightly adjusted for heavier SUVs, but these are all still AMPLE power for cars of those sizes.
Further, new drivers shouldn’t be allowed to drive any kind of car immediately after getting a license. It’s absurd that there’s no special license requirement for cars over 500 HP, let alone a kid with three weeks of training can get into a 700HP Hellcat
I disagree with the first part but agree with the second. Driver licensing should have a much higher bar, with graduated licensing for vehicles of greater size or performance.
I would happily add GVWR or length as gradations to licensing, beyond what exists. If you can manage to park your brodozer in between the lines, you can’t drive it.
But we do have GVWR gradations to licensing. I can only drive up to 26k GVWR on my Class D license, and a number of states have a lower cutoff.
Thus my statement “beyond what exists”. Meaning I’m not confident we should all be authorized to drive 350s.
You might not think that anymore when you go to rent a U-Haul truck.
But seriously, there’s a reason the cutoff is where it is. Medium duty trucks aren’t hard to drive, they’re just like a car but bigger.
What I’m in favor of is making everybody take their driving test in a 26′ U-Haul truck. I became a significantly better driver once I got some experience driving a large vehicle, and everybody else would too. I’m not opposed to having a sub-10k GVWR restriction on the license of people who take the test in a sub-10k GVWR vehicle.
I think you are and I actually basically aligned on this.
Maybe basically. I don’t think large vehicles are too hard to drive, any competent driver should have no issues driving light and medium duty trucks.
But I do think many drivers aren’t competent enough, to drive a medium duty truck or a little car.
I truly wish there was a better system for license testing, but don’t know how to do it objectively. Hell, the current system already has plenty of subjectivity.
I failed my driver’s test 4 times before passing. I’m somewhat autistic and I truly attribute much of it to nervousness of having an intimidating stranger in the car.
That was 11 years ago. 7 years followed of mainly driving a Ford Econoline and then 4 years (and counting) of a Prius.
I have zero accidents and zero tickets to my name.
So I’m incredibly cautious talking about how to add more licensing requirements, or how to regulate taking away licenses from people whose age has too-significantly impaired their ability to drive well, because even now I don’t know if I could pass that test again.
My hot take is Nissan was correct to not make the IDx.
The IDx would have directly competed against the BRZ/GT86/GR86/whatever Toyota is calling it this week and I belive they would have came up short. This is for a couple reasons the 1st being a general lack of faith that Nissan can produce a compelling car, the vehicles they were making at the time were either bad or also ran entries in their respective segments. Look at the Nissan Z that got released that car had all the right elements, a compelling design, decent power, a manual transmission and yet it still seems to come up short when placed against its rivals.
Additionally I think the IDx’s more upright blocky design would have been viewed poorly by the general public when placed next to the sleek GT86 especially once it translated from concept to production. The enthusiast community may have embraced it but let’s face it, we are a bunch of weirdos. The car would need to appeal to the average person who doesn’t really care about cars but wants something “sporty” and it wasn’t going to hit that mark.
I feel bad for this take because I don’t want to argue against there being more affordable fun rwd coupes, but I just don’t think the IDx was that car.
I think they should have teamed with Mitsubishi. Both would have gained a cheap, entry level car for the masses with the underpinnings that would have allowed a big amateur tuner/racer community to grow around them.
This wouldn’t have been a bad idea, they could have even differentiated them by making the Mitsubishi a more rally inspired awd, and had the Nissan be rwd track/drift inspired.
That’s not really a hot take when Nissan themselves realized this and canceled it.
THANK YOU MERCEDES! The manual transmission worship goes way too far sometimes. I can drive stick, and before Manual Gang comes for my credentials I want to add that in order to learn how I literally took multiple 90 minute round trips through terrible DC traffic to meet up with the only person in the area I knew with a manual car. I learned because I wanted to and it was a labor of love.
But do I find driving stick to be some life altering revelation? Not particularly. I think it’s very enjoyable in the right situation (something like a Miata on backroad) and a bit of a nuisance in others (traffic, low speed maneuvers like parking in tight spaces, etc). For a weekend car give me a stick every time. For a daily? I don’t want one. Fight me.
I’ll also follow this up with more heat-a good DCT is 95% as fun as a manual. I think Manual Gang just assumes all automatics are garbage but it’s just not the case. I have nearly as much fun banging my Kona N’s DCT off redline then feeling the entire car shudder as I do executing a perfect downshift. DCTs are great and enthusiasts are going to opine for the halcyon days when they were coming a decade from now. Mark it down.
Finally, my ultimate and very familiar hot take is this: the performance Golfs are criminally overrated. I’ve owned a MK7.5 GTI and driven a MK7 R. They’re a ton of fun if you’re getting into one out of a base Jetta or Corolla or something but they do not hold up once you’ve driven genuine sports cars.
They’re also questionable when it comes to reliability. Mine was brand new and had a ton of issues. And in their STOCK form (yes I know GTI dude your stage 2 MK8 has all the nannies deleted) they’re kind of boring. Mr. Regular put it perfectly when he said something along the lines of “you can have fun, but within these VERY SPECIFIC BOUNDARIES we’ve chosen for you” in his GTI video.
You cannot drive them past 7/10ths before they throw a tantrum. Manual shifting with the DSG doesn’t actually allow you to shift for yourself. Traction control cannot be fully defeated. Launch control works maybe 10% of the time and everything has to be completely perfect.
Alright I’m done. They’re overrated. Go drive one of the performance Hondas or one of my beloved Ns then tell me with a straight face that a GTI is a magical experience. If you’re literally only going to daily it and never drive hard then they’re fine if you can put up with the fussiness.
But if you’re someone who wants to extract that last 10% out of your car (and if you’re here you likely are) or do serious performance driving they’ll leave you bitterly disappointed unless you tune them…and at that point you have an overboosted VAG product with a voided warranty. If you don’t mind playing Russian Roulette that’s fine but I’ll pass.
Most people shouldn’t have a car at all.
A solid public transport infrastructure should exist so that people can walk/bike in conjunction with buses/trains etc for their commute.
That way, they can get off my road and I alone can drive in peace!
“That way, they can get off my road and I alone can drive in peace!”
Its all fun and games till you get the maintainence bills for your privatized road.
Modern cars have become too safe and powerful which is causing everyone to drive like assholes.
People forget safety is relative. Yes, you may think a big suv is safer, but that won’t matter a fart in a windstorm when you tangle with me in my 80000 lb semi.
This 2015 Altima enters the chat…
https://www.today.com/news/woman-survives-after-car-was-crushed-behind-semitruck-t239430
That is amazing… and miraculous.
Big Altima Energy is real!!
Agreed. A bit like anonymity on the internet where the personal repercussions and accountability are oh so tiny!
I think its less the car and more a lack of enforcement and penalties.
I’ve got one. A 100% EV future is an Armageddon-level event for the subset of enthusiasts that are interested primarily in mechanicals. Interior and exterior design enthusiasts will probably be ok (maybe even better as automakers look there to differentiate), but those of us that are more interested in the mechanical side will be in the cold. Let me explain:
What I’m trying to say is I (and I think others) find the choices and trade-offs inherent to ICE/Hybrid/PHEV design to be interesting. There are far fewer trade-offs to be made in the pure EV space. Right now we’re in a golden era for this as there are so many ways automakers can go mechanically.
That’s a really interesting thought. I’m not particularly going to be someone who cares, but I suppose suspensions might be the only truly, significantly differing mechanical parts?
Yeah I didn’t include suspensions because I really don’t know enough about EV suspensions to know if they’re different
I’m skeptical that there will ever be 0 ICE vehicles. People still ride and race horses. It’s a much more niche thing than it was 100 years ago but it’s not gone because people seek out that experience
The companion hot take to my original post is that I sincerely hope that the mix we have now is the mix going forward. Maybe some more PHEVs and Hybrids.
The difference is horses are self assembling, effectively unregulated (by government) and can run on weeds, garbage and water whereas cars need multiple giant factories for their construction and maintainence, are highly regulated and run on fuel which requires its own huge, specialized infrastructure.
More generic hot take… Very few of the people buying cars actually *need* a new (or new-to-them) car. Knowing the difference between needs and wants would help a lot of people.
I’ve personally wasted 10’s of thousands on new cars hoping from one to the next. I am buying my lease out in two months (first lease ever, I realized I didn’t know what I wanted) and cutting that shit out. The price of things has finally made it hurt bad enough to stop.
Blows my mind that just about anyone buys new. I’m the 4th owner of a Prius v and I swear every prior owner merely got bored, because the thing is clean as hell and running just fine.
You’re not wrong, but without folks buying new cars we wouldn’t have as many used cars.
This is especially noticeable when an OEM comes out with a niche enthusiast model that’s approriately priced for what it is, but it doesn’t sell super well or for very long, and then enthusiasts complain that they couldn’t buy it. And/or that they’d wait to buy it used, and complain that there aren’t many to choose from and they’re all priced close to what they were new.
The way some people go through cars you’d think they had nothing better to do than wait at the DMV.
No one is impressed with the volume of your vehicle. I don’t care if it’s a Harley with no mufflers, the “sport” exhaust you put on your Challenger, or a 10,000 watt audio system. No one is happy about it except you. It’s just rude.
Hear hear! That is why I like stock exhaust systems. They are tuned to sound good inside the car, and quiet outside. And as long as it sounds good inside, I am happy. And as for artificial exhaust noise, I like it. It makes a good sound for me, and who cares if it isn’t real.
You’re lucky if your stock exhaust systems are tuned to sound good from inside the car.
It is in my yaris. And that is why I like artificial exhaust noise. It is cheating, but it works.
When I read your first sentence, I thought there are certainly some vehicles with impressive volume. I’m impressed when I see a long bed pickup, and some of those work vans have amazing volume for their footprints. Then I read the rest of your comment and I have to agree.
Serious questions: do loud-ass subwoofers bother you at a busy intersection? What about when you’re, say, eating somewhere, and one passes by and you briefly hear it?
They only bother me if they linger somewhere. I used to have two small subwoofers in my conversion van, but the thing was so well-carpeted that they were barely audible outside it. And they were intended for my own enjoyment, anyway.
On the other hand, I do think there’s some craft and talent involved with SPL competitions and such.
“On the other hand, I do think there’s some craft and talent involved with SPL competitions and such.”
I don’t disagree. Just like 1000HP cars, they have their place, and that’s in a competition, not the street.
It’s never the actual bass itself that is annoying, it’s the rattling body panels and shit that usually go with it.
Unless I’m trying to sleep. Then it’s all annoying.
That’s part of why I will die on the hill of 4 screws in license plates, front and back. (…and also my frustration when front plates rarely have space for the bottom ones anyway.)
And on that second point, I concur.
(…and also my frustration when front plates rarely have space for the bottom ones anyway.)
So get a rigid frame with a bottom lip that secures the bottom of the plate and if it still makes noise secure it further with a bit of foam, caulk or hot glue.
“Serious questions: do loud-ass subwoofers bother you at a busy intersection? What about when you’re, say, eating somewhere, and one passes by and you briefly hear it?”
When they’re so “loud ass” they affect my breathing 30 yards away? Yes. That actually happened as a mini truck with a bed full of Watts and sub drove by late one evening many years ago.
Still as annoying as loud ass subs are it’s the buzzy loose licence plate that bugs me even more.
Bzzzz!!! Bzzz!!!
Fucking dude spends $$$$ and hours on a set of loud ass subs, $$$ and even more hours on dynamat and can’t be bothered to spend 0.$ and a quick few seconds to secure his licence plate properly.
To your credit, I’ve never had a truck bed of any kind full of speakers blasting away. That’s pretty awful outside of competitions, period.
I’m pretty sure this was a competition truck. Whomever was driving it certainly didn’t seem to have any hearing left and not a single fuck was to be found for the hearing of anyone else.
Very much this. And a special condemnation for “crackle tunes”: They make the car sound like it has a fluttering metallic rectum flapping around and that the engine is in poor condition, not a performance vehicle.
Badge engineering is good for auto makers and car buyers alike. Enthusiasts really seem to despise it, but there’s some great examples out there aside from the dodge alfa tone-deaf hornet
One more:
Nothing of great value was lost with the demise of mainstream sedans. The appeal of a sedan over a CUV is in its handling prowess; which doesn’t matter when comparing anemic FWD grandma-mobiles. Luxury/performance RWD sedans still exist, which is all that is needed. Everyone else is fine driving a CUV.
Boo.
(I get it; this is a hot take, which is supposed to be controversial. But still, boo.)
So V10 succeeded. Win for him. And I agree with him. Cuvs are fine for normies. Hell, I like porshe suvs. Not to drive, but to keep the company profitable.
The appeal isn’t just the handling prowess through. It’s the almost universally superior aerodynamics, fuel economy, ride quality, and appearance.
The real answer is station wagons though, which are just a sedan with superior aerodynamics and cargo capacity.
In the age of hybrids, CUV fuel economy is often better than sedans of a decade ago.
Ride quality is better in a higher vehicle with more suspension travel.
Aero and styling are personal preferences not relevant to the debate.
CUV fuel economy may be better than sedans of a decade ago, but it’s worse than sedans now.
Ride quality is tied to suspension travel, but crossovers rarely have any more travel than the sedans they’re based on, and a high center of gravity is detrimental to ride quality. Crossovers don’t necessarily have to ride worse than sedans, but in my experience they usually do.
Aero is not a personal preference, it’s an objective measurement that directly affects fuel consumption.
Looks are totally just a personal preference.
My point being that fuel economy is a diminishing return. When the choice was a 30 mpg Camry or a 12 mpg Tahoe, yeah that made a difference.
When it’s a 40 mpg Rav4 hybrid vs a 45 mpg Camry hybrid, who cares really?
I’ve never owned nor particularly liked sedans. I agree their demise is no great loss.
I do however, cry for their derivatives, the wagon and hatchback. Those are the real loss when everyone wanted to sit up higher than everyone else, sparking a never ending war of verticality.
Hot take: Jeep Wranglers actually are used off-road and are very useful and utilitarian and not that unreliable (now).
“Not that unreliable”
Mercedes said to give a hot take, not to lie.
let it go. This is not jalopnik. My 2012 wrangler has been fantastic with only a few minor issues in 12 years. Want to call someone names go to jalopnik. mocking people in a “hot take” this is exactly why I was hesitant to comment but took the chance. I should not have bothered commenting. My fault in trusting.
You have reading comprehension issues. I never called you a name. I said you shouldn’t lie – and you shouldn’t.
This is a forum for hot takes. Hot takes get pushback. If you can’t handle it, don’t participate
Take a chill pill.
I don’t see how your first comment qualifies as a hot take anyways.
“Jeep Wranglers are used off-road”… that’s it’s purpose.
“Jeep Wranglers are utilitarian”… that’s again, on purpose.
Both of these things are quite literally what Jeep is known for.
Not that unreliable now? They’re as unreliable as they ever have been, and Jeeps peak reliability is several decades in the past …….
The CUV should be coveted. Back in the ’80’s we had cars like the Audi Quattro, the Mazda 323 GLX, and a few others…basically AWD hot hatches. They cost too much then for me to afford and are now untouchable pricewise for a decent one. So what’s a guy to do? Plenty of AWD hatchbacks around today, they’re just called CUVs.
The most important mod on a car is a driver who cares. You do something to your car? You show that you love your car? (It’s not dangerous to yourself or others?) I’m in! I used to look down my nose at modified exhausts, fast-and-furious style mods that were all show and no go, racing stripes or spoilers on base models, but you know what? Good for you. You like your car enough to do something? I’m in on it.
Adjacent to this, the owners of the despised “bro-dozers” are just as much automotive enthusiasts as the commenters here.
Dang…. I….
Dang.
Take your smiley
I’ll grant that, but I still hate having headlights pointed straight into my eyes
Depends on where we fit the “dangerous” line. Drive anything like an asshole and you’re an asshole, whether it’s a lowered FRS or a raised 3500 Dually or a stock Camry.
most are honestly more, they spend 10’s of thousands on these monsters and love them more than their families. I don’t like them, but as a truck owner, its absurd some of the comments on here.
I don’t buy this fully. Anymore than I think every owner of a supercar is an actual car enthusiast. I will define car enthusiast here as a person who modifies the vehicle for their own love of the vehicle. But prominent in all conspicuous consumption crowds are those who have no love for the vehicle, but instead are strictly motivated the image they project.
Where I live, there are 100% truck dealers, who only sell modified trucks. they buy stock, bro-doze them, then sell them. And I know many of the buyers of these trucks, and I would never consider them to enthusiasts because they fail the definition above.
Counterpoint to myself. There is no doubting the origins of bro-dozers lies in enthusiasm. I can’t say I understand a 3 ft lift on 50s with solid chrome underneath, but the guys building those show trucks are freaking artists.
I certainly do not agree that one needs to modify their vehicles to be an enthusiast. I generally don’t modify mine.
I think 5 seconds of actual conversation with those modified truck owners would disabuse you of the notion that they have “no love of the vehicle”.
I have many conversations with many of these owners. And I stand by my statement, that many of them are conspicuous consumers who love the impression the vehicle gives, not the vehicle itself.
And you are correct, my definition is erroneous. Instead say “one who loves the vehicle for itself, instead of for the look what I have element of ownership”
That doesn’t mean bro-dozers shouldn’t be despised.
Does that mean Nissan dealerships are bad at mod’ing their cars, specifically Altimas with big Altima Energy?
I’m not a fan of obnoxious mods. As in, obnoxious even to a blind person who isn’t just reacting to the look of the thing.
The new Chevy Blazer is cool, and despite what a few vocal commenters say, the old Blazers are not missed by anyone but them.
Depends how old you mean.
No one misses the 80s-00s S10 Blazers, nor should they.
But if you’ve looked at pricing for full convertible K5 Blazers in the last 5 years, you’d see a different story.
I contend that the existence of the new Blazer has helped spark interest in the K5. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the new Blazer was introduced roughly 5 years ago.
Prior to that time, the cries of the public for an updated or modern K5, or some new off-road capable Blazer were non-existent. But as soon as Chevy announced that they were going to use the Blazer name on a Camaro-looking not-at-all off-road focused SUV, the internet lost its shit. Even though they had been using the name on vehicles that didn’t live up to their expectations for the better part of three decades prior and nobody batted an eye.
There’s a guy in my town that has 3 S10s, no clue why, and two are pretty modified and clean while the third is a beater. Of all the chassis to latch onto, the S10 certainly is one of the options out there
I respect his choice.
Yeah, I drove an early 2000s Blazer once and my general impression was “lump.” It was cramped and noisy and generally unimpressive all around. Probably one of my least favorite cars I’ve ever driven, and that’s saying something as I’ve actually driven my overall least favorite cars of all time (90s/early 2000s Ford Taurus and the “jellybean” Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth vans).
Which is why I respect his choice.
This is a good one. I actually think the Blazer is one of the best looking crossovers on the market right now. Take that, haters!
Manuals are unnecessary and overrated. Fight me.
I don’t know that I’d go that far, but I would take the adjacent hot take that a manual doesn’t automatically make a car (or truck) better.
I don’t think anyone would call a modern manual transmission “necessary.” I think the hot take here is “overrated.” But, given the manual transmission zealotry/gatekeeping among so many enthusiasts, I kind of agree. I love my manual transmission car and hope to keep it forever, but modern autos are incredibly capable, and the future is pretty clearly battery-powered and transmissionless, and it’s ok to enjoy and be excited about that.
CUV’s are fine. They’d just be a lot better if they didn’t suffer from the ever-evolving safety / NVH changes in the industry and instead had more substantial greenhouses.
It’s the fact that they’re taller / bigger than normal cars, but it’s all just more sheetmetal: all that height; no more visibility.
Also, if more of them had manual transmissions, that’d be greeeeeat. ;P
CUVs are fine.
Touchscreens are fine, even the “glued on iPad” look that everyone seems to despise.
CVTs are even fine as long as they aren’t built by Nissan.
Touchscreens are very much not fine. They force drivers to take their attention from the road and end up killing people. This is why Euro NCAP will no longer give 5 star safety rating to vehicles that use touchscreens for their primary controls.
Aviation regulations have never allowed touchscreens for primary flight controls because it has been demonstrated they are distracting in emergency conditions.
I obviously have many, but probably my hottest for these parts is that cars being built right now are the best they’ve ever been, and cars built next year will be better than the ones built this year.
“The Cars Are Good!”
I second your take
Here’s a question. People complain about reliability and whatnot, but anything from the 2000’s if taken care of and with a little luck seems to run 200k easy. No carb tuning needed.
I’ve only been driving since then, but how did long did the old ones last in general? I’ve always heard that the “good ol days” have been exaggerated.
I had a lengthy discussion/argument on this topic recently on another article.
The gist of it was that in 1970 the average car on the road was about 5 years old and the average person drove 10,000 miles a year. Meaning a reasonable estimate for an odometer reading on a typical vehicle was about 50,000 miles. Now those numbers are more like 12 years old and 13,000 miles, so the odometers are about 150,000.
Put it this way, there’s a reason old cars had 5 digit odometers. 100K miles wasn’t typical.
appreciate it!
100,000 miles used to be a real accomplishment. You had to really care for a car for it to make it that far. Now, pretty much any car will make it with nothing more than oil changes.
The real difference is how little maintenance is required now. Back in the 60s and 70s a “tune up” was pretty much a requirement every 6 months. You had to adjust the carbs, adjust the lash on the lifters (before hydraulic tappets), replace points, and whatever else. If you didn’t, the car would run like crap. Exhaust systems lasted maybe 3 years before they rusted out. My dads second car was a 4 year old car that he bought cheap because the rear quarters and rockers had holes rusted in them. That was normal.
It’s hard to find people that don’t see the past through rose colored glasses. it’s human nature.
The tune ups was what I have read in articles and they make it sound glamorous, “don’t you miss the days”. I don’t have a garage and live in New England. Messing with our car engines in the winter during freezing weather as a normal thing sounds like a nightmare.
My dad said tune ups used to be really fulfilling and give a sense of accomplishment. A car would be running rough, maybe not even idle without stalling. Then you would adjust the lash in the tappets and like magic it would run smooth again.
And that was for brand new cars.
Even with a garage it’s no picnic in winter. That floor is a big hunk of cold thermal mass.
and don’t forget all of the chassis lube points!
that used to be my job as a kid when my dad would do an LOF. Oh, the good old days.
“They don’t make ’em like they used to.”
Thank God.
Beat me to it.
It’s my right as an American to complain that they don’t make em like they used to, get in an accident in my 57 Chevy after its 4th engine rebuild, and impale myself on the steering column.
Biased here because I have one, but Nissan Titans are great trucks! Mine is a 2017 Titan XD that I bought in 2021 that has a clean carfax and only had 25,000 miles on the clock and I bought it for $27,000. The internet shits on it and buyers largely ignored it, but damnit I love it. I occasionally haul around 7,000lbs and it handles it like a champ (I know those aren’t astronomical numbers, but they’re not nothing either). I love it and I’ll keep it forever.
I have a 21 Titan SV. I bought it in ’23. When I did, it still had more warranty than the Big 3 come with new.
I can tow off the Gates of Hell, make endless dump runs…. I mean. I love mine, too.
Second your take!
Are you the guy who said you love your Titan despite nuking at least one rear end or one transmission every year?
Nope. I’ve not had a bit of trouble out of it. The original owner had to replace a window regulator under warranty, that’s it. I’ve put 65,000 miles on it so far.
It shouldn’t be a hot take, but it is, especially in the enthusiast community. Automakers have to make money, and they can’t do all the cool things we want to complain that they don’t.
But they neeeeeed to make the RWD shooting brake manual trans NA inline-6 car that I WANT. They’d sell dozens! Doooozeeeennnnnss!
In brown.