Cars you didn't know existed...

[Katzenjammer]

Puddenchucker said:

Zagato Lamborghini Raptor

I remember that prototype being up for sale for around £60k IIRC. I suspect the hammer price at the auction in 2000 was substantially

[RicksAlfas]

Until the friendly Hertz man gave me the keys, I thought this was a Nissan Pulsar:


But apparently it's also the What Car? Family Car of 2015!


I'd never seen/heard of one, but it was a perfectly fine hatchback.

[TommoAE86]

The Big G said:

ikarl said:

Don't know how this slipped me by..

Evo IX, JDM only. Only a handfull here in the UK, all grey imports. Have looked at getting one to replace my Galant VR4 estate but can't be bothered with the hassle of importing one myself. Although if I was to come across an advert for one, I'd struggle not to go for a look!

Ever thought of using an importer? They aren't that dear compared to the increase in price for being "a rare import" that people seem to attach to these sorts of cars. With an importer you're only having to deal with the hassle of waiting for it to arrive

[Abbott]

Slow said:

dxg said:

Slow said:

Abbott said:

dxg said:

m8rky said:

GroundEffect said:

They are NCAP 0 rated. We have been advised to not even drive them on UK roads.

Same platform as the Micra, which makes you wonder how it could be so bad in comparison...

With the simplest seat belts with no pretensioning or load limiting and no airbags the vehicle would score very low. Add to that a crash structure that may not have the latest design it could easily just fall apart on impact.

To be honest, it still has to be safer than my 83 cherry. It lacks abs/airbags/rear seatbelts. Cant be much less safe than say a early 90s car?

Hmmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzh8uLA1tM

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4UiAKdAsII

It's enough to make you question a company's morals.

(Although I can't understand the different deformation of the passenger cell. Unless it's lower grade steel or perhaps "platform" is literally just the floorpan).

Obviously its not as good as modern cars but as a comparison heres a cherry into a straight wall. Not sure Datsun improved actually after seeing that video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtT12FwwGjQ

I know that things lacking modern safety features but if you wanted to just get 5 people into a car for as cheap as possible and not worry about them dying it doesnt seem a bad bet. Seems like a way to get a odd 80s hatch thats not sporting in the modern day and age?

The GO and the New Micra clearly have very different crash performance. The big indicators are the integrity of the safety cell, ie the GO door frame just pops wide open as there is no rigidity. The other point being look at where the Steering Column ends up. The big issue in the early development of Airbags was companies thinking they could just put an airbag in any vehicle. You need to have a stable firewall and a well supported wheel and column to react the laods against.
The old Cherry crash is not apples to apples with the other tests. Into a solid wall, as defined by early US regulations is nowhere near the same as todays ENCAP offset deformable barrier. The offset means it is more representative of a crash where two cars crash head to head in an offset, imagine pulling out to over take and hitting an oncoming car. So in that case you have the crash structure only on one side managing the energy. The other critical factor is the deformable barrier which means the crash structure that is doing the work punches through some of the barrier structure, similar to an oncoming car which is not a solid lump of concrete at the front. So it would not surprise me if the Cherry was no better in the same crash.

[Cyder]

dxg said:

m8rky said:

GroundEffect said:

They are NCAP 0 rated. We have been advised to not even drive them on UK roads.

Same platform as the Micra, which makes you wonder how it could be so bad in comparison...

Meh, I dare say my 1990 Eunos would get 0 too and I still drive it on the public roads.
What's the worst that can happen?

[Mercury00]

RicksAlfas said:

But apparently it's also the What Car? Family Car of 2015!


I'd never seen/heard of one, but it was a perfectly fine hatchback.

I call this the Nissan Squashqai

[jamiebae]

Mercury00 said:

RicksAlfas said:

But apparently it's also the What Car? Family Car of 2015!


I'd never seen/heard of one, but it was a perfectly fine hatchback.

I call this the Nissan Squashqai

A minor detail, it's the What Car? Family car of the year 2015 under £16k and won it on boring stuff like standard equipment and interior space. The alternatives at that price point are utterly poverty spec with old 1.6 litre engines, and often no Bluetooth or A/C.

[Halmyre]

Cyder said:

dxg said:

m8rky said:

GroundEffect said:

They are NCAP 0 rated. We have been advised to not even drive them on UK roads.

Same platform as the Micra, which makes you wonder how it could be so bad in comparison...

Meh, I dare say my 1990 Eunos would get 0 too and I still drive it on the public roads.
What's the worst that can happen?

Death, probably.

NCAP ratings are pretty low on my tick list. Why would you get into a car expecting to be involved in an accident?

[wildcat45]

Slow said:

Obviously its not as good as modern cars but as a comparison heres a cherry into a straight wall. Not sure Datsun improved actually after seeing that video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtT12FwwGjQ

I know that things lacking modern safety features but if you wanted to just get 5 people into a car for as cheap as possible and not worry about them dying it doesnt seem a bad bet. Seems like a way to get a odd 80s hatch thats not sporting in the modern day and age?

Is the car in the videos a new design?

If so, wouldn't it be just as cheap, but safer to build cars for this market to an old but proven design that maybe doesn't have the best safety features but has some. Say the last generation Micra or whatever.

That car crumples like something from the 1970s

[RicksAlfas]

jamiebae said:

A minor detail, it's the What Car? Family car of the year 2015 under £16k and won it on boring stuff like standard equipment and interior space. The alternatives at that price point are utterly poverty spec with old 1.6 litre engines, and often no Bluetooth or A/C.

Thanks. The interior space was very impressive indeed.

[Puddenchucker]

https://grrc.goodwood.com/road/news/cars-that-rock...

[soad]

shakotan said:

gforceg said:

Until a year or so ago I had never heard of the De Tomaso Guara...



While poking around in dark corners of the internet, I found this. I had no idea.

http://www.autozine.org/Archive/De_Tomaso/classic/...

If the Alfa GTV Coupe and Lotus Elan M100 has a baby...

[rodericb]

If you wanted a Nissan Murano and a 370Z convertible but had enough coin for only one of them.....hello Murano Crosscabrio



http://jalopnik.com/i-spent-a-day-with-the-nissan-...

http://www.nissanusa.com/crossovers/murano-crossca...

Edited by rodericb on Saturday 5th September 13:10

[LuS1fer]

Usget said:

No pic, but - Suzuki Swift 4x4. Looks absolutely identical to a normal one, but you can see a little diff hanging under the rear bumper. Me and my mate spent ages trying to work out if it was some lairy bike-engined rear-drive sleeper... but apparently not. Still cool though, in the vein of the old Justy/Panda 4x4.

Suzuki also share a model with the Fiat Sedici, Italian for 16 because 4x4 equals 16 (Jeez!)

[LuS1fer]

The Renault 3 (as opposed to 4)
Launched simultaneously with the Renault 4 in July 1961. The cars shared the same body and most mechanical components, but the R3 was powered by a 603 cc version of the engine while the engine capacity of the R4 was 747 cc.


Dacia also produced some horrific variants of the Renault 12 called the 1310 Saloon and Pickup

[QuartzDad]

Fiat Qubo. Passed one today.

[BarbaricAvatar]

LuS1fer said:

Dacia also produced some horrific variants of the Renault 12 called the 1310 Saloon and Pickup

+++

[bencollins]

Much pre ware stuff passes me by, this is especially nuts.
Great gatsbyesque

Edited by bencollins on Saturday 5th September 20:20

[GroundEffect]

dxg said:

Slow said:

Abbott said:

dxg said:

m8rky said:

GroundEffect said:

They are NCAP 0 rated. We have been advised to not even drive them on UK roads.

Same platform as the Micra, which makes you wonder how it could be so bad in comparison...

With the simplest seat belts with no pretensioning or load limiting and no airbags the vehicle would score very low. Add to that a crash structure that may not have the latest design it could easily just fall apart on impact.

To be honest, it still has to be safer than my 83 cherry. It lacks abs/airbags/rear seatbelts. Cant be much less safe than say a early 90s car?

Hmmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzh8uLA1tM

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4UiAKdAsII

It's enough to make you question a company's morals.

(Although I can't understand the different deformation of the passenger cell. Unless it's lower grade steel or perhaps "platform" is literally just the floorpan).

Platform content is typically underbody, i.e. powertrain, chassis and the lower parts of the body. The upperbody is unique per top hat and will be different.

And yes, they just put less material in there.

On the morality question, it's all down to customer wants. If the customer isn't willing to spend the extra for a safer car...then what's the point in making it? It won't sell.

[RoverP6B]

Puddenchucker said:

https://grrc.goodwood.com/road/news/cars-that-rock...

WANT! A beautiful one-off... never mind the Singer 911, can I get a ratty 964 rebodied as that?

Edited by RoverP6B on Sunday 6th September 01:45