oh right, i didn't even thunk they still made the V6, you know out of all the possible dream cars for some odd reason i really want a '96 Camry V6 5 speed, ive just always thought that they were forgotten little gem of the 90's, that and my dad had one for ages before upgrading to his newer slug
Indeed, although im glad it went, it was just an insult at the end when we were no longer produced them on our soil and had them shipped in from germany or korea or whatever, Holden stopped being Holden with the end of the VF (that is the the last one right ? i can never remember commodore names) and thats it. Too bad the ZB was an alright car...
Lexus still uses the underpowered 15 year old engine in most of their models and expects it to be ok lol
It’s outdated and underpowered, especially when you put it into a luxury car and then charge 75 grand for it
What are you on about? In every application it makes over 300 reliable horsepower, and in some, it can reliably produce 91hp/L, which is stupidly high for a naturally aspirated car. They're also incredibly smooth, quiet and refined. It's got on-demand Atkinson cycling now, direct and port combination injection.... how is this engine even remotely a problem? Just because it's been refined over the course of years doesn't mean that it needs to be replaced. Just because it's naturally aspirated doesn't mean that it's outdated.
Honestly, I wouldn't trust a modern car with anything but an engine design that has been perfected over the course of 10 or more years. New stuff tends to be overengineered to mechanic hell. The older simpler designs are more than good enough for today's cars, so why fix what isn't broken.
I normally agree with you, but I also know that for normal cars, 300 is alot. The Camry in question was 3241 lbs, with 300 hp. The Ford Focus RS that is sold today has 350 hp, and just over 3400 lbs.
To build on this: The V6 Camry as it sits now is a genuine sub-6-second 0-60 car. It does not need an overengineered 500cc-per-cylinder turbo mill to deliver identical or inferior performance with higher purchase and repair costs plus less tuning headroom. Just because something isn't brand-new doesn't automatically mean it's bad.
No no I know, and the twin turbo version which makes 400 something horsepower is great! It’s just in lexus vehicles basically, 300 horsepower in their larger cars isn’t enouh well yes 300 in a normal car is fine, but if you are selling that same 15 year old engine in a 75 thousand dollar car, where the competitors have 500 horsepower + on a mid trim then you have a problem
The most expensive car it's sold in in N/A form is the GS350 F-Sport AWD, which is $61,000 fully optioned. Most of the time, it's in a GS350 that's about $53,000, which makes it significantly more powerful than the 530i and E300. It's an old engine, it does the job well enough for what it is. I might have come off a bit too strong out of the gate on this one, but the reliability, power, and pricing seem to be on-point.
i agree, the insignia of that generations is a genuinely handsome car, but it's an insignia, not a commodore. and on the topic of RWD fullsizes in australia, i cannot for the life of me figure out why neither toyota, nor chrysler sell the crown or charger here, respectively. chrysler already has all the emissions work, and the RHD conversion done with the 300, but people don't buy them because they look too tacky, and realistically the people in that "premium" demographic, who previously bought fairmonts and calais, don't really care about the car being RWD. the ones who do care however, are the market for the SS, and XR models, which the R/T to the hellcat would fit perfectly. not to mention that the names "charger" and "crown" are still instilled in some people's minds, when they used to be sold here in the 70's.
Why dont we have any RWD cars anymore, sure you say people dont care at all about cars anymore (or people are not educated on what a car actually is) which is very much true but why is every thing FWD here, surely if people didn't care or know what their car was then why do companys bother FWD if its not going to matter. I get that its more spacious and compact but overall its not all that great. What was wrong with the humble, simple and reliable RWD ?
it all comes down to cost and packaging, and the fact that you don't really need it, since when you drop the clutch in a modern car, you don't peel up the bias plies, because the car has enough grip and all the little traction aid systems. But as far as drivetrain layouts goes, i think everyone's past converting their enormous cars to transverse layouts. of course, none of the big 3 german manufacturers have moved away from RWD on their larger cars, and nissan and toyota still make RWD cars such as the crowns and skylines. The most recent gen ford explorer went back to a longitudinal layout after the previous gen being transverse, and mazda's apparently turning the next gen mazda6 into a straight 6 rear wheel drive layout, which might be interesting. add to that new electric cars, like the toyota mirai and honda E having the motor in the rear just because it's no more difficult, and front wheel drive looks like it might be on its long-term demise (and I think the same for traditional auto gearboxes, though that's a topic for another day)
Well i sure hope that a real quick long term demise, to uninitiated FWD can be quite dangerous (of course those in in the know can make it all work magically) and RWD is very basic handling (if that can even be a term) with the usual understeer and powered oversteer, plus the better weight balance. Who ever thought FWD was a good idea on anything bigger than an econo-shitbox. Besides as you say about modern traction aid stuff, it works perfectly on RWD. And that thing about auto boxes being put out to pasture, thats real sad considering its something the world has been perfecting for nearly 80 years now and now there really isn't anything wrong with modern auto boxes (on par with a skilled manual user i'd say) and its going to be replaced with a tissue paper slugbox because who ever says there incredibly fast shifting or smooth is only half right, what about the times when your not keeping the pedal to the floor... Anyway thats something to go into depth with and i and im sure you dont feel like writing all of that
It all comes down to cost. When the majority of your consumers don't know what the difference is and prioritise interior space, then why not go with the cheaper to produce option. They can build a transverse engine and transmission and easily drop a car on top of it and bolt the subframe in. Instead of dealing with giant bellhousings that need a lot more precision in some situations.
