2017 Maserati Levante Review: A Luxury SUV That’s a BARGAIN?

[Indexer]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/2017-maserati-levante-review-a-luxury-suv-thats-a-bargain-1480627419

Yes, WSJ thinks this SUV is a bargain at.... $72,000 for the base model. The S model is $83,000, and the model they tested is 'only' $94,600.

Highlights!
"2.3 tons of you-can’t-catch-me, sexed up with handbag leather and pearl paint, and powered by a loquacious 3.0-liter turbo V-6"
"In addition to the air pillows at all four corners, the windshield and windows are made of acoustic-damping glass, a feature usually found over the $100,000 threshold. Oh, thank you very much."

16MPG.

Oh, and it is a 'bargain' because a Porsche Cayenne outfitted in a similar fashion would be over $100,000...

[Metric Mouse]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/2017-maserati-levante-review-a-luxury-suv-thats-a-bargain-1480627419

Yes, WSJ thinks this SUV is a bargain at.... $72,000 for the base model. The S model is $83,000, and the model they tested is 'only' $94,600.

Highlights!
"2.3 tons of you-can’t-catch-me, sexed up with handbag leather and pearl paint, and powered by a loquacious 3.0-liter turbo V-6"
"In addition to the air pillows at all four corners, the windshield and windows are made of acoustic-damping glass, a feature usually found over the $100,000 threshold. Oh, thank you very much."

16MPG.

Oh, and it is a 'bargain' because a Porsche Cayenne outfitted in a similar fashion would be over $100,000...

I was actually paging through the Maserati site after the other thread on the topic; I didn't know they made 'suvs' either.

But to be fair, if Maserati and Porsche sent me $100,000 cars to test drive, I would happily write nice things about them.

[ender]

Sweet, my Chase card gives me a discount too.

Guess I should buy one, it's a bargain!

[MgoSam]

The thing about luxury cars is their upkeep. I could see myself considering buying a premium vehicle in the future if it weren't for the hefty ongoing expenses.

[Metric Mouse]

The thing about luxury cars is their upkeep. I could see myself considering buying a premium vehicle in the future if it weren't for the hefty ongoing expenses.

Another good reason to lower the number of miles driven!

[SnackDog]

Ferrari builds the engine for this beast.  The cheapest Ferrari stickers at more than twice this price.  Thus, a relative screaming bargain if you require something fast that handles well to haul your stuff.

[Indexer]

Ferrari builds the engine for this beast.  The cheapest Ferrari stickers at more than twice this price.  Thus, a relative screaming bargain if you require something fast that handles well to haul your stuff.

Let's play that game. :) Let's pretend to be consumers and make excuses to buy insanely expensive cars. We need something fast that handles well with a lot of cargo space.

A Golf R or GTI has more cargo space. The R is all wheel drive with a sport tuned suspension, has the same 0-60, basically the same top speed, and given that it is significantly lighter and lower to the ground the R probably has better handling. The Golf R is less than half the price of this thing. I included the GTI because you can cheaply tune it to have similar performance minus the all wheel drive while keeping the price tag under 30k. You could even buy a used GTI and get the price into the mustachian appropriate range. A Ford Focus RS would also work.

So even if you needed something fast that handles well to haul your stuff there are much more affordable options. ;) 

[Metric Mouse]

Ferrari builds the engine for this beast.  The cheapest Ferrari stickers at more than twice this price.  Thus, a relative screaming bargain if you require something fast that handles well to haul your stuff.

Let's play that game. :) Let's pretend to be consumers and make excuses to buy insanely expensive cars. We need something fast that handles well with a lot of cargo space.

A Golf R or GTI has more cargo space. The R is all wheel drive with a sport tuned suspension, has the same 0-60, basically the same top speed, and given that it is significantly lighter and lower to the ground the R probably has better handling. The Golf R is less than half the price of this thing. I included the GTI because you can cheaply tune it to have similar performance minus the all wheel drive while keeping the price tag under 30k. You could even buy a used GTI and get the price into the mustachian appropriate range. A Ford Focus RS would also work.

So even if you needed something fast that handles well to haul your stuff there are much more affordable options. ;)

Bu...bu... but the dealer said it had a Ferrari engine! And it's 7% off - how many percent off is the GTI? 

:D Maybe I'm not very good at pretending to be a consumer.

[Chris22]

Ferrari builds the engine for this beast.  The cheapest Ferrari stickers at more than twice this price.  Thus, a relative screaming bargain if you require something fast that handles well to haul your stuff.

Let's play that game. :) Let's pretend to be consumers and make excuses to buy insanely expensive cars. We need something fast that handles well with a lot of cargo space.

A Golf R or GTI has more cargo space. The R is all wheel drive with a sport tuned suspension, has the same 0-60, basically the same top speed, and given that it is significantly lighter and lower to the ground the R probably has better handling. The Golf R is less than half the price of this thing. I included the GTI because you can cheaply tune it to have similar performance minus the all wheel drive while keeping the price tag under 30k. You could even buy a used GTI and get the price into the mustachian appropriate range. A Ford Focus RS would also work.

So even if you needed something fast that handles well to haul your stuff there are much more affordable options. ;)

I'm not going to tell you the Maserati is a good buy, but let's not pretend a warmed-over Golf is a good substitute. That's like saying "this Spam is nearly the same as that filet because number of calories." 

[Metric Mouse]

But with just a little A1...

[JLee]

The thing about luxury cars is their upkeep. I could see myself considering buying a premium vehicle in the future if it weren't for the hefty ongoing expenses.

Just have to get the right one.  A Lexus will typically treat you well for a very, very long time (and can be found remarkably cheap on the used market!).

[GetItRight]

Very heavy with a tiny engine. Good luck getting more than 100k miles out of it. They probably make it perform decent not just with forced induction but with insanely low gearing and extra gears in the trans which is probably automatic... Good luck with the trans lasting more than 60k miles and it'll be a complex and expensive rebuild. Also, my 60s full size big block car that weights about the same better MPG, without overdrive or fancy electronic engine controls.

[GetItRight]

I'm not going to tell you the Maserati is a good buy, but let's not pretend a warmed-over Golf is a good substitute. That's like saying "this Spam is nearly the same as that filet because number of calories."

Regarding teh food analogy, I'm a calories per dollar type of guy. Driving that hideous new POS would be torture. I'd rather have a base model Falcon or heaven forbid a Nova, and have at least a little pride and self respect regarding my conveyance.

[JLee]

Very heavy with a tiny engine. Good luck getting more than 100k miles out of it. They probably make it perform decent not just with forced induction but with insanely low gearing and extra gears in the trans which is probably automatic... Good luck with the trans lasting more than 60k miles and it'll be a complex and expensive rebuild. Also, my 60s full size big block car that weights about the same better MPG, without overdrive or fancy electronic engine controls.

or emissions controls or safety equipment. :P

[GetItRight]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

[JLee]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

That is effectively nothing compared to modern safety and emissions standards.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/california-cars-99-cleaner-than-in-1960s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

Automotive emissions standards in California have resulted in cars that are 99% cleaner than they were 50 years ago, according to a new report.

You're probably spitting out 100x as much pollution as a new vehicle, and your chances of injury/death in the event of a crash are dramatically higher.  People like to ignore vast technology improvements when they start talking about how their old car gets just as good fuel economy as something new.  Modern cars have a phenomenal ability to protect occupants in a crash. You pay for that with additional weight, therefore lower fuel economy.  The Maserati gets 20mpg highway, with over 400hp/tq, AWD, leather, luxury everything, etc, and practically zero emissions when compared to something from generations past.

I drive a 25yo sports car - if I'm in a bad crash, I have a pretty good chance of dying.  Personal choice, and all...but don't pretend that a classic is remotely comparable to a modern vehicle in any way.

[Indexer]

I'm not going to tell you the Maserati is a good buy, but let's not pretend a warmed-over Golf is a good substitute. That's like saying "this Spam is nearly the same as that filet because number of calories."

It depends on what you are looking for. I don't care about hand bag quality italian leather or the brand symbol. If I was buying an expensive car for performance while also having cargo space I would want performance. I think a Golf R would actually be more fun to drive and it has the same cargo space. So to me it isn't like a filet VS spam. It's like a really good juicy burger when I'm in the mood for a burger VS paying a ridiculous amount for a well done(burnt) filet at some luxury upscale restaurant. I want the burger.

[MgoSam]

The thing about luxury cars is their upkeep. I could see myself considering buying a premium vehicle in the future if it weren't for the hefty ongoing expenses.

Just have to get the right one.  A Lexus will typically treat you well for a very, very long time (and can be found remarkably cheap on the used market!).

I agree with you on Lexuses, I don't know any other luxury brands though that are that hands-off with maintenance. as a Toyota fan, I could see myself getting a Lexus someday.

[Metric Mouse]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

That is effectively nothing compared to modern safety and emissions standards.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/california-cars-99-cleaner-than-in-1960s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

Automotive emissions standards in California have resulted in cars that are 99% cleaner than they were 50 years ago, according to a new report.

You're probably spitting out 100x as much pollution as a new vehicle, and your chances of injury/death in the event of a crash are dramatically higher.  People like to ignore vast technology improvements when they start talking about how their old car gets just as good fuel economy as something new.  Modern cars have a phenomenal ability to protect occupants in a crash. You pay for that with additional weight, therefore lower fuel economy.  The Maserati gets 20mpg highway, with over 400hp/tq, AWD, leather, luxury everything, etc, and practically zero emissions when compared to something from generations past.

I drive a 25yo sports car - if I'm in a bad crash, I have a pretty good chance of dying.  Personal choice, and all...but don't pretend that a classic is remotely comparable to a modern vehicle in any way.

Pictures? Love a good sports car.

[gimp]

"2.3 tons of you-can’t-catch-me, sexed up with handbag leather and pearl paint, and powered by a loquacious 3.0-liter turbo V-6"

Ferrari builds the engine for this beast.  The cheapest Ferrari stickers at more than twice this price.  Thus, a relative screaming bargain if you require something fast that handles well to haul your stuff.

Sure, Ferrari might build the 3.0 v6 turbo engine, and I'm sure it sounds good, but let's be honest.

A $500 junkyard 5.3 iron block from GM is going to be more powerful, have more torque, be 50x as reliable especially considering that it's NA, and if you stick some headers on it, it'll sound meaty as fuck.

Throw a basic hot cam and maybe basic heads on the fucker, and you're looking at 400 wheel horsepower. $1000 buys you 100 more horsepower for whatever SUV or truck you want to stick it into. "you-can't-catch-me" my ass, the fucking thing has a 5.8 second 0-60.

New v6 camry is faster.

[JLee]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

That is effectively nothing compared to modern safety and emissions standards.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/california-cars-99-cleaner-than-in-1960s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

Automotive emissions standards in California have resulted in cars that are 99% cleaner than they were 50 years ago, according to a new report.

You're probably spitting out 100x as much pollution as a new vehicle, and your chances of injury/death in the event of a crash are dramatically higher.  People like to ignore vast technology improvements when they start talking about how their old car gets just as good fuel economy as something new.  Modern cars have a phenomenal ability to protect occupants in a crash. You pay for that with additional weight, therefore lower fuel economy.  The Maserati gets 20mpg highway, with over 400hp/tq, AWD, leather, luxury everything, etc, and practically zero emissions when compared to something from generations past.

I drive a 25yo sports car - if I'm in a bad crash, I have a pretty good chance of dying.  Personal choice, and all...but don't pretend that a classic is remotely comparable to a modern vehicle in any way.

Pictures? Love a good sports car.

Of course! :) Dyno sheet, pic, and build documentation is linked there.

[GetItRight]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

That is effectively nothing compared to modern safety and emissions standards.

I wouldn't say nothing, regarding safety at least. Environmentally it is a beneficial to use something for its entire useful life rather than be part of the disposable society that just throws away everything. Seatbelts and a collapsible steering column in a car with a frame were huge advancements in safety... The cheap and easy things that gained massive improvements in crash survivability, the low hanging fruit if you will. Either way, I am well aware of all the differences between mid-late 60s technology and 90s-present technology, it is a conscious decision to drive 60s iron.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/california-cars-99-cleaner-than-in-1960s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

Automotive emissions standards in California have resulted in cars that are 99% cleaner than they were 50 years ago, according to a new report.

You're probably spitting out 100x as much pollution as a new vehicle, and your chances of injury/death in the event of a crash are dramatically higher.  People like to ignore vast technology improvements when they start talking about how their old car gets just as good fuel economy as something new.  Modern cars have a phenomenal ability to protect occupants in a crash. You pay for that with additional weight, therefore lower fuel economy.  The Maserati gets 20mpg highway, with over 400hp/tq, AWD, leather, luxury everything, etc, and practically zero emissions when compared to something from generations past.

I drive a 25yo sports car - if I'm in a bad crash, I have a pretty good chance of dying.  Personal choice, and all...but don't pretend that a classic is remotely comparable to a modern vehicle in any way.

Tailpipe pollution is not as great a concern of mine as compared to teh pollution of treating a vehicle as disposable, the massive waste, plastics, electronics, and all sorts of toxic chemicals that go into landfills and leach into groundwater supplies as well as the pollution producing new cars, particularly now that massive batteries are part of many. Yes much of the "recycling" waste is sent overseas and a big industry for poor third world countries, but it is also environmentally devastating in those countries causing many health issues. As for tailpipe emissions, there has been very little reduction since the 90s. Since then all the low hanging fruit iss gone (precise air/fuel ratios, catalytic converters, EGR) and not every new gain is fractions of a percent at a tremendous cost both monetarily and in driveability. No thanks.

As for comparability of a classic to a modern car. In MPG terms, absolutely it's comparable. Other than overdrive transmissions there has been virtually zero improvement in MPG thanks in large part to big government regulation making cars massively overweight. More MPG is less volume of fuel burned is less volume of exhaust out and less total parts of pollutants discharged, for waht that's worth, and of course more economical to operate to far as lower TCO from reduced fuel consumption and cheaper/faster repairs and maintenance from less complexity.

So far as safety, true crash survivability will not be as good in a 50 year old car as a brand new car, however crash avoidance is certainly better. Have you driven a car newer than the 80s or 90? If so you will immediately notice you can't see anything, massive blind spots everywhere. To make matters worse with absurd government mandates on MPG that don't align with DOT mandates on "safety" or reality in general, mirrors get smaller and more useless in part for the quest for more MPG and in part because government mandates they be magnifying rather that flat or panoramic.... Something particularly useful when driving with blind spots the size of Texas. This significantly increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash, a terrible hazard to the driver, occupants, and other motorists.

[Metric Mouse]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

That is effectively nothing compared to modern safety and emissions standards.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/california-cars-99-cleaner-than-in-1960s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

Automotive emissions standards in California have resulted in cars that are 99% cleaner than they were 50 years ago, according to a new report.

You're probably spitting out 100x as much pollution as a new vehicle, and your chances of injury/death in the event of a crash are dramatically higher.  People like to ignore vast technology improvements when they start talking about how their old car gets just as good fuel economy as something new.  Modern cars have a phenomenal ability to protect occupants in a crash. You pay for that with additional weight, therefore lower fuel economy.  The Maserati gets 20mpg highway, with over 400hp/tq, AWD, leather, luxury everything, etc, and practically zero emissions when compared to something from generations past.

I drive a 25yo sports car - if I'm in a bad crash, I have a pretty good chance of dying.  Personal choice, and all...but don't pretend that a classic is remotely comparable to a modern vehicle in any way.

Pictures? Love a good sports car.

Of course! :) Dyno sheet, pic, and build documentation is linked there.

Oh my..  that is nice...

[JLee]

Actually it does have emissions controls and safety equipment... A PCV valve, collapsible steering column, and seatbelts, including shoulder belts, a frame, coil spring three link rear suspension, radial tires, dual circuit brakes. That is all the emissions and safety equipment I care to purchase or maintain.

That is effectively nothing compared to modern safety and emissions standards.

I wouldn't say nothing, regarding safety at least. Environmentally it is a beneficial to use something for its entire useful life rather than be part of the disposable society that just throws away everything. Seatbelts and a collapsible steering column in a car with a frame were huge advancements in safety... The cheap and easy things that gained massive improvements in crash survivability, the low hanging fruit if you will. Either way, I am well aware of all the differences between mid-late 60s technology and 90s-present technology, it is a conscious decision to drive 60s iron.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/california-cars-99-cleaner-than-in-1960s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

Automotive emissions standards in California have resulted in cars that are 99% cleaner than they were 50 years ago, according to a new report.

You're probably spitting out 100x as much pollution as a new vehicle, and your chances of injury/death in the event of a crash are dramatically higher.  People like to ignore vast technology improvements when they start talking about how their old car gets just as good fuel economy as something new.  Modern cars have a phenomenal ability to protect occupants in a crash. You pay for that with additional weight, therefore lower fuel economy.  The Maserati gets 20mpg highway, with over 400hp/tq, AWD, leather, luxury everything, etc, and practically zero emissions when compared to something from generations past.

I drive a 25yo sports car - if I'm in a bad crash, I have a pretty good chance of dying.  Personal choice, and all...but don't pretend that a classic is remotely comparable to a modern vehicle in any way.

Tailpipe pollution is not as great a concern of mine as compared to teh pollution of treating a vehicle as disposable, the massive waste, plastics, electronics, and all sorts of toxic chemicals that go into landfills and leach into groundwater supplies as well as the pollution producing new cars, particularly now that massive batteries are part of many. Yes much of the "recycling" waste is sent overseas and a big industry for poor third world countries, but it is also environmentally devastating in those countries causing many health issues. As for tailpipe emissions, there has been very little reduction since the 90s. Since then all the low hanging fruit iss gone (precise air/fuel ratios, catalytic converters, EGR) and not every new gain is fractions of a percent at a tremendous cost both monetarily and in driveability. No thanks.

As for comparability of a classic to a modern car. In MPG terms, absolutely it's comparable. Other than overdrive transmissions there has been virtually zero improvement in MPG thanks in large part to big government regulation making cars massively overweight. More MPG is less volume of fuel burned is less volume of exhaust out and less total parts of pollutants discharged, for waht that's worth, and of course more economical to operate to far as lower TCO from reduced fuel consumption and cheaper/faster repairs and maintenance from less complexity.

So far as safety, true crash survivability will not be as good in a 50 year old car as a brand new car, however crash avoidance is certainly better. Have you driven a car newer than the 80s or 90? If so you will immediately notice you can't see anything, massive blind spots everywhere. To make matters worse with absurd government mandates on MPG that don't align with DOT mandates on "safety" or reality in general, mirrors get smaller and more useless in part for the quest for more MPG and in part because government mandates they be magnifying rather that flat or panoramic.... Something particularly useful when driving with blind spots the size of Texas. This significantly increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash, a terrible hazard to the driver, occupants, and other motorists.

http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS010009.pdf
https://www.reference.com/vehicles/many-lives-airbags-save-year-aa991e4be5e4d2d6
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle-Shoppers/Air-Bags/Side%E2%80%93Impact-Air-Bags#4
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g2005/22-brutal-crash-tests-video
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0804/Which-is-greener-Old-car-or-new-car

I'm going to continue to drive my older car too, but to pretend it's nearly as safe as something new because it has seatbelts would be sticking my head in the sand.  I would much rather be hit in either of my 2005+ vehicles (with dual front and side curtain airbags) than in my older car.

If you feel that modern cars are unsafe because of increased blind spots, I would urge you to adjust your mirrors properly, both for your safety and the safety of others around you.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots

In case anyone hasn't seen the IIHS crash test between 1959 and 2009 vehicles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck

Oh my..  that is nice...

Thanks!  I have a pattern of becoming exasperated with it and wondering if I should sell, but then I price out something comparable (mid-engine, RWD, and ~500hp) and I decide to keep it again, lol.

[Papa Mustache]

I own two antiques 40 and 50 years old. I consider them to be slightly safer than motorcycles. As for emissions they aren't driven enough to worry about.

[RWD]

The Maserati is a steal at less than half the price of the Bentley Bentayga! ($229k)

[SnackDog]

It's all relative. Don't tell me that Beluga caviar at $10/oz is not a bargain just because you can buy Chicken-of-the-sea tuna for $.59/can (or fish for your own in a lake) and feel just as full after eating it.

[Metric Mouse]

It's all relative. Don't tell me that Beluga caviar at $10/oz is not a bargain just because you can buy Chicken-of-the-sea tuna for $.59/can (or fish for your own in a lake) and feel just as full after eating it.

I just eat the crackers it's normally served on. :D

[MgoSam]

It's all relative. Don't tell me that Beluga caviar at $10/oz is not a bargain just because you can buy Chicken-of-the-sea tuna for $.59/can (or fish for your own in a lake) and feel just as full after eating it.

Yup! I mean, c'mon some people on MMM brag about being able to live on $1000 a month. What the heck are the blowing their money on, lobster? I know people in India that live on WAY less!!!!!!!!

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

[gimp]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

People have done this. Small jet engines are somewhere between relatively cheap and relatively expensive, depending on your idea of what a jet engine costs and your budget... you can get a 30 pound thrust jet engine for like a thousand bucks.

Thirty pounds of thrust isn't really that much though!

People have attached ~45 or 60 pound thrust jet engines to their bicycles.

Anyways, the funny thing about these jet engines is that they don't really accelerate that quickly. However, they feel like they have limitless power to keep accelerating, especially on something like a bike. Until air resistance becomes as strong as the thrust of the engine, it'll just keep pulling - unlike the feeling of a gas powered engine in a car, which will stop pulling at a fairly low speed for most cars.

The real downside is that small jet engines absolutely drink jet fuel. You're looking at around a liter per minute, or about fifteen gallons an hour, of jet fuel. Not nearly as efficient as the big fat fuckers on planes.

[Indexer]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

A guy got a Darwin Award* doing something similar. His car accelerated uncontrollably, the brakes melted, it took off like a plane...




*Awarded to the person of the year who died in the dumbest way.

[Metric Mouse]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

A guy got a Darwin Award* doing something similar. His car accelerated uncontrollably, the brakes melted, it took off like a plane...




*Awarded to the person of the year who died in the dumbest way.

Saw a stunt guy perform on a motorcycle with a jet engine. Loud as hell. Pretty impressive engineering feat though, if completely impractical.

[gimp]

Indexer, I do believe that's an urban legend.

Jet engines are indeed super loud, but small ones don't provide _that_ much thrust. If I had to guess, motorcycle guy was using it for showmanship.

[mwulff]

At that price point I would just get a Tesla Model X and be done with it. Lower running costs, better for the environment and best of all: You're not the pretentious a**hole in a big gas-guzzling suv.

[Metric Mouse]

Indexer, I do believe that's an urban legend.

Jet engines are indeed super loud, but small ones don't provide _that_ much thrust. If I had to guess, motorcycle guy was using it for showmanship.

It was pretty close to this. (Maybe same guy? Who knows) Totally for showmanship, agreed.

[SnackDog]

The most well-known jet-powered motorcycle was piloted by a stunt driver named Evel Knievel into the Snake River Canyon in 1974.

[Chris22]

At that price point I would just get a Tesla Model X and be done with it. Lower running costs, better for the environment and best of all: You're not the pretentious a**hole in a big gas-guzzling suv.

I mean, I'm a Tesla fan, but at this point, they're starting to corner the pretentious asshole market.

[Metric Mouse]

At that price point I would just get a Tesla Model X and be done with it. Lower running costs, better for the environment and best of all: You're not the pretentious a**hole in a big gas-guzzling suv.

I mean, I'm a Tesla fan, but at this point, they're starting to corner the pretentious asshole market.

Don't forget your Tesla branded leather jacket

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

People have done this. Small jet engines are somewhere between relatively cheap and relatively expensive, depending on your idea of what a jet engine costs and your budget... you can get a 30 pound thrust jet engine for like a thousand bucks.

Thirty pounds of thrust isn't really that much though!

People have attached ~45 or 60 pound thrust jet engines to their bicycles.

Anyways, the funny thing about these jet engines is that they don't really accelerate that quickly. However, they feel like they have limitless power to keep accelerating, especially on something like a bike. Until air resistance becomes as strong as the thrust of the engine, it'll just keep pulling - unlike the feeling of a gas powered engine in a car, which will stop pulling at a fairly low speed for most cars.

The real downside is that small jet engines absolutely drink jet fuel. You're looking at around a liter per minute, or about fifteen gallons an hour, of jet fuel. Not nearly as efficient as the big fat fuckers on planes.

Oh, I wouldn't fuel it or actually RUN it... bit of an impact liability really, in case of an accident, I mean who wants jet fuel everywhere... but it would look badass and that would be my entire purpose. At a cost of about $1k plus some bits and pieces, it would set me back far less than a fancy car would, if the car were purchased solely for the purpose of impressing others which is regrettably what most of the fancy brands are for.

[Digital Dogma]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

A guy got a Darwin Award* doing something similar. His car accelerated uncontrollably, the brakes melted, it took off like a plane...




*Awarded to the person of the year who died in the dumbest way.

Pretty sure this was referring to the urban legend about the car fitted with solid rocket boosters, which are a much different beast than jets or turbo-shaft engines.
Once you start a solid rocket booster, it will continue to fire till its exhausted all of its fuel, and you can not extinguish it.

[mwulff]

At that price point I would just get a Tesla Model X and be done with it. Lower running costs, better for the environment and best of all: You're not the pretentious a**hole in a big gas-guzzling suv.

I mean, I'm a Tesla fan, but at this point, they're starting to corner the pretentious asshole market.

It's funny, here in Denmark most Teslas are looked upon as the car of the people who really care about the environment. Still better than a Lexus.

[Papa Mustache]

Another option might be to get a small jet turbine, with afterburner, and weld it to the frame of my Scion.

Don't forget to budget to replace the front ends of the cars behind that you melt with your turbine engine exhaust. I built a turbine out of a car turbo once. Not useful but it made some cool sounds.

[Chris22]

At that price point I would just get a Tesla Model X and be done with it. Lower running costs, better for the environment and best of all: You're not the pretentious a**hole in a big gas-guzzling suv.

I mean, I'm a Tesla fan, but at this point, they're starting to corner the pretentious asshole market.

It's funny, here in Denmark most Teslas are looked upon as the car of the people who really care about the environment.

Yes, in a very smug and self-righteous way.

[Indexer]

I'm not going to tell you the Maserati is a good buy, but let's not pretend a warmed-over Golf is a good substitute. That's like saying "this Spam is nearly the same as that filet because number of calories."

Fun fact!

The Front Wheel Drive production car track record on the Nurburgring is 7 minutes, 47.19 seconds. It was just set a few days ago by, what did you call it, a warmed-over Golf?   :D  To be exact it was a VW Golf GTI Clubsport.


source:http://jalopnik.com/watch-the-gti-clubsport-set-a-nurburgring-record-two-se-1789788529

That time puts it in the same league as Corvettes, Lamborghinis, Porsches, etc.  Again, the GTI is much much cheaper.

[gimp]

No need to exaggerate...

https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/

7:47 is a good 25 or 30 seconds slower than the corvettes, lambos, porsches, etc.

It's like saying that I'm in the same league as michael phelps because my 50 meter time is only six seconds slower than his.

[fantabulous]

It's a bargain considering the investment it represents. Men and women of a certain feather will equate my status symbol with virility and sexual prowess. During the useful status life of the vehicle, I will be able to sex my way closer to FI.

[gimp]

That is 100% accurate. Carry on.

[Indexer]

No need to exaggerate...

Maybe you should look at your own source. There are Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches, Corvettes, etc. that are all slower than the GTI. Sure it's not as fast as the very nicest models, like a Lamborghini Aventador LP 750, but it is faster than some of the base model cars like the Porsche 911, Lamborghini  Gallardo, and Ferrari California.

[gimp]

I mean... if we're gonna debate it...

1)

Most of the cars it beats are either quite old, or not really intended for racing. The Ferrari California is just... not a car made for racing. This GTI was literally built for 'ring times, the California is built for rich people to drive (you guessed it) nice roads in California. The cars made to go fast, though, are all ~10 years old on that list, and/or big heavy sedans.

2)

The car was literally built just for fast 'ring times. It's very, very limited production - they're making 400 of them? It's been set up precisely for that road. It's also stripped out, like a race car, rather than a production car. It's not a great comparison to a general purpose fast car sold to anyone in large quantities... with amenities...

3)

If we're comparing cars that there are only going to be 400 of, that are essentially factory-modified and stripped out for ring times, then we can compare people modifying their own cars. Shit, for half the price of this new car, you can buy something older and make it faster.



Now, VW factory-modifying and selling 400 of these is pretty cool, but it's mostly a publicity stunt. Any company can strip out, upgrade, and tune the suspension of a somewhat sporty car for fast 'ring times. Especially if they don't care whether they make any money doing it, since the production numbers are so low.