So, my friend works at an agency that developed that VW.com.

He said they are bringing back the "Build Your Car" function in couple months.

 

 

glad to see when companies listen and respond to their customers.

 

I find it hilarious that VW wanted to remove that function in the first place though. Like they didn't see this coming. Jesus.

 

akqa?

 

Deutsch LA.

 

errrr im back to GTI over BRZ lol. I'm so screwed when it comes to buy a car. Whenever the hell that comes. I've been complaining about htis for years now it seems.

edit: the reason I'm back is the practicality. Was furniture shopping earlier this week and I noticed a GTI and a FRS at ikea and my head started thinking again lol

 

you're lucky you got that Avant when you need it JS+BRZ

 

Oh yeah. If I was a single, I probably would have kept my MS3. The hatchbacks/wagons are awesome. You can fit anything, like ANYTHING.

 

Yea the other problem is I moved far away from home so its not like I can borrow my dads truck or a family friends van...

 

So, this is what happens when clients don't watch for the stop sign at our entrance....

 

That looks expensive.

 

Praise god. That was the dumbest idea ever to remove it. The only reason I go to car maker's websites is to build and price.

Ouch. Two new doors and she'll be good to go.

 

I'm amazed it didn't cost us a sale considering the clients who were test driving it at the time decided they wanted the car as they were returning just before this happened. They ended up still purchasing another IS after this.

The client who hit them supposedly did it with a LX (I don't believe it considering the height difference & the crumple zone at the bottom) they had only had for a week or 2 as well. I was told they were only responsible for their own vehicle curiously enough, despite at fault. But, whatever it takes to keep a new client happy.

 

I'd guess the LX the driver slammed on the brake, causing the nose to dive. That looks like a big imprint on the door.

 

Rick, Sorry to see your IS like that. Hopefully they fix it well and soon.

I am still waiting on Toyota/Lexus to fix their awful "Build Your Car" function. I was very excited when I saw Lexus redesigned their whole website, but was quickly disappointed when I realized the one thing they didn't change was the "Build Your Car."

 

Lexus' build and price thing is absolutely useless and cryptic to try to understand. Really a shame because I'm willing to bet it turns a lot of people away from exploring their vehicles more.

IMO, BMW has the best configurator (read: not options/pricing). Its simple and clean.

 

Don't worry, it's not my IS lol.

But, yes Lexus' build function isn't a bit unpolished. Some of the options it won't let you piece together are actually available to order.

 

Hory shet. Is that the legendary IS350!????!? I thought it was invincible to nuclear missiles and damage!

 

Nah that's just an IS250

 

I think the theory is the opposite. They hold the information tight to them hoping it will drive the customer into a dealer. I have to agree with you though in that it actually probably just upsets more people than it does forcing them to actually go to the dealer.

I also love the BMW configuration tool. It's very well done, and easy to navigate through. Although, outside of Toyota/Lexus most manufacturers seem to have a decent build tool.

Glad to hear it wasn't your car. I think the reason they only let you build cars that are near your location. If the Lexus doesn't have a red F-Sport it won't let you build that car. You could maybe try a different zip code, but once again what a stupid design.

 

Last I looked, Lexus would not let me apply the F-Sport package to any blue mica GS350s, or have black interior on any F-Sport packaged equipped IS'; they would default to red if you changed 1 thing.

However, even though they are "rare", I have seen more than enough of both optioned cars at work to know they can be done. The website just doesn't let you do it. Special order is likely the only way to go.

 

Texas drivers.. teh worst.

 

I'm a bit surprised the curtain airbags didn't deploy

 

I know many people think these cars look extremely dated - but to me they look as gorgeous as they ever did.

 

The lambo still looks like it will travel through time

I can't stop looking at the mirror on that Ferrari... can you see the moon while driving? (where is the other mirror?)

 

I love James May's description of the Countach when he reviewed it. It's terrible to drive around & so hard to see out of it, yet we'll never see anything quite like it ever again since car manufacturers aren't allowed to just design what they want & worry about the rest later anymore.

 

I don't know if the mirror comment was just rhetorical or not. Early Testarossas had one wing mirror because two weren't mandatory yet in some places.

That all said, the body is beautiful. The interior is bloody awful.

 

Toyota "Build your car" doesn't even work here (TX). Takes you to GST (Gulf States Toyota) where there is no Build/price option.

 

I saw a Chrysler 200C yesterday. Looked like it was completely decked out.

It's a very nice car. Legitimately. The only things I could say were nitpicking. It's probably the most beautiful sedan Chrysler has built since the 1950s. For what it costs, it looks like it's very well made with materials (like the tail light housing) that are the best out of Mopar in my lifetime. I know it seems weird to judge a car on the quality of the tail light but good plastic must be expensive because until recently the Americans never used it. The Audi-esque LED DRLs look great too.

The only thing that surprised me was how small it is. It's not a big car. It looks like it's about the same size as a new Audi A3. It's not even close to the same size as an Accord/Camry/Fusion ... But, if buyers can get past the size I think Chrysler has a hit on their hands. Well, the size and the stigma against Chrysler.

I hope it does well because Marchionne and company have put out a very solid looking car. I have no idea how it drives (though I read it's good) and no idea what it'll be like in three years. If it's as good as advertised, Chrysler is back.

If I were GM, I would be worried. Ford is having some teething problems but is making great looking cars with good value. Chrysler seems to be back and getting better all the time. If I had to have an American car, and wanted one with a 6-cylinder engine I would never buy a Malibu over a 200. I'd figure out how to cram all my crap into it.

It's not what I'm looking for at this point but I can't help but be impressed.

 

The 200 is surprisingly good looking.

It'll be a great rental

 

Someone is not going to be happy with that comment

 

also regarding the TR mirror, I did like the later models better - the photo I posted is one of the early ones. On the later models they moved the mirrors down to the conventional location. All things told, it is a mirror design I am very fond of, culminating for me with the 512TR.

 

Oh, and a guy in South Africa with a tune hit 3.9 seconds to 100km/hr in a Mk7 Golf R DSG.

 

0-60 mph/100 kmh is a piss poor performance metric.

Basically cars with AWD and/or engines placed on the rear axle and top out at higher than 60mph in 2nd gear will have a favorable 0-60.

0-60 is how people came to the conclusion that "ZOMG the 2007 WRX is faster than the STI" because the STI had to shift to 3rd to hit 60.

 

Zero to the speed limit and 30-50/50-70 are the only ones I really care about because they're the only measurements of performance I'll regularly use

 

with DSG's the gearshift is negligible...

 

also, 60 mph is still 60 mph. it is a fair pace. while I do mostly agree that it is not an end-all figure to use as a basis of anything, the pace cannot be wholly discredited.

 

I agree... my order IMO is

1/4 mile > 30-70 mph > 0-60 mph

1/4 mile tells you so many things. Straight line performance from both power and gearing (trap speed), from a dig traction (60 ft), combination of both (ET)

 

1/4 mile FTW.

0-60 will become an antiquated metric soon.