Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all due respect, I like the 2011 better myself, but not much difference really. I find it really hard to believe that the 2011 is 500 lbs lighter - that's a lot of weight to reduce, especially for a freshening program (relatively minor changes to the exterior & interior but not structure). Sounds like inaccurate PR to me.
It's not. I was wrong, the 2011 is not 500# HEAVIER, but it is 200# heavier, which is why I have a 2010. 200# = 20 horsepower regarding acceleration. I could not find the V8 weights readily, but the same 5.7L motor/transmission/drive systems are used, so it should be the same 200# difference.
In short, the 2010 is around 1/4-1/2 a second faster 0-60 than the 2011+, and similar in the 1/4 mile. The Jeep crowd was quite bummed to see the 0-60 time rise from around 6.8-7 seconds to around 7.5 seconds on the V8 model. That went from respectable, to tart V6 performance, because of the weight.
Does it really matter in an SUV? Not really, but I liked the looks, and heck, faster is faster, so coming from a corvette and a 370Z, it tickled my fancy. I didn't want to do the SRT8 thing because of the dismal mileage and the fact that I wanted the skid-plates and other offroad equipment and offroad/snow capable tires vs. wide summer tires, etc.
Only car I think is suppository shaped is the Prius. Been saying that for years. Other cars - not so much. Some affordable family cars are downright pretty (Mazda 6 for instance).
Obviously a trained eye can see the slight differences, but the vast majority of people seeing these drive by today would have no clue these were produced by four different manufacturers. Every decade follows a formula...and every generation gripes about how newer cars "all look alike."
My main gripe isn't how they look, but how ****ty new cars are.
Let's think about it. We have all cruised by the ghetto and seen cars from the 70's and 80's running around, belching smoke, squeaking when they turn, etc.
BUT THEY MOVE.
They have likely been maintained only for oil changes randomly, and when they physically break. We all know that noone is going to spend more money than the vehicle is worth, so I doubt new transmissions or motors go in. Likely, a cheap fix if it can be done, or the car is parked...yet plenty are moving around.
Newer cars? They seem to die so much sooner/easier.
Obviously a trained eye can see the slight differences, but the vast majority of people seeing these drive by today would have no clue these were produced by four different manufacturers. Every decade follows a formula...and every generation gripes about how newer cars "all look alike."
But those are after the glory years of styling. The mid-to-late '70s cars you posted had lost much of the unique styling the earlier models had.
For example, does anyone here really think these three 1963 full-sized cars look the same?
Or this 1966 Ford Fairlane and Plymouth Satellite... both were mid-sized cars yet were very easy to tell one from the other...
2010-2012 VW CC, 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonata, 2012-2014 Toyota Camry
That was too easy...
If it's so easy, why the range in years?
Here is another example. Cookie-cutter cars! Blah styling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
