rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Archive for discussions from 2008. Please post new discussions in the appropriate forum.

Moderators: Matthew, neps, Michael Pajaro

User avatar
tamatt27
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:37 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: ATX
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by tamatt27 » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:07 pm

Lost Knight wrote:I can't catch up with all of this nonsense at the moment. Here are simple examples: If the Acura NSX Sports Coupe Concept AND the '09 Camaro (which are the top two contenders for K.I.T.T. in my opinion) were FWD, does that mean they can never be used? The '82 Trans Am was picked because Glen "simply liked the look of that car." He based it on LOOKS. The fact that the Trans Am is RWD was something that happened to work as a benefit later on for the type of scenes it would be involved in. Is anyone going to tell me that with a $100 million-budget that the drivetrain of whatever car is chosen will be the deciding factor?! With $100 million dollars you can build a shell on top of a RWD vehicle; you can create/erase tire smoke during doughnuts; you can even create the entire damn car as a computer graphic, etc. It's not as important as everybody thinks.

We don't know the exact reason why Glen Larson chose the '82 Trans Am for KITT, perhaps Victor Kros would be graceous enough to shed some light on it, but it is ridiculous to spend so much time talking this point into the ground. RWD is CLEARLY superior to FWD when it comes to a performance machine..which is what KITT is. KITT, the '82 Trans Am, is a sports car: RWD (AWD in some sports cars), powerful engine, and usually 2-doors. RWD is superior to FWD in terms of performance cars because when a car takes off from a stop, the suspension shifts to allow the weight of the vehicle to be shifted towards the rear, thus providing more traction to the driving wheels and providing better performance. In a FWD car, when it takes of from a stop, the weight is still shifted to the rear, because you can't change physics, at the same time providing LESS traction to the driving front wheels. This is why performance cars are primarily driven to the rear wheels.
KITT is, undoubtedly a performance machine, and needs to have the rear wheels driven by the drivetrain.
Honestly that is more than enough on this topic, as it is being beat to the ground. Clearly we will not change your mind as to why your thinking is flawed, so there's no sense in arguing about it any more.
KNIGHT RIDER RELOADED is a series of movies on Youtube to represent a different creative avenue to the Knight Rider we knew in 2008-09.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tamatt27

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:31 am

tamatt27 wrote:RWD is CLEARLY superior to FWD when it comes to a performance machine..which is what KITT is.


But, tamatt27, you're still talking past the issue.

The drivetrain is a separate issue from what the car looks like.

The Mustang is also RWD and V8, yet you (I think) were opposed to it, at least initially. I'm guessing this is largely because of the EXTERNAL APPEARANCE of the vehicle.

As I said, issues like drivetrain and engine size are esoteric issues relevant mainly to car enthusiasts.

Again like I said, just imagine in your mind that the Pontiac G5 (for example) is rwd and a v8. Now, what we want is opinions on the LOOK of the car, to which the technical details of the vehicle are ancillary points.

I'm assuming that your true objection to the Pontiac G5 and/or G6 is with regard to the appearance of it, because I recommended it based on external appearance. If you think the car is too small or does not appear sporty, fair enough, man, it's cool. But objecting to it based on internal technical details is talking past my point and it makes the discussion far more negative and argumentative than it should be.

KITT, the '82 Trans Am, is a sports car: RWD (AWD in some sports cars), powerful engine, and usually 2-doors. [...]
KITT is, undoubtedly a performance machine, and needs to have the rear wheels driven by the drivetrain.


Well, first of all, the Mini Cooper used to be used in racing all the time, especially in the 60s, and it has always been FWD. Same for the 2008 Mitsubishi Eclipse. Both are FWD, both have been used for racing. I would suggest a look at this Wikipedia page listing some examples of Front Wheel Drive Sports Cars (yes I did notice that the Pontiac G5 is not on the list, silly wikipedia, lol):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Front_wheel_drive_sports_cars

Secondly, if some sports cars are AWD, that is to say, if one admits that not all sports cars are RWD, then the FWD vs RWD becomes moot; clearly, an advanced car like KITT would have some advanced transmission which could drive different sets of tires in different situations. FWD, RWD and AWD are all too restricted to be used in something like KITT. Again, KITT is a fictional vehicle. There is no real world analog to KITT; there is no such thing as a car in real life which could do what KITT can do. So the argument that "a FWD cannot do what KITT could do" is nonsensical, as NO CAR could do what KITT can do. No car. Not the Mustang, not the Corvette, not a RWD car, not an AWD car, no car.

The drivetrain mainly becomes relevant when you are doing stunts with the car, and if you have a sufficient budget, you can address those issues. It is not applicable to the reason why I suggested a Pontiac G5.


Clearly we will not change your mind as to why your thinking is flawed, so there's no sense in arguing about it any more.


As far as I can tell, no poster has exhibited flawed thinking. Some are addressing issues which are ancillary to the actual discussion, however, which makes things frustrating, and there's no need for it.

As I said above...KITT is a fictional car. There is no such thing as a car which can do what it can do, regardless of any technical aspect. When we're talking about what car to use for KITT, it's mainly a subject of how the car looks from the outside, because the other things can be fixed separately.

In other words, the topic is "what car would look good for KITT", not "what car would come closest to KITT's capabilities". The latter is a totally different discussion, and I'm not really qualified to get into it, nor do I have any interest in doing so, since I'm not a car enthusiast.

User avatar
Lost Knight
FLAG Special Ops
Posts: 2716
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by Lost Knight » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:48 am

tamatt27 wrote:We don't know the exact reason why Glen Larson chose the '82 Trans Am for KITT, perhaps Victor Kros would be graceous enough to shed some light on it, but it is ridiculous to spend so much time talking this point into the ground.


We do know the exact reason Glen chose it; I do not make up his quotes. I believe he even says it on the Season 1 DVD interview, so it comes directly from him.

tamatt27 wrote:RWD is CLEARLY superior to FWD when it comes to a performance machine..which is what KITT is.


I am not debating anything regarding FWD Vs. RWD Vs. AWD. I'm simply saying none of it matters when all of the car's specifications are going to be fictitious. You're arguing your point by completely overlooking mine, which is a different discussion.

tamatt27 wrote:Clearly we will not change your mind as to why your thinking is flawed, so there's no sense in arguing about it any more.


You're right there is no sense in arguing if my points are going to be overlooked. Kindly tell me how my thinking is flawed, please.
“Gimme maximum turbo thrust and blast me outta here, will ya!?”
:kitt: :dash4:

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:56 am

d_osborn wrote: I'm talking about DESIGN AND STYLING... the GM Delta cars don't have the looks.


ok, that's better, now we're discussing the same thing, though we still disagree, at least we're disagreeing on what we should be disagreeing on, so it is a much better and much less frustrating discussion!!! :)

Although you believe that a spoiler, four seats and a small grill make a vehicle resemble an 82 T/A,


(note, the correct spelling is "grille"; the word is of French derivation. It won't show as an error in the spell checker because "grill" is also a word, but with a totally different meaning.)

No, no, I am saying that a spoiler, four seats, 2 doors, a small grille, and a swept down, "sleek" front are essential qualities of a car that could be used as KITT. I never said those things make it resemble a 1982 Trans Am. A 1982 Trans Am was the original KITT, we're talking about what car would look good for a potential modern KITT (which doesn't necessarily have to look like a 1982 trans am).

To argue that an economy coupe would represent the "cool car of the future" in a science fiction-action film ABOUT a cool car is pointless....


It is not, because you are using a definition of "cool car of the future" which depends on esoteric technical aspects, so you're getting away from what you said yourself above. You start out saying you're talking about looks, but then you start getting into the performance of the car in real life, which has nothing to do with the subject. Yeah, yeah, I am aware that the Pontaic G5 is an entry level economy car in real life. That's not the point.

If a car which in real life is considered "an entry level economy car", BECAUSE OF ITS PERFORMANCE SPECS, still looks like a good kitt, then I don't see any good reason not to use it. If you disagree that it looks like a good kitt, cool, that's fine, that's how you should disagree, but don't base your disagreement on things that are not regarding the external appearance.

So, we both need to be talking about the same subject, that will eliminate the frustration, there is no need to feel tense on this topic! :)

especially with someone that has no obvious understanding of automobiles or the automobile industry...


...which I don't need, if I'm talking about external appearance of vehicles, which is what I'm talking about.

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by d_osborn » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:14 am

...which I don't need, if I'm talking about external appearance of vehicles, which is what I'm talking about.

If you're going to compare two COMPLETELY different vehicles in a debate, you DO need that knowledge... or you'll come across as not knowing what you're talking about... which, well... is exactly what is happening.

If you think the G5 would make a great KITT... that's fine and dandy in my book. I'm fairly certain that very few fans, or KR film producers, will agree with you. Jim Belushi COULD have played the new James Bond or Batman... but it wouldn't have made any sense. Same situation.

...but to further illustrate my point... here's an image of Pontiac 1982 Pontiac J2000 sports coupe...which became the Sunbird... which became the Sunfire... which became the G5.
Image
Compare it to the sports car offering, the Trans Am, from the same year... the same differences apply today, even if uninformed Joe Q. Public can't recognize them due to being swooned by a swoopy front nose and spoiler. You can't polish a turd. Swoopy, "sporty" styling cues on an economy sports coupe do NOT make a proper representation of KITT. KITT was a sports car, aesthetically speaking (not performance-wise, which is not what I was talking about in my previous post)... wide stance, low center of gravity, sleek and sweeping lines... all of which are NOT present on the economy vehicles, such as the G5.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:05 pm

d_osborn wrote:
...which I don't need, if I'm talking about external appearance of vehicles, which is what I'm talking about.

If you're going to compare two COMPLETELY different vehicles in a debate, you DO need that knowledge... or you'll come across as not knowing what you're talking about...


No, one does not need said knowledge, when the discussion is restricted to external appearance. In that case, the lineage of the car is irrelevant. Same for performance, engine size, transmission, fuel octane requirements, etc.

Others have said that the 1982 trans am was chosen not because of its drivetrain or engine or performance or lineage, or anything else that only a car enthusiast would know or care about, but rather its external appearance.

If you think the G5 would make a great KITT... that's fine and dandy in my book.


Great. So, what would your suggestion be for a car with 4 seats that looks like a modern day equvilent of KITT (not with KITT's performance features, which is obviously impossible)? That's what you should be saying in this thread, instead of these hostile ad homenim arguments.

I'm fairly certain that very few fans, or KR film producers, will agree with you.


Your point? There appears to be no purpose to this statement other than hostility.

Jim Belushi COULD have played the new James Bond or Batman... but it wouldn't have made any sense. Same situation.


That's not the same, jim belushi's external appearance does not connote an ability to be Batman, but in the eyes of some, the G5's external appearance does connote an ability to be KITT, certainly more so than the boxy, non-aerodynamic Shelby Mustang. In my opinion, the Shelby Mustang appears externally to have the aerodynamics and performance of a brick. The Pontiac G5, in my opinion, looks much more aerodynamic and has the appearance of a vehicle that could potentially go 0 to 60 in 0.2 seconds, certainly more so than a 2008 Shelby Mustang. You disagree, but you're stating it as if it is a matter of fact, rather than a matter of opinion.

...which became the Sunbird... which became the Sunfire... which became the G5.


Which has nothing to do with the current external appearance of the vehicle. I don't care what it is derived from, I care about what it looks like today. Your picture looks completely different from the 2008 Pontiac G5, sir. The two cars may have technical similarities in terms of performance, engine size, transmission, etc., but one can't see many similarities evident in that picture.

KITT was a sports car, aesthetically speaking (not performance-wise, which is not what I was talking about in my previous post)...


At least you admit the problem; I was talking about appearance and you were talking about performance.

If I say a car LOOKS like it could be a KITT type car, I don't expect someone to tell me it doesn't LOOK that way because of engine size or performance, neither of which you can see by LOOKING at the car.

I would expect them to say "well, it doesn't look like a kitt type car to me. It is too small" or something along those lines.

wide stance, low center of gravity, sleek and sweeping lines... all of which are NOT present on the economy vehicles, such as the G5.


What you should have said was "all of which, IN MY OPINION, are not present on the Pontiac G5". The omission of the phrase "in my opinion" makes it sound as if you're stating some universally recognized fact, and the phrase "economy vehicles" is a reference to performance, not external appearance.

In any case, you need to consider that "sleek, sweeping lines" is determined by individual judgment: some may think a given car has that property, others may disagree. As the famous saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." For example, there are many on this board who think the Shelby Mustang does in fact look like a KITT type vehicle. I disagree with them, but I don't state it as a matter of fact about which reasonable people cannot reach different conclusions.

You don't see the Pontiac G5 and/or G6 as a KITT type car...that's perfectly fine. Instead of attempting to portray me as being mentally deficient, or at least generally inept, because I disagree, how about making your own suggestions as to modern cars which have that KITT appearance to them?

That would be much more pleasant, which is what I think everybody wants on here, a pleasant experience. :)

User avatar
blowersho
Operative
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by blowersho » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:21 pm

Use the g5/g6 as KITT and instead of having onboard AI have an onboard vic 20/commodore 64, it will match the car. Automotive design has changed a lot and no one makes a KITT type car anymore, it has to be a one off custom job that looks similar to the original.

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by d_osborn » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:30 am

seeker, seeker, seeker... i'm not even sure where to start. i don't feel like responding to every comment in your previous reply... so i'll try to hit the high spots.

first off, it's incredibly hard to judge tone with text only. i'm not being hostile... quite the opposite, actually. ...and don't even bring up spelling and grammar on a message board. it's the internet, dude.... NOT school/work. 8)

you keep bringing up how my arguments are based on performance of the G5... that isn't the case. my arguments are aesthetics f the car... NOT performance. i haven't said one things about the technical capabilities of the car. the design of the G5... the image of the vehicle... is not that of a sporty performance vehicle, which... as most fans would agree... is KITT. by image, i mean VIBE... SPIRIT... IMAGE! like a fashion image... a style. i feel like i have to spell these things out in great detail on this thread... :roll:

do me a favor, seeker... some time this week, stop by a GM dealership... preferably a dealership that sells both pontiac and chevrolet. take a close look at the G5. ask a salesmen to let you set in it... walk around the car... observe the height, width, stance, lines... take it all in. next, do the same with a corvette. the vette has a MEAN design... aggresive curves, killer stance... it looks like it is ready to pounce. the G5 is... not even close. while both have curvy lines... pointy nose, whatever you want to call it, the G5 is missing the IMAGE. this WILL COME THROUGH on the screen. if audiences see a small, stubby G5... with "sporty" plastic body cladding and full window frames... they will laugh. the G5 would be PERFECT for a KR parody...

i can't talk you into liking one car over the other. the old question of "what makes beauty" is a great example. one fanboy's trash really IS another fanboy's treasure. the G5 is missing the "image" of KITT... the G5 is missing the AGGRESIVE curves, the killer stance... the things that make little boys shout "COOL" when they see them driving. the things that make people turn their head in traffic to get a better look at the killer sports car that just drove by... G5's don't get head turners. KITT is most definitely a head turner....

now... your question about what vehicle i would pick if i were going to direct larson's KR film... if product placement weren't a concern... i would go with the 09 nissan gt-r with light modification to the front nose. the concept is pictured... but the vehicle is going into production soon, and not too much has been changed. (new model... a big plus!) it's a 2+2 bodystyle (rear seat... check!) it's a foreign build, but VK said that wouldn't necessarily count against a vehicle. sporty stance... crisp, straight lines... a KILLER image... good looks (and performace). to me, it's the perfect candidate for KITT! i was hoping this would be chosen for the NBC pilot, seeing as how NBC has a big deal with nissan on heroes...

Image

EDIT- the boards are cutting off the image. here is a link... http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/31221/ ... 402_rs.jpg
..and others...
http://www.gtrnissan.com/index.html

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:38 pm

d_osborn wrote:it's a 2+2 bodystyle (rear seat... check!) it's a foreign build, but VK said that wouldn't necessarily count against a vehicle. sporty stance... crisp, straight lines... a KILLER image... good looks (and performace). to me, it's the perfect candidate for KITT! i was hoping this would be chosen for the NBC pilot, seeing as how NBC has a big deal with nissan on heroes...



well, that vehicle is pretty sweet as kitt. :o

I wish they made a Corvette with a backseat, because that would be my ideal case for kitt in terms of currently made vehicles... :)

Someone on YouTube said Pontiac G8. It has an ok front end, but it's a sedan, and in my opinion, kitt really should be a coupe, 2 doors, backseat. 4 doors makes it seem punctuated.

But the list of usa made cars that fit that description (2 doors, backseat, wing, smalle grille) is limited.

This is a 2003 (well, 97 to 03) Pontiac Grand Prix, it has a good look, but not made anymore.

Image

(right click and click View Image to see it better, at least in Firefox.)
--Brian

User avatar
TurbomanKnight
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1297
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:09 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Brooklyn, NY 11208
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by TurbomanKnight » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:22 pm

A G6 doesnt have the right vibe. I sat in one at school. It's black, top of the line. Very nice car. But not worth enough to be a star car. Maybe a daily driver.
Anti-Ford. 'Nuff Said.

1988 Camaro IROC-Z28
5.7 Tuned Port Injection .040 over
700R4
2.77 posi
3" Exhaust with Headers

User avatar
tamatt27
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:37 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: ATX
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by tamatt27 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:36 pm

There is the Buick Riviera concept:
Image
Image
Image
Image
KNIGHT RIDER RELOADED is a series of movies on Youtube to represent a different creative avenue to the Knight Rider we knew in 2008-09.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tamatt27

User avatar
JJSoCrazy
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:12 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Yonkers, NY
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by JJSoCrazy » Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:46 pm

Here is an answer for you seeker. Instead of using a FAGISH LITTLE PUNY G5 which I have seen almost every day (Father works for Cadillac and Pontiac is right next door) It would be a disgrace to use a FWD 4 Cylinder Coupe like that. Just because it seats 4 and is a Pontiac coupe doesn't mean crap. Sorry if I sound rude but it is sad to say KITT should be a little tiny ugly ass POS slow as car!

Here is a suggestion: Because I am highly aware of all GM models current and upcoming in the future, why not wait until a year or two until the new GTO comes out (which I am pissed about) and you will have your RWD, 4 Seater, Performance Pontiac coupe with the right size, look and shape. When I find a pic I will post it.

User avatar
tamatt27
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:37 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: ATX
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by tamatt27 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 pm

I do like the Holden Monaro/Vauxhall VXR8/Pontiac GTO:
Image
Image
:twisted:
Image
KNIGHT RIDER RELOADED is a series of movies on Youtube to represent a different creative avenue to the Knight Rider we knew in 2008-09.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tamatt27

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:21 pm

tamatt27 wrote:There is the Buick Riviera concept:


VERY interesting. I saw information on that car on a web site about the shanghai motor show, though, would this car be made in Michigan (where most of the Buick Rivieras were apparently made) or China??? I don't want to get too far off topic here, if you don't know, I don't know will do me just fine. ;) (I think you already know what my preference would be as to where made)

But yeah, that's a pretty cool car. :)

hmm looks suspiciously like a "sport compact" though. ((scratching head sarcastically)) thought those weren't cool tamatt27 ;-)

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:41 pm

JJSoCrazy wrote: Sorry if I sound rude but it is sad to say KITT should be a little tiny ugly ass POS slow as car!


Well, the homophobic remarks aside (I'm mostly straight, not that there would be anything wrong with being gay), I note that the G6 is actually not THAT much slower than a Mustang.

According to:
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60_Quarter_Mile_Times/P_0-60times.html

the 0-60 time for a 2006 Pontiac G6 Coupe is 6.2 seconds, and for a Ford Mustang Shelby GT, it is 5.0. I think we said earlier that the 0-60 time for a Ford Victoria is 7.5 seconds. So they are both relatively fast, and the Mustang is a whole 1.2 seconds faster than the G6. oooh, 1.2 seconds. :roll: I concede that it may appear to be a big difference to a car enthusiast.

Still, as I said, I am not a car enthusiast, and therefore my opinion of how a car looks is based on just that, how it looks, not its performance, size of the engine, fuel octane required, average thickness of tubing in the engine, number of coils in the alternator, number of distinct geometric shapes in the grille, or any other arcane statistic that only an enthusiast of such esoteric aspects of cars would know or care about.

I don't need to be a car expert to take a look at a car and say "that looks like a spy/sleek/advanced/cool car to me", and my conclusion as to that analysis may be different from other people, as it is a matter of opinion.

Here is a suggestion: Because I am highly aware of all GM models current and upcoming in the future, why not wait until a year or two until the new GTO comes out (which I am pissed about) and you will have your RWD, 4 Seater, Performance Pontiac coupe with the right size, look and shape. When I find a pic I will post it.


I'm familiar with the GTO (well, I have a layman's familiarity with it), but at the risk of annoying tamatt27, the GTO is made in Australia, and I would prefer a US made car (even if the parent company is foreign). We all have our preferences.

I do agree that the GTO is very sleek and cool though! :)

--Brian

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:44 pm

tamatt27 wrote:I do like the Holden Monaro/Vauxhall VXR8/Pontiac GTO:


hmm interesting that the building in the background is evocative of the Foundation headquarters from KR ;)

--Brian

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:06 am

hmm well, I see one page which says the G5 is 8.8 seconds for 0-60, quite slower than a Mustang, and slower than a G6. However, I think it depends on which options you get. One person has a G5 that is a full second faster.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2398137

Regardless, my point was still how the car looks, not the performance. I think the G5 and G6 would both potentially be KITT, again based on external appearance only.

--Brian

User avatar
blowersho
Operative
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by blowersho » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:51 am

First of all 1.2 sec is about 6-7 car lengths which is lot in a drag race and second arguing about 0-60 times is for 11 year olds on the school playground. 0-100mph or 1/4 mile are the true tests and in either one the g5/g6 would be destroyed. Seeker are you a spokesman for GM's delta platform?

User avatar
LadyV2000
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:41 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by LadyV2000 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:08 pm

seeker78 wrote:
tamatt27 wrote:There is the Buick Riviera concept:


I never imagined that this combination of words would ever come out of my mouth, but that Buick is awesome! :lol:
Flyer Guy: "You really a talking car?"
KITT: "No. I'm a tight end for the Chicago Bears!"

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:25 am

blowersho wrote:Seeker are you a spokesman for GM's delta platform?


No, man, but I am an American and a patriot and that is my reason for wanting to use a car made in the USA (not just USA company, but the car Made/"assembled" in the USA). Not to say that Americans who don't share this preference are not patriots, but I'm just stating my reason. I want those blue collar jobs to stay in the USA and I want the USA economy to be strong, etc., it all comes from my fundamental reason of patriotism. I can live with a Made in Canada (Camaro) or Made in Australia (GTO) or Made in Japan (Accura NSX Concept) car, but my preference is Made in USA. I specifically would not want, for example, Made in China, as they are a dictatorship and hostile to the USA, and they have sweatshops (more to the point, their government allows/endorses sweatshops, as opposed to the USA where it is illegal and stopped when discovered). But I'm getting way off topic here, so yeah, it's simple, my reason is patriotism. :) Well, that and the fact that KR is an American story, so for the same reason that I would expect James Bond to drive a Made in UK car, I would expect FLAG to issue a Made in USA car. Yes, I do realize that GM Delta is designed in Germany, but the cars are made in the USA. :)

--Brian

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:34 am

LadyV2000 wrote:I never imagined that this combination of words would ever come out of my mouth, but that Buick is awesome! :lol:


my papa said son you're gonna drive me to drinkin if you don't stop driving that Hot. Rod. Lincoln.

lmao ;)

User avatar
blowersho
Operative
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by blowersho » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:11 am

Seeker, I respect your patriotism an understand you are not a gearhead but when KITT hits the big screen don't you want him to be the absolute best he can and have a grand presence so everybody will be blown away. That simply cannot happen if he is a G5/G6.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:20 am

blowersho wrote:Seeker, I respect your patriotism an understand you are not a gearhead but when KITT hits the big screen don't you want him to be the absolute best he can and have a grand presence so everybody will be blown away. That simply cannot happen if he is a G5/G6.


Well to me, it looks fine. It's all in the eye of the beholder. There are lots of cars that are made here that look different from a G5 or G6, too. For example, the Mitsubishi Eclipse is Made in the USA. And the Mustang, Viper, and Corvette are all Made in the USA. Of all those, I think the Eclipse and Mustang are the only ones with a backseat, though, and I want a backseat for story reasons (two seats restricts the story unnecessarily).

--Brian

User avatar
JJSoCrazy
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:12 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Yonkers, NY
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by JJSoCrazy » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:56 am

seeker78 wrote:
JJSoCrazy wrote: Sorry if I sound rude but it is sad to say KITT should be a little tiny ugly ass POS slow as car!


Well, the homophobic remarks aside (I'm mostly straight, not that there would be anything wrong with being gay), I note that the G6 is actually not THAT much slower than a Mustang.

According to:
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60_Quarter_Mile_Times/P_0-60times.html

the 0-60 time for a 2006 Pontiac G6 Coupe is 6.2 seconds, and for a Ford Mustang Shelby GT, it is 5.0. I think we said earlier that the 0-60 time for a Ford Victoria is 7.5 seconds. So they are both relatively fast, and the Mustang is a whole 1.2 seconds faster than the G6. oooh, 1.2 seconds. :roll: I concede that it may appear to be a big difference to a car enthusiast.

Still, as I said, I am not a car enthusiast, and therefore my opinion of how a car looks is based on just that, how it looks, not its performance, size of the engine, fuel octane required, average thickness of tubing in the engine, number of coils in the alternator, number of distinct geometric shapes in the grille, or any other arcane statistic that only an enthusiast of such esoteric aspects of cars would know or care about.

I don't need to be a car expert to take a look at a car and say "that looks like a spy/sleek/advanced/cool car to me", and my conclusion as to that analysis may be different from other people, as it is a matter of opinion.

Here is a suggestion: Because I am highly aware of all GM models current and upcoming in the future, why not wait until a year or two until the new GTO comes out (which I am pissed about) and you will have your RWD, 4 Seater, Performance Pontiac coupe with the right size, look and shape. When I find a pic I will post it.


I'm familiar with the GTO (well, I have a layman's familiarity with it), but at the risk of annoying tamatt27, the GTO is made in Australia, and I would prefer a US made car (even if the parent company is foreign). We all have our preferences.

I do agree that the GTO is very sleek and cool though! :)

--Brian


Well in that case I understand where you are coming from. I am a very big car enthisast and now that you came forward your not I clearly see. However, a 0-60 time seperation of 1 sec is a BIG difference! The comparison with the G6 and a Mustang coupe is astronomical. Why would you consider a Pony Car (Muscle Car) to a Coupe that is just considered a sports sedan/coupe type of car. Maybe because your not a car freak you may not understand, but it's okay. When coming to performance you have to look at the engine specs and such, some just look at the car and say "I like it" but that isn't the fact. When you want the world's fastest/strongest car to be a Pontiac G5 that is insane, lol.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:48 pm

JJSoCrazy wrote:When coming to performance you have to look at the engine specs and such, some just look at the car and say "I like it" but that isn't the fact. When you want the world's fastest/strongest car to be a Pontiac G5 that is insane, lol.


Well just remember there is "what car looks like it could be a kitt/spycar type vehicle" and then there is the question of "what car most closely matches KITT in terms of performance" and those are two different questions.

You can have the fastest car in the world, and that might be closest to KITT in terms of performance, but if it doesn't look like a kitt/spycar type vehicle, then a slower car that looks better would be better. As a non car guy, I don't look at, say, the Ford Focus, and say "that could never be kitt because it is not a high performance vehicle", rather, I look at it and say "that looks like a cool car".

Having said that, yes, I do know that, for example, the Dodge Viper is far better in terms of performance than a Pontiac G5. I can look that up on the Internet. But in terms of its appearance, I think they both look a lot more futuristic/spycar than a Shelby Mustang. If anything, as a layman I would guess the G5 to be faster than a Shelby Mustang because the G5 looks aerodynamic, whereas the Shelby looks like it was built in 1950, at least from the front. I can see an aerodynamic car like a G5 going 0-60 in 0.2 seconds, but I would be shocked to see a shelby mustang do that.

I'm saying that appearance and performance are two different things, and since there is no such thing as a car that has anywhere near the performance of KITT, I think looks are a lot more important.

What I don't understand is why a car can look so ugly to car enthusiasts yet look so cool to non car enthusiasts. Apparently a lot of car enthusiasts think the Shelby Mustang looks better than a 2008 Ford Focus Coupe, which is amazing to me. The shelby has a sharp boxy shape, but the focus has a nice aerodynamic shape that suggests motion. Autoblog said one problem was that the headlights wrap around the front in a way contrary to its "personality". What, it doesn't have a 550 horsepower engine, so therefore it shouldn't try to be visually appealing? I don't get that.

Now, the Corvette, THAT is a beautiful car. I don't need to be a car enthusiast to see that. :)

--Brian

Locked