Best cars in world ???

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
If we are talking about the utility object "car" the answer is the cars that you can afford.

If the question is value for money, the answer is Japanese/Korean cars.

If the question is about status symbol, the answer is expensive and rare cars.

If the question is about technology and innovation it is German and French cars.

If the question is about passion, the answer is Italian cars.

If the question is about cult, the answer is Italian, British and American cars.

 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
I am a DIY auto mechanic and take any car that is 10 years or older, low mileage and good shape that is not luxury brand. Parts are dirt cheap and plentiful aftermarket manufacturer. Do not even think of buying German luxury or Jaguar Land Rover cars used! They are money pits! I have 2 cars and total service and repair total around $500 a year! Japanese are the easiest to repair follow by Ford, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep and GM. Not own any Korean or Fiat/Alfa cars. Own a Mercedes GLE and sold it 6 month later!
 
Last edited:

TheIntrovert

Hall of Fame
Dream: Mclaren F1
Classic: 250 TR
Estate: RS6
SUV: Discovery 5
Saloon: Alpina B5
Hot Hatch: Focus RS
Hypercar: Jesko
Supercar: DBS
Track: Senna
What else have I missed
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The german TUV report https://www.tuvsud.com/de-de/publikationen/tuev-report

states that the best cars are:
Mercedes benz GLC
Porsche 911
...as they have the least defects.

:D
I cannot claim knowledge on how they conduct their tests and one should look into what criteria they have when estimating what is a reliable car, but there is an interesting story about Citroen DS 19/21. The car was generally one of the most elaborated cars and pretty much 30 or more years ahead of its time. The French tried to sell it in the USA, and it soon started returning rather unfavourable reviews, to the dismay of the company and most dealers in Europe. It turned out that the mechanics that worked on the car in the USA were not well educated and trained to deal with its complex systems and were doing more damage than fixing problems, when the car was brought in for a service. Partly it was due to the fact that Citroen didn't have a well developed service network, so people that bought the car were trying to service it in normal service centres that had little to no experience with that sort of systems. Especially the work on the hydropneumatic suspension was a complete disaster because of its elaborate nature. The car wasn't a failure in any sense (technical or otherwise. They sold over a 1.4 mil of it and many of those roll to this day (not only in Classics Rallies)), but it still got that reliability reputation in the country (different elsewhere)).

 
Last edited:

MurraysMetalHip

Professional
I quite like my super duper fast Mercedes. However, my favourite car I have ever driven was a bright yellow Corvette stingray I hired when on honeymoon in Hawaii. The noise!!!
 

IA-SteveB

Hall of Fame
Best can mean different things to different people. It all depends on what you are looking for. I have never owned fewer than three vehicles at a time but that's part of the freedom when you aren't married. I have always had a daily driver, a utility vehicle (truck) and a fun sports/muscle car. Various combinations over the years.

The most reliable vehicles I have owned were all from Toyota. I had a 2004 Toyota Tundra that I owned for 12 years and it was in for repairs one time at 100k miles. I normally do everything but this one required a lift.
The most fun and reliable vehicle I have owned (still do) is a 2001 Honda S2000. Starts every single time and carves the roads up.
The fastest car I have owned was a 1987 Buick Grand National. Pure street lethal car. It did require a lot of upkeep and you had to know what you were doing.

For a regular car for everyday driving, I am still sticking with Toyota. Affordable, reliable, plentiful parts if you want to own it forever. There's no reason for me to mention cars or brands that are beyond my budget. :)
 
Last edited:

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Volvo are the best if you’re looking for reliability and something brand new tbh
maybe at one time, but not even close these days. My last Volvo about 6 years ago needed the transmission replaced at 11,000 miles and the entire steering rack replaced at 25,000 miles. Their data is not so good.
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
Volvo are the best if you’re looking for reliability and something brand new tbh
That was when it was a Swedish own company. Volvo ranks near the bottom in reliability now in the crossovers like the XC90s and XC60s. Maybe in sedan they are still good?
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
I think automotive journalists got it right. They generally consider the VW GTI to be the best car in the world when you factor ALL considerations, such as performance, enjoyability to drive, comfort, sophistication, daily utility, cost, economical to operate, cargo capacity, safety, reliability
 

BlueB

Legend
I had a VW Tiguan. It was garbage.
Otoh, I never had a brakedown with my current BMW X3... It's probably my favorite car, ever.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I am a DIY auto mechanic and take any car that is 10 years or older, low mileage and good shape that is not luxury brand. Parts are dirt cheap and plentiful aftermarket manufacturer. Do not even think of buying German luxury or Jaguar Land Rover cars used! They are money pits! I have 2 cars and total service and repair total around $500 a year! Japanese are the easiest to repair follow by Ford, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep and GM. Not own any Korean or Fiat/Alfa cars. Own a Mercedes GLE and sold it 6 month later!
Have had Acura RDX (2014 model bought new) for six years, still low mileage, so far not expensive to run, will keep going, hopefully for over ten years.

Once had a new Oldsmobile 98 (about 450 hp) bought new in 1978, ran for 20 years. Long trips, pulling an Airstream across continent in 1998.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
For me it’s Lexus and Acura !!!!

Chrysler has cool looking cars but they don’t last .
GM should be out of business !!

Audi and BMW break down a ton

I would take an Acura

not even close. TESLA wins by landslide. you will go out and buy one tomorrow. you will do this. acutually you can just buy one right now in 5 minutes.... EASY


 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
not even close. TESLA wins by landslide. you will go out and buy one tomorrow. you will do this. acutually you can just buy one right now in 5 minutes.... EASY


Cost? Convenience? Does anywhere let you accelerate at that rate? Carbon footprint? I hear that some people call the electric cars "coal cars".

Tires are made from.....rubber + carbon.
 
Last edited:

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Cost? Convenience? Does anywhere let you accelerate at that rate? Carbon footprint? I hear that some people call the electric cars "coal cars".

Tires are made from.....rubber + carbon.
They still produce greenhouse gases but it's still significantly better than a traditional car. Depends how your area generates electricity as well. If your area is powered by a coal plant then its carbon footprint is going to be larger than ideal, although still smaller than that of a normal car.

People who call electric cars "coal cars" are being disingenuous. That the Model S fails to achieve a carbon footprint of zero doesn't mean it's fine to drive a Hummer.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
They still produce greenhouse gases but it's still significantly better than a traditional car. Depends how your area generates electricity as well. If your area is powered by a coal plant then its carbon footprint is going to be larger than ideal, although still smaller than that of a normal car.

People who call electric cars "coal cars" are being disingenuous. That the Model S fails to achieve a carbon footprint of zero doesn't mean it's fine to drive a Hummer.
Most electricity production in the electric car main markets (China, Asia) is heavily coal intensive, with China ratcheting up coal production enormously this year.

U.S. is not a major electric car market.

IC (internal combustion) cars are not heavy emitters now, only the old ones....easy to get them off the road, if we want to. IC cars not significant contributors to

climate problems any more, but coal-heavy electric production is the main problem going forward, as China is showing.

I think that electric transport is a greater problem for the climate worriers, and China is now dropping their support for electric cars, sales of electric going down there.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Most electricity production in the electric car main markets (China, Asia) is heavily coal intensive, with China ratcheting up coal production enormously this year.

U.S. is not a major electric car market.

IC (internal combustion) cars are not heavy emitters now, only the old ones....easy to get them off the road, if we want to. IC cars not significant contributors to

climate problems any more, but coal-heavy electric production is the main problem going forward, as China is showing.

I think that electric transport is a greater problem for the climate worriers, and China is now dropping their support for electric cars, sales of electric going down there.
They're very popular in the developed countries in Asia, which I suppose is smaller in population size compared to China and India. But more people have cars in places like Korea, Japan, and China, and even in cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Nuclear power is also available in many of these countries, which helps heaps compared to coal.

In rich countries it doesn't take much effort if at all to get the heavy emitters off the road, but that's not the case in developing countries. It does seem like companies like Tesla are trying to build cheaper EVs to try get more 20 year old smoke generator rust buckets off the roads. Model 3 was a start; hoping to see where they go from there. If parking weren't such a pain in the backside where I live, I'd consider getting a Model 3.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
They're very popular in the developed countries in Asia, which I suppose is smaller in population size compared to China and India. But more people have cars in places like Korea, Japan, and China, and even in cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Nuclear power is also available in many of these countries, which helps heaps compared to coal.

In rich countries it doesn't take much effort if at all to get the heavy emitters off the road, but that's not the case in developing countries. It does seem like companies like Tesla are trying to build cheaper EVs to try get more 20 year old smoke generator rust buckets off the roads. Model 3 was a start; hoping to see where they go from there. If parking weren't such a pain in the backside where I live, I'd consider getting a Model 3.
EV's have been growing in sales in Asia due to subsidies, but now China is dropping it's EV subsidies and sales of EV's have already declined.....nuclear power?

After what happened in Japan? Nuclear is not popular anymore.

Actually, emission levels on ICR's are now so low that they pose no climate risk....might as well just carry on, but get those old rusty emitters off the road.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
They still produce greenhouse gases but it's still significantly better than a traditional car. Depends how your area generates electricity as well. If your area is powered by a coal plant then its carbon footprint is going to be larger than ideal, although still smaller than that of a normal car.

People who call electric cars "coal cars" are being disingenuous. That the Model S fails to achieve a carbon footprint of zero doesn't mean it's fine to drive a Hummer.
Do you have a thorough comparison between an electric vehicle like Tesla and a conventional car, and by thourough I don't mean the carbon footprint from driving on electricity vs gas? For that matter, do you have a chart about the efficiency of using electricity vs ICE. How much are losses in each case from the source to the end user? What happens with the used batteries from an EV?

Also, it is funny to me that people talk about EV and specifically Tesla as though Physics doesn't apply to them. Pray tell, what is the rate of exhausting the life of a car tire, if you apply the so much advertised accelerations from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds. Normal? Faster than a car that achieves it in, say 6.5 sec? Lower? What are tires made of?

 
Last edited:

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Do you have a thorough comparison between an electric vehicle like Tesla and a conventional car, and by thourough I don't mean the cartoon footprint from driving on electricity vs gas? For that matter, do you have a chart about the efficiency of using electricity vs ICE. How much are losses in each case from the source to the end user? What happens with the used batteries from an EV?
There are quite a few different places to get stats, and you can always google them yourself if you want to collate all that

But interestingly Tesla finally released some stats on its footprint recently:
The company put a total on its worldwide carbon dioxide output in a single year: 282,000 metric tons of CO2 released, directly and indirectly, across its facilities, energy operations, network of car chargers, and sales and delivery services in 2017. This data establishes a baseline, allowing investors and other observers to detect a trend in future reports.

...

Tesla said it has sold more than 550,000 electric vehicles, for example, with more than 10 billion miles driven. That works out to saving over 4 million metric tons of CO2 compared to conventional driving. Tesla explained this math as follows: “This is the equivalent of saving emissions from being released into the environment from over 500K ICE vehicles with a fuel economy of 22 miles per gallon.”

The report had hard numbers on energy—Tesla said its solar generation of 13.25 terrawatt hours far exceeds the energy consumption of its fleet of cars on the road, at 5.26 terrawatt hours—but provided fewer specifics about worker safety at its auto factory in Fremont, California or the efficiency of its battery gigafactory in Nevada.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/tesla-s-first-impact-report-puts-hard-number-on-co2-emissions

In the absence of new battery technology, it's unlikely that their battery tech is green (to put it mildly), but if the rest of Tesla's numbers can be believed it's a step in the right direction. The Model S was initially designed to make EVs palatable for the general public who associate them with poor performance and ugly designs (although the latter is very much a matter of taste). But given that EVs are still a developing tech, there's still room for improvement, whereas traditional cars have had over 100 years to get to where they are now.
Also, it is funny to me that people talk about EV and specifically Tesla as though Physics doesn't apply to them. Pray tell, what is the rate of exhausting the life of a car tire, if you apply the so much advertised accelerations from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds. Normal? Faster than a car that achieves it in, say 6.5 sec? Lower? What are tires made of?
The point of EVs is that they have a smaller but not insignificant impact on the environment, not that they next to no carbon footprint.

When did I suggest that the laws of physics does not apply to Tesla? Stop putting words in my mouth.
 

Azure

Legend
Do you have a thorough comparison between an electric vehicle like Tesla and a conventional car, and by thourough I don't mean the cartoon footprint from driving on electricity vs gas? For that matter, do you have a chart about the efficiency of using electricity vs ICE. How much are losses in each case from the source to the end user? What happens with the used batteries from an EV?

Also, it is funny to me that people talk about EV and specifically Tesla as though Physics doesn't apply to them. Pray tell, what is the rate of exhausting the life of a car tire, if you apply the so much advertised accelerations from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds. Normal? Faster than a car that achieves it in, say 6.5 sec? Lower? What are tires made of?

Interesting point, also I don't see why a passenger automobile needs to be advertised such. That's super fast. For example the city limits for car speed here is 40 kmph within urban limits. At a traffic signal I would be very worried if I am a pedestrian just finishing my walk across the street, the street lights changing colour, and a giant trash can on wheels is accelerating to 60 mph in 3 secs from 0.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Interesting point, also I don't see why a passenger automobile needs to be advertised such. That's super fast. For example the city limits for car speed here is 40 kmph within urban limits. At a traffic signal I would be very worried if I am a pedestrian just finishing my walk across the street, the street lights changing colour, and a giant trash can on wheels is accelerating to 60 mph in 3 secs from 0.
The point of the Model S when it was first announced was to win over those people who thought EVs would never be viable because they performed poorly, hence the aggressive styling and 0-60 times.

Also, people usually aren't jerky enough to put the pedal to the metal at a traffic light in the CBD, and those who do don't tend to be Tesla / EV drivers.

Quite a few BMW drivers though, which is a shame because I love BMWs.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
There are quite a few different places to get stats, and you can always google them yourself if you want to collate all that

But interestingly Tesla finally released some stats on its footprint recently:


Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/tesla-s-first-impact-report-puts-hard-number-on-co2-emissions

In the absence of new battery technology, it's unlikely that their battery tech is green (to put it mildly), but if the rest of Tesla's numbers can be believed it's a step in the right direction. The Model S was initially designed to make EVs palatable for the general public who associate them with poor performance and ugly designs (although the latter is very much a matter of taste). But given that EVs are still a developing tech, there's still room for improvement, whereas traditional cars have had over 100 years to get to where they are now.

The point of EVs is that they have a smaller but not insignificant impact on the environment, not that they next to no carbon footprint.

When did I suggest that the laws of physics does not apply to Tesla? Stop putting words in my mouth.
"Smaller" is not a satisfactory answer. Until someone is able to make a thourough head to head comparison from the carbon footprint of the produced electricity to the environmental effects of disposing of the technology for a similar class vehicles that sort of talk is advertising to me. Has Tesla released their answer for the used batteries?

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am saying that in the praise that is directed towards the EV there are points that are missing, and interestingly are not addressed.

Interesting point, also I don't see why a passenger automobile needs to be advertised such. That's super fast. For example the city limits for car speed here is 40 kmph within urban limits. At a traffic signal I would be very worried if I am a pedestrian just finishing my walk across the street, the street lights changing colour, and a giant trash can on wheels is accelerating to 60 mph in 3 secs from 0.
I understand that it is a selling point and it can be beneficial if used sensibly (such acceleration would, for example, help with faster overtaking which in theory should reduce the risk of collisions with incoming cars), but we know that once people are hooked with that sort of ads they will want to use them, because what is the point otherwise. BTW, Tesla starts from 37 000 dollars, a VW Golf starts from 20 000 or such. It is not an insubstantial difference, so it is not even a sensible choice for a normal buyer unless he wants to subsidise the car producer of an EV whoever that might be.

 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The point of the Model S when it was first announced was to win over those people who thought EVs would never be viable because they performed poorly, hence the aggressive styling and 0-60 times.

Also, people usually aren't jerky enough to put the pedal to the metal at a traffic light in the CBD, and those who do don't tend to be Tesla / EV drivers.

Quite a few BMW drivers though, which is a shame because I love BMWs.
There was never a discussion about EVs performing poorly in the sense of super sports car. That is a myth perpetuated by the EV manufacturers (or one in particular). The discussion about performing poorly was about range and convenience, not about comparison with Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

 

Enga

Hall of Fame
The ideal car for me is probably whatever is the most massively produced, cheap, and reliable. I think if I had a car I would be interested in track days. For that I think you definitely want something low powered for a beginner, cheap, with replacement parts aplenty because the car will probably get damaged. Later on, if I get good at driving and have a lot of money, I might go for the new Corvette. The absolute dream car for me would be a Dodge Viper. :p
 

Azure

Legend
The point of the Model S when it was first announced was to win over those people who thought EVs would never be viable because they performed poorly, hence the aggressive styling and 0-60 times.

Also, people usually aren't jerky enough to put the pedal to the metal at a traffic light in the CBD, and those who do don't tend to be Tesla / EV drivers.

Quite a few BMW drivers though, which is a shame because I love BMWs.
Understand and I agree with the part below from @Tennis_Hands as well which is my biggest fear.
we know that once people are hooked with that sort of ads they will want to use them,
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
"Smaller" is not a satisfactory answer. Until someone is able to make a thourough head to head comparison from the carbon footprint of the produced electricity to the environmental effects of disposing of the technology for a similar class vehicles that sort of talk is advertising to me. Has Tesla released their answer for the used batteries?
This doesn't make sense unless you're assuming that the data they have not released is damaging to the point that it cancels out or even exceeds the data they have released.

We can only draw conclusions based on the information that we have at hand, and reserve the right to revise our views on the matter if new information arises. The information Tesla have currently released is favourable, but they haven't released data on their battery production / disposal yet. So we asterisk that and give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.

That you'd discount everything because they haven't released stats that is unlikely to be favourable seems extreme. Not saying you should fall for Tesla's statements hook, line, and sinker either.
Understand and I agree with the part below from @Tennis_Hands as well which is my biggest fear.
And traditional automakers haven't done the same for the last 50-100 years?
 

Azure

Legend
And traditional automakers haven't done the same for the last 50-100 years?
They have and they continue to make the same mistakes :( in cities, the advantage of having a car (in places where public transportation is bad) is to take people from point A to point B. Modern motorbikes and cars are coming up with greater and greater pick up speeds akin to sports vehicles. Let me give you a background. A colleague's brother was waiting at a traffic junction last Friday on a low powered motorbike. When the signal turned from red to green, a car driver hit his motor bike. The guy fell off his bike and hurt his head. He died on Saturday. The culprit is clearly the car driver who revved up his engine by stepping on the accelerator pedal with a vengeance. The motor bike was not capable of such speeds. Pick up speeds are to be regulated IMO.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
This doesn't make sense unless you're assuming that the data they have not released is damaging to the point that it cancels out or even exceeds the data they have released.

We can only draw conclusions based on the information that we have at hand, and reserve the right to revise our views on the matter if new information arises. The information Tesla have currently released is favourable, but they haven't released data on their battery production / disposal yet. So we asterisk that and give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.

That you'd discount everything because they haven't released stats that is unlikely to be favourable seems extreme. Not saying you should fall for Tesla's statements hook, line, and sinker either.

And traditional automakers haven't done the same for the last 50-100 years?
"We" don't give them the benefit of the doubt, as that is a known and huge problem, or do you suggest that until they release their answers that concern doesn't apply to them?

 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
"We" don't give them the benefit of the doubt, as that is a known and huge problem, or do you suggest that until they release their answers that concern doesn't apply to them?

Concern is fine. Dismissing the whole thing is not, unless you have the stats to prove that their supposed carbon savings is entirely cancelled out or exceeded by the environmental impact of their batteries.

You’re saying that there’s not enough data that shows (conclusively) EVs are better for the environment; that much I can agree with, fair enough.

But to say that it’s all marketing requires you to provide evidence, because now you’re making an assertion that the negative impact of their battery tech (and other unreleased data) ⩾ their environmentally-friendly “savings”, and you’ve not provided any.

So in the absence of that I can only conclude for the time being that EVs are looking pretty good right now, and reserve my right to change my mind if and only if the information you’re looking for is released and it shows that it eclipses the favourable stats that we do have at hand.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Concern is fine. Dismissing the whole thing is not, unless you have the stats to prove that their supposed carbon savings is entirely cancelled out or exceeded by the environmental impact of their batteries.

You’re saying that there’s not enough data that shows (conclusively) EVs are better for the environment; that much I can agree with, fair enough.

But to say that it’s all marketing requires you to provide evidence, because now you’re making an assertion that the negative impact of their battery tech (and other unreleased data) ⩾ their environmentally-friendly “savings”, and you’ve not provided any.

So in the absence of that I can only conclude for the time being that EVs are looking pretty good right now, and reserve my right to change my mind if and only if the information you’re looking for is released and it shows that it eclipses the favourable stats that we do have at hand.
The negative impact of batteries on the environment is well known, so do you require evidence for that, or you require evidence for Tesla's own batteries, for which little is known of how they plan to go about.

You are relying on the information that is provided by one of the sides on that matter, so you do so at your own peril. Unless they come out with a plan and data for their battery disposal I put their batteries on equal footing with all other batteries (only with much larger impact, obviously, as those are now industrial batteries).

It is THEIR claim that they are with lesser carbon print per unit, so it is on them to prove that. I am just pointing out one aspect of what they haven't covered. For all I care, I am not buying an EV just because some snowflake wants to feel better about himself. Recently we were at a BMW social event where the new E-mini was presented. It looks good, and my wife is interested, and at some point we might even buy one, but we won't be doing so out of environmental concerns.

 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Why worry about the environment? It's not as if our water and food depend on it. Or that a degraded environment makes our lives less enjoyable. Just buy a few plastic flowers and let your imagnination run wild!

I am not buying an EV just because some snowflake wants to feel better about himself. Recently we were at a BMW social event where the new E-mini was presented. It looks good, and my wife is interested, and at some point we might even buy one, but we won't be doing so out fo environmental concerns
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Why worry about the environment? It's not as if our water and food depend on it. Or that a degraded environment makes our lives less enjoyable. Just buy a few plastic flowers and let your imagnination run wild!
I just choose not to be a hypocrite and also am a realist. I realise that my standards for what is acceptable is vastly different than that of people in other positions, and while one might say that those that are in a better position should lead the way, I say to them let those in the best position do that. I refuse to take the brunt of politics that won't even touch the people with the greatest impact just to have a position. Obviously, I can afford that, as nothing of what you say will have a serious impact on my personal life, so I am not going to pretend otherwise.

If we look at the matter on a large scale, the Western world has absolutely no right to pretend that they are doing "the right thing" as we are responsible for a consumerism on a scale not seen before in the history of humanity, and as much as we want to talk about our "principled" position we live in an excess that is not in accordance with that philosophy of caring about the environment. I would like to say that I do my share of environmental protection, by choosing to have various things that are sustainable and employ skilled labor rather than machines, and I choose to not fly as much as possible, I recycle heavily, and all my homes are equipped with solar and heat pumps, but that is as much as I am willing to do. Philosophical approach towards protecting the environment, when I play a sport with synthetic shoes, graphite and composite racquets, plastic racquet bags and apparel, courts made of asphalt and industrially produced surfaces etc is hypocricy. It is 100% harmful to the environment in its pointless purpose (enjoyment).

 
Top