Flutterby™! : Dodge against robocars 2011-05-25 16:27:54.719014+00

Dodge against robocars

2011-05-25 16:27:54.719014+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments

Echoing Jeff's feelings about human control of cars: Brad Ideas: Dodge leading human resistance to robocars.

#Comment Re: made: 2011-05-25 16:56:03.086118+00 by: ebradway [edit history]

Wow... I have to admit I really like those ads. The first ad even visually invokes the tunnel car scene in I, Robot where Will Smith is accused of causing an accident because he was driving his Audi manually (despite the fact that it was a small army of robots that were trying to kill him).

Of course, the Dodge Charger sucks when it comes to driving in traffic. I've rented one and almost clobbered several people even after I was aware of the monster blind spots. Also, with the standard engine in the rental I had, it was a slug.

In the online Porsche community I used to hang out in, it was common knowledge that improvements in the "fun factor" of a 911 was not in the engine compartment. Driving lessons followed by some minor suspension tweaks came recommended.

My '86 911 only delivered about 200hp to the wheels. Pretty anemic by today's standards. But the car was a blast to drive. This has always been the design philosophy of Lotus (base model Elise only delivers 134HP to the wheels - 50% less than my 2010 Mazda3). I think Mini gets this as well. Fun to drive doesn't equate with giant engine.

There's a bit of irony here as the first car I ever owned was a 1973 Dodge Charger. It had the two-barrel carburetor 318 cubic inch small block engine which I believe was rated at 230 SAE horsepower at the time. My life timing allowed me to just miss the muscle car era of the 1960s.

Eric--I totally agree that you don't need lots of power for fun. I bought a well preserved 1997 Mazda M-Edition Miata four years ago and have never looked back. Even with cold air intake and a few other engine mods it's only producing about 155-160 hp. But the handling and the fun-factor are off the scale.