Anyone have any opinions on early 2000s trucks? I think they were still proper trucks, not too fancy, just got the job done Plus they don't have this turbo v6 or even i4s if you qualify the Ridgeline as a truck Also, they still looked good with chrome, not like today's chrome-mobiles that manufacturers put out, only a few modern(ish) cars can pull off chrome (I think that the Ram pulls off chrome the best) Edit: Also, does anyone know how rare my '04 Ram 2500 is? I'll list the specs (I only ask because I've never seen any factory option trucks like it) 2004 Ram 2500 5.7 liter Hemi Magnum (don't know why they called it a Hemi Magnum) Bighorn trim RWD State police blue
I agree that Rams look really cool with that chrome. But only the Ram. I wouldn't touch a chromed F-150 with a ten foot pole. I also think the 2000's rangers look better that the new ones, as the are basically Mavericks with a different front. I'm kinda biased about rangers though as my parents own one and it is hopefully going to be mine. I think that newer trucks look really weird with those step tailgates.
Yeah, the step tailgates are only an adaption to the market of old men buying the 1/2 ton trucks and having knee problems getting in and out of the bed
The original SuperDuty is the best SuperDuty. (Or any 2000s truck.) --- Post updated --- (Before ‘98 they had the same body as the F150 and weren’t called ‘SuperDuty’. --- Post updated --- New trucks can’t take abuse. They’re weak, super expensive to repair, have a ton of useless features, and are just not tough. Basically the opposite of older trucks. Good trucks started fizzling out in the mid-2000s.
i’m honestly pretty excited for the release of the new 6th Generation Mitsubishi Triton/Strada/L200 this car honestly changed my life forever, and you betcha my dad has a 2012 Strada GLX (thats in a shop since something just shit itself) And yes, this is the XRT Concept, which is the closest thing to a reveal of the new one, which also is probably a sign for a Ralliart version which will battle the Ranger Raptor if it was revealed before next year
that doesn't look like a new generation, maybe just a minor update of the current one: The Ralliart bits do look interesting, I hope someone finally makes a proper ranger raptor competitor rather than sticking a bunch of bright red accessories on at the dealer and calling it a day. real trucks still exist, you just have to look in the right place. Long tub, single cab, no touchscreens, mechanical 4WD transfer case, manual gearbox. what more could you want?
actually, no Mitsubishi said that that's the new Triton, the current generation has been here for almost 10 years, since 2014! i think the Absolute concept will be carried over to the new generation (which is what we have here with this concept)
Has anyone mentioned the Acura integra type-s? I don’t really want to look for 15 minutes just to miss it and then someone insulting me and calling me blind.
Moving this here because it's drifting away from relevance to the piccolina. to me, whether something is a coupe or a 2 door sedan comes down to a couple of features. firstly, if it's a "sports car" which you couldn't reasonably turn into a sedan, like a 2nd gen camaro, Mercedes SL, mazda RX7, etc. then it's definitely a coupe. then, cars like the piccolina or a BMW 1602, which by function are a sedan (having no hatchback, etc.), and have no sporting pretensions built into the body design, but have 2 doors, they still classify as a sedan. but one deliniation I look back to is the 50s GM B-body cars. for instance, a posted-2-door chevy 210 is by my definition a 2 door sedan, but once that becomes a hardtop Bel Air, I'd argue it's now a coupe. similarly, where a Chevy Handyman wagon is a 2-door wagon, a Chevy Nomad is a Shooting Brake, since it possesses more "coupe" properties. these are more clear because both existed alongside each other, but I think it helps to define it more clearly. I'd say it's not about some final quantitative property of the car, but about the overall design intention: is it shaped for form (to look sleek), or for function (to give optimal headroom inside)? once again: you say it's not a sedan, what about a Renault R8, or a ford model A Fordor? the renault looks like a sedan, and has 4 doors, but it doesn't have a boot at the back, since the engine's there. But it's still a Sedan. Even the ford Model A Tudor or Fordor "Sedan", which is one of the cars that initially defined the "sedan" body style as we know it, doesn't necessarily have a trunk on the back. another piece of evidence that the silhouette doesn't define a sedan: Look at an original mini, compared to its wolseley hornet counterpart. Both of these are officially classified as "sedans", because they both have a boot in the back, which is separate from the passenger compartment, the only thing that's changed is how big the boot is. It should also be mentioned that terms like "city car", "family car", "grand tourer", "supercar", etc. aren't bodystyles, but market segments for the entire car, defined equally by the drivetrain and level of quality. You can have a van or convertible which is a city car, or a wagon, minivan, or 4x4 "SUV" wagon that's a family car, even a shooting brake or sedan as a grand tourer.
The problem is, I'm trying to come up with a model that can group physically and philosophically similar cars, for racing purposes, without having to rely on individual judgment or interpretation. Basically how I'm seeing it is this: Sports car = 2 or fewer side doors, 3 or fewer seats (to account for the McLaren F1 and its odd seating arrangement), enclosed or no cargo area (to exclude coupe utilities that would otherwise technically meet this definition). Grand tourer = 2 side doors, 4 or more seats, enclosed or no cargo area. Coupe utility = exposed cargo area but not tall enough to qualify as a light truck. Also implies bed and body are fused together rather than separate. Subcompact/compact/medium/large sedan/wagon = anything with more than 2 side doors which does not qualify as a light truck. Size class is based on wheelbase, preferably with a permanently fixed standard. [Insert size] multipurpose vehicle = defined as light truck, has enclosed cargo area. [Insert size] pickup truck = defined as light truck, has exposed cargo area. This model could classify 95% of modern (i.e. post-WWII) cars for racing purposes. Under this system, on BeamNG's car list, the 200BX, Wendover, SBR4, Barstow, Moonhawk, and 2-door Bluebuck would be grand tourers, the K-Series, Bolide, Scintilla, and technically/unfortunately Wigeon are sports cars, and the Sunburst, Pessima (both), Miramar, LeGran, 4-door Bluebuck, Grand Marshal, and other ETKs would go in sedan/wagon classes, all fairly straightforward. However, there are several problems with it: 1. 2-door rear-engine sedans like the Piccolina and its RL inspiraions, which are obviously not GTs but meet the heuristic of "two doors and a back seat", and bear few similarities to modern-concept 4-door notchback sedans. In other words, how do you separate, in terms of classification, a Piccolina/Beetle/500 from a Porsche 911, using only (preferably easy to eyeball) physical characteristics? (Other than engine displacement, which I consider a separate differentiator?) 2. 3-door hatchbacks like the Covet and its RL inspirations, which are obviously designed for practicality and should go in sedan/wagon classes, but also meet the heuristic of "two doors and a back seat". In other words, how would you separate a 3-door Ford Focus from a Ford Probe, once again based only on hard physical distinctions which leave zero room for interpretation? 3. Weird RL cars like my Veloster, which was obviously designed to be Hyundai's sporty youth model and Tiburon successor (which would push it towards "grand tourer"), but also obviously has a hatchback roofline (which would visually and philosophically push it toward "compact sedan/wagon" pending the results of problem #2), but the hatch and upper rear window go fairly deep into said roofline like a liftback (GT), and it has one door on the driver's side (GT) but two on the passenger side (CSW) - almost as if it was designed specifically to defy hard categorization. See also cars like the Mazda RX-8 and Saturn Ion coupe which are visually and spiritually coupes but have rear-hinged half-doors like an extended-cab pickup truck. Where would you place a car like that? 4. Extreme hardcore sports cars like the Caterham Seven and Ariel Atom - functionally and philosophically these are sports cars, to the point of pretty much meeting the original definition of such, but in a heads-up race they would wipe the floor with Miatas and MR2s at the same engine displacement. So should there be a different class for "pure" sports cars, and what line would you draw between them that wouldn't also drag the regrettable Plymouth Prowler, or de-fendered hot rods, into this higher class? 5. Dedicated off-roaders like the Hopper and its RL inspirations. Under this model, they would go very simply into [insert size] MPV, with the problem being that, conceptually, they are not in any way similar to the modern SUV/minivan, aren't really competing for the same buyers, and are much closer to the off-road equivalent of a sports car. With ladder-frame construction, part-time 4WD (until much more recently), and solid axles at both ends, these machines would lag behind horribly on pavement or even theoretically-maintained dirt, while being untouchable in hardcore off-roading that a circuit-type racing series would never go near. What to do with these? 6. What about factory specials that come with roll bars where the back seats would normally be? Should they be redefined as sports cars or classified based on the more ordinary models? 7. For racing, should coupe utilities even have their own category, or should they be arbitrarily grafted into some other category? Putting them against normal pickup trucks would result in a similar situation to the two types of sports cars above. Now you see the problem: I'm trying to come up with a system that completely eliminates edge cases, judgment calls, and "you know it when you see it", but still matches up to "you know it when you see it" in practice. Something that could be distilled into a flowchart, without producing any major "Wait, you're calling that car a what?" moments. So far, it hasn't been easy.
If the purpose of the categories is racing performance, body style shouldn't matter. An E46 wagon will keep pace with an equally specced E46 coupe, and a Falcon Ute will perform just as well as a Falcon sedan, save for a subtle difference in aero and chassis stiffness. I think what you should be categorising by is primarily the Size/upmarketness/sportiness/offroadiness, so using categories like city car, grand tourer, full-size, etc. Would be more useful.
The problem is, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you end up with Forza Syndrome, where cars are sorted into arbitrary, up-for-debate categories like "Offroad" and "Retro Muscle" that do a shaky job of keeping like with like - to continue the Forza example, some Track Toys could be in Modern Muscle, some cars from Modern Muscle would also be appropriate in Super Saloons, Hot Hatch and Super Hot Hatch leave notchback sport compacts homeless by using those names (when they're remembered at all, they just end up in Hot Hatch anyway, or get moved over to Super Saloons where they don't belong) and whoever thought the Mini Countryman qualified as "Offroad" needs help. But then, when type restrictions aren't enforced, a Cadillac limousine, a 1970s BMW, and a Peel can all race heads-up because their wildly varying capabilities and purposes all add up to the same performance rating. This is fine in a casual video game and inevitable on the street IRL, but not especially precise when you're looking for something that can accurately categorize any car in such a way that it couldn't be argued that a different category would suit it better.
Also coupes like the e46 arent actually used that often in racing because the chassis isnt as rigid as the sedan. I also had a overview somewhere of all types of body styles and why they are called that way but i cant find it now. Also i would have defined the coupe sedan thing more along the lines of how the c pillar stands for example on a e46 the rear of the coupe is formed diffrently to the sedan on a 2 door sedan the roofline is basically identical so it would be a 2 door sedan and not a coupe. On the topic of not being able to turn a coupe into a sedan id have to disagree though since alot of german manufacturers turn theyr 2 door coupes into 4 door "coupes" even though these imo would be more classic sedans
Again, another example of vehicle manufacturers and insurance companies team together to make people more docile.
