Im really digging the looks of the stagea currently espacially this one wich starts at 10000 yen but the condition is only grade 3
According to me, that equals no proper maintenance. Maybe the interior is the most worn out, the exterior looks fine from what I can tell.
Yeah thats probably why its so cheap but there are some good conditioned ones too wich usually cost around 3k
Are they expensive in parts? I'm not getting a valid price on ANY part of the model. (I found one for the same chassis, but it says EUR, which means that I have to translate the price to American.
Like he's the only one who dislikes downsizing. That kinda reminds me of how I witnessed two dudes (one in a W212, the other one had an F10) trying to overtake (what a coincidence) a G35 coupe, whose driver wasn't even in a hurry. They managed it, albeit with the BMW driving past it on the sidewalk and Mercedes barely escaping being crushed between a truck and a bus. ("Bonus points" to Mercedes driver for talking on the phone while doing all that) So, I'd say, overtaking someone in traffic isn't something to boast about. I don't think it looks better than contemporary EUDM wagons, I'd say its front is even kind of ugly.
The first one that fits that chassis is 77.07 in EUR. http://www.ebay.ie/itm/NISSAN-STAGE...782969?hash=item2cc1ab3139:g:EoMAAOSwax5YpbV8
Eudm wagons do look better but if you see millions of them in grey driving around here you do apreciate something diffrent i love it more to see a wrx sti than the 10th porsche 911 in black or gray in a day
I really don't get you guys whining about motors getting smaller. You were ok with the 1999 Honda Accord's 2.0l i4 making 150hp and 152ft-lbs, but now that Ford has a 1.5L i4 making 181hp and 185ft-lb you whine about it? The 2010 Mustang GT made less power than the first generation 3.5l EcoBoost, and the new EcoBoost is making ungodly amounts of power, but you're complaining? Forced induction is the future, and while I hope superchargers stick around, turbos are better now. A decade ago it would've been nearly impossible to get 600hp out of any motor without massive amounts of custom work, and now Mercedes has a 4.0l v8 making that much power without breaking a sweat. How big of a V8 would you have needed to match the 450hp and 510ft-lb of torque from the new 3.5l EcoBoost? Especially with most of that torque coming on well before it's 3500rpm peak. With how well these cars drive there's no reason not to like them. Specifically the Ford Expedition with the EcoBoost, literally feels like a NA engine with a magical amount of extra torque.I want to see an EcoBoost Mustang GT with the 5.0 v8 getting the TT treatment, but I'm not sure they'll need to with the incredible amount of power and response they've gotten out of the 2018 GT. And I love NA engines, I'm just wondering why you hate all these new and objectively better engines. And this is enough to convince me you're a troll. Have you actually driven a pre-electronic auto? Of course you have, and you know they suck beyond belief, but you can't admit that because you have a strange compulsion to go on and on about it.
Of course I am. Why shouldn't I? Would choose that engine over Ford's 1.5 without doubt. Also 150 hp is enough if you just need to drive around in the city, no need for more.
So you'd choose the engine that's less fuel efficient, has less torque and less power? Got any idea how backwards that sounds?
We were OK with the Accord because 1. there were bigger engines above it on the food chain, it was just the base model, 2. there was room to grow as it already made sufficient power as a 2.0L NA, so if you just wanted some quick power gains things like intakes and exhausts were replaceable, and if you wanted to go full insane you could still turbo it and get even more power, and 3. I guess it just... felt right for a base model engine in a car of that size. I also suspect that the idea of "500cc per cylinder" hadn't quite managed to become boring yet, mainly because it wasn't constantly being combined with turbos and then used to replace larger N/A engines. Now the cars are getting ever larger & heavier due to feature & safety creep, but the engines are getting smaller instead of larger to match. Now you've got these engines that put out more power from the factory, but they're tiny and already force-fed so there's less power for a shade-tree mechanic to tease out and a lower overall power ceiling in general, especially when they start doing stupid stuff like casting the exhaust manifold and cylinder head in one piece. We're heading towards a point where, instead of having "enough" power to start and then plenty of extra hiding within, engines are optimized to do their main job and no more. And I don't hate all turbo engines. It's about context. I don't have a problem with the 3.5 Turbo in the Taurus SHO (other than it being called "Eco" Boost), as it's a sports version of the base engine which itself is reasonably sized for the car, and has been proven to have some tuning room built in. The closest metaphor I can think of for the SHO is "Supra sedan". Even in the Explorer, I can't really hate it because the Explorer isn't really a true SUV anymore anyway. It's a little more annoying in the F-150 due to impersonating a V8 in a full-size pickup. Now if they replaced the 5.0L in the Mustang GT with a hyped-up 3.5L turbo, it'd be torches & pitchforks time, even if the V6 was "objectively better". For some reason I don't feel quite the same way with the GT, probably because the supercar class has held so many different approaches over the years that the "proper size" range is basically anything above 3 liters NA or 2.0-2.2 turbo. Honestly, that bit was secondhand and based on a comparison of a 198X Corvette with a 199X Buick Roadmaster. They had the same automatic transmission, but the Buick had the fancy electronic one while the Corvette didn't. End result, the Corvette responded to more throttle with prompt downshifts, while the Buick dithered around for what seemed like forever before realizing that you really weren't kidding when you stomped on the gas. The point is, the older ones were just plain incapable of second-guessing the driver. Electronics can theoretically give truly instant responses, but the vast majority of the time that's not how OEMs use them.
I find it interesting that the first time I hear about the Ecoboost, it's the '15 Mustang only because that's the only one that has it in the name.
Oh well. I did the impossible today and fixed a car alarm. Apparently electronics on cars are unfixable. Nah. Alarm has been going off for a week Talk about cherry picking your automatics. Traditional non electronic automatics were notorious for constant second guessing and a complete lack of response, --- Post updated --- You've been living under a rock
