<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
You have to take what the automotive journalists say with a grain of salt. Ray and I overheard journalists at the NY Autoshow when the GTR first came out talking about how great the v8 under the hood is! It's their JOB and they still don't have a clue<br>
<br>
<br>
kieran<br>
<br>
<div id="htc_header" style="">----- Reply message -----<br>
From: "Ivan Chou" <chou.ivan@gmail.com><br>
Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 10:18 pm<br>
Subject: Current make/model successors to B13<br>
To: "se-r@se-r-list.org" <se-r@se-r-list.org><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Great suggestions. The Mini Cooper base might be a tad slow with a 0-60 mph of around 8.4 seconds (according to Edmunds). The Ford Focus ST specs look great, and I love how far Ford has come around in the past 20-30 years. The Civic Si fits the criteria
pretty well. I've read that the current model is a bit boring but I realize the journalists are comparing to the stiffer, 7800 RPM redline Si's of the past (which they criticized for having little off-the-line torque). All told though, I think there isn't
anything worthy to serve as spiritual successor (yet). :(
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looks like fun - Ford Focus ST first drive: <a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-focus-st-first-ride-feature">
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-focus-st-first-ride-feature</a> <br>
<br>
Ivan<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Benjamin Rockwell <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:benjamin_rockwell@yahoo.com">benjamin_rockwell@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<p>The upcoming Ford Focus ST...<a href="http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/focusst/" target="_blank">http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/focusst/</a></p>
<p>Ford has come a long way since the B13 days. If you can get past the racer boy styling, it fits the punch list pretty well.<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Ivan Chou <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:chou.ivan@gmail.com" target="_blank">chou.ivan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:1ex; border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204); border-left-width:1px; border-left-style:solid">
<div><br>
</div>
Great thread, though we've gotten far away from the original NX2000 price question. :)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>if I may ask, what are folks' opinions of a current spiritual successor? Something that continues on from the original BMW 2002 / Datsun 510 criteria - economy pricing, sporty, sips gas, deceptively quick / stealthy looking. Finally there are the "just
right" criteria with the driving experience. I'm talking about buttery shifts, nice seats, and SR20-like power band (I really miss the 3rd gear 4000-7500 RPM feel at WOT).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To me, the closest thing is the Mazda3 sedan, and that's not saying much. If we include hatches, maybe the something like the Mini Cooper S would apply, though they are relatively underpowered compared to vehicles in equivalent model years (for those
who don't keep tabs, most newer minivans can do 0-60 mph in 7.x seconds!). I've seen long-time list members with cars like the Mazdaspeed3 and Lancer Evo, but these aren't econoboxes, and don't have good fuel economy. Is it so hard for car companies to replicate
the formula? Or maybe just not profitable? <br>
<br>
The upcoming 2013 Subaru BR-Z / Scion FR-S probably have the right specs, but they are way too flashy for me. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ivan<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wc701lists@bellsouth.net" target="_blank">wc701lists@bellsouth.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:1ex; border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204); border-left-width:1px; border-left-style:solid">
On 3/13/2012 6:57 AM, Greg Amy wrote:<br>
> The Acura RSX-R is what the NX2000 *could* have been, had Nissan<br>
> delivered it to the USA with the SR20VE, a 6-speed, and a decent<br>
> interior.<br>
<br>
They changed the 2005 & 06 RSX "Type S" models a lot, and they were<br>
basically identical with the "R" in other countries. The 1991 & 92 SE-R<br>
seats were superb, and Car & Driver called them the "best ever" in a<br>
production car till the Acura NSX (not RSX) came out. One C&D writer<br>
even bitched they were "over bolstered" - this from the mag' that<br>
constantly complained about seats lacking lateral support. The NX2k<br>
seats were not as great, but I have no gripes about the interior of the<br>
B13 SE-R & NX nor the RSX. The classy yet austere interior of the RSX<br>
was a lot of was sold me on it.<br>
<br>
-Wayne<br>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+<br>
The mailing list home page is <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/" target="_blank">
http://www.se-r-list.org/</a><br>
To modify your subscription, go to <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r" target="_blank">
http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+<br>
The mailing list home page is <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/" target="_blank">
http://www.se-r-list.org/</a><br>
To modify your subscription, go to <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r" target="_blank">
http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>