>>8274 You know, I still don't understand why to this day they don't mount a separate battery inside the door panel for the windows, like a TV remote. That way you can adjust them when the engine's not on. That's the one main Achilles' heel they've always had to manual windows. The one thing that could potentially render them dangerous in the event of a crash which damages the engine/battery and you are unable to exit your vehicle through the doors.

A good quality, multi stage silver paint job is one of the best things you can put on your car. Fuck your current year style happy meme colors like mango yellow and estoril blue.

>>7959 >>7959 >The SC takes care of the low rev range, the turbo comes on during the mid-range, and then the SC turns off leaving the turbo to take it through the rest of the rev range absolute masturbatory faggotry. increase displacement. ported cylinder head. high overlap. t. automotive engineer

>>9135 You don't need a battery in the door to operate the windows without the ignition on. Have you seen cars with pillar-less doors or convertibles in which windows lower by a quarter of an inch when you open the door? or cars where the windows remain operable for 30 seconds after you turn the ignition off? That's the windows operating with the ignition off, just not how you want them to. It's just software, the only thing making the windows inoperable (by the user) when you have the keys in your pocket is the software going "nope" when you press the switch.

I dislike EFI, and here's why. I get that it can compensate for changes in conditions more quickly and accurately than a carb, but with that comes a lot of extra shit you have to add. And all that extra shit, every sensor, every relay, every solenoid, every connection, every millimeter of extra wire, every single component on the circuit board of every control unit, and whatever the hell else you have to add becomes a failure point. Many of which can cause a single point failure. For people in my line of work, that's a dirty word. I understand that it's solid enough nowadays that such a failure is exceedingly unlikely, but I'd rather avoid the risk. I'm not saying get rid of it, just that I avoid it if possible in my own builds. although I will say EFI in classic cars is sacrilege t.former usnavy reactor electronics technician

>>14492 This. Carbs were much easier to maintain in garage, while if any part of efi unit kills itself, you are screwed 95% of the times.

>>14489 Your opinion's not unpopular, most people drive boring cuck colours like black, grey, silver, beige, etc because they're afraid of displaying any masculine energy. Bright colours are for Chads who aren't afraid to be bold and high visibility.

>>7948 I think the NC miata is quite nice and a whole lot of thought was put into it. It's also built for manlets, which I am, so it's cool.

>>7948 >Why the hell would you want to WAIT until you have gone through 70% of your revs before you get any significant power? With the right gearing, that's only a problem in 1st gear, after which you can stay in the power band. I agree that extreme cases of this are pure shit, though. >LS swaps are supremely overdone I agree I have a huge boner for turbo diesels and I think more sports cars should have aluminum block diesel engines. My favorite car would be an Ariel Atom with a 1.4l TDi.

It should be legal in Europe to register a vehicle with no missing sales/registration papers. I am currently restoring a 125cc Minsk, and the papers are from 1991. Kolhoz signed the sales paper, but did not give it to the police for registration. I have the papers, will report back this week to see where this leads.

>>15546 Typo: >with no/missing sales/registration

>>15533 Loud colors are half assed middle ground for wannabe Chads that are afraid to go full Itasha

>>15549 Unpopular opinion: Itasha is god tier taste visual modding

>>8313 I have a 97' BMW that still has a crank and holy fucking shit on the backseat side these things take so much strength to crank up. The front ones are fine though, its been a long long time since I've dealt with cranks

>>14489 Its just dull, only reason I've never cared for them. I like colors such as >>15533 mentions like blue or red. I do however love black but every car I've owned except for my current one have had that color so its nice to change it up.

>>15546 That doesn't seem unpopular to me at all. A lack of government oversight would make everything easier, especially owning cool autos. >>15554 Sounds like a good opportunity to get big arms.

>>15549 I would go full itasha if I could make it into a livery sort of thing. However, aren't itasha just regular cars with a vinyl wrap? How much money goes into that, exactly? Does anyone daily an itasha? Inquiring minds wish to know.

>>15568 a standard wrap can set you back a couple of grands, don't know about itashit

>>celica biggest poser car The 2ZZ-GE seems like a pretty cool engine 1ZZs can fuck off though

>>7948 >Stock is the lamest possible look for a car and improved by practically any customization at all. >The more chrome details, the better. You literally cannot overdo them. >Big rims are irrelevant, only the overall size of the tires matters. >Flame paintjobs are cool. >Fins would improve literally every single car ever made. No exceptions.

Unpopular opinion I like the 03 and 04 mustangs over the 05 and new ones.

The two stroke engine is a superior concept, bested only by variable displacement wankel overhead valves should fuck off

Diesel engines are better for small cars than gasoline engines.

>>15944 No, pretty sure that's a patrician /o/pinion. '05 Mustang was a cheap, nostalgic cashgrab that took the original design and fattened it up. The one before it may have been on a 25 year old chassis, but it was a hell of a lot more fearsome.

>>15949 The mustang boomers will say is "not a real mustang" The kid next door to me has one he modded a bunch, seems to enjoy himself with it,

>>15948 It´s not unpopular in EU.

>>15751 >>Stock is the lamest possible look for a car and improved by practically any customization at all. While it is easy to make cars look worse than stock (see: what black people do to their cars), almost any kind of reasonable customization is an improvement. >>The more chrome details, the better. You literally cannot overdo them. Agreed. Everything should be shiny and chrome. >>Big rims are irrelevant, only the overall size of the tires matters. Big rims are a necessary evil for getting bigger brake rotors. Nothing screams "I'm an idiot" quite like oversized rims and regular rotors. >>Flame paintjobs are cool. It goes with item 1. Not my style, but better than stock >>Fins would improve literally every single car ever made. No exceptions. I'm unclear whether you're referring to wings or Finnish people, but both are correct. Some of my own now: >Diesel sports cars are pure sex >All electronics are bad. ABS just makes people slide out at higher speeds. >EFI, like other electronics, is also bad. Injection is great, but it should be mechanical. >Modern interiors are dumb. You should have gauges for everything, and chrome toggle switches are the epitome of dash controls >All interior lights should be red, and backlit gauges should be banned. I would like to be able to see at night. >It should be considered self-defence, and thus legal, to hunt down and shoot people who use HID bulbs and don't dip the high beams when there's oncoming traffic. This is probably not that unpopular of an opinion >I unironically like super eurobeat

Lowering your car is completly stupid, not because I think it looks ugly or anything, but because, by lowering your center of gravity, you lose downforce and therefore lose traction, this is specially relevant in FWD cars. >inb4 muh cornering Most Ricers just care about acceleration in a straight line.

>>15959 >higher center of gravity means more downforce You sure on this? I am not. A little lowering is ok, there might be a reason why are all asphalt-only sportscars so low. If Formula One and some others did not have restrictoins, cars would be so low you could hardly fit a paper page under them. Pic somewhat related, sport Volgas.

>>15960 Yes, by lowering your car you sacrifise downforce on the wheels, but gain a big advantage when cornerning. Since ricers don't really care about cornering, they should not lower their cars if they had half a brain

>>15963 >by lowering your car you sacrifise downforce on the wheels I think you're horribly confused. How the fuck does lowering your center of gravity give you less aerodynamic downforce?

>>15963 >Yes, by lowering your car you sacrifise downforce on the wheels It's the opposite. Why do you think F1 are so low?

>>15948 What >>15952 said Some of the diesel engines in EU are insanely good and have a lot of power for their size. There's 1.0 Ecoboost shitbox engines that produce over 130hp. It actually makes diesel shitboxes more fun to drive in city and even country roads and you tend to get the benefits of having a cheapass car to run Merkel naturally wants to put an end to all this and spoil it for the rest of EU

>>15976 1 liter overboosted engines, particularly 3-cyl ones, are silly at no matter what horsepower figure. They tend to not live longer than 5-6 years at best, then it's a full rebuild.

>>15982 >6 years and rebuild I have a 16 yo Renault Clio 1.2 dci which still runs like a charm with only regular maintenance, but thanks for your insight.