irish44j wrote:
belteshazzar wrote:
TURBO
Kia Optima 2.0T only got 3 1/2 stars.
Is the rating for stock performance, or "potential."
Mazda 3i and $5k and I guarantee It will be a better "performance" car than a Juke with $5k invested, except perhaps in a drag race.
I'd just like to know how that rating is determined. Seems like a "makeup call" for the usual bashing on the Juke's looks.......
maybe it was hard to judge the 3i on it's own merit when you have fresh in your mind what a speed3 drives like.
At a small local autocross back in 2005 or 2006 (IIRC) a guy in a 3i (the old one with the 2.0) thoroughly worked over a guy in a modded MS3. Total non-sequitur but it was a funny memory.
there is no reasonable excuse for producing a car that ugly and certainly no reason to ever be seen in one.
For the folks that find the "fake" gear steps a turn-off....a LOT of potential customers for cars that come only with CVTs (the 2013 Altima is now CVT only, for example) have complained that they don't care for the sounds/sensations produced by the CVT as the car under consideration is driven rapidly. There are folks who want that sensation of a gearchange and think there is something wrong with a car does not produce it.
And I can imagine the "average" new car buyer hasn't driven many FEET, much less miles on a snowmobile so they can't compare(?) the sensation.
I've never driven a CVT-equipped car, but have driven a car with a manual transmission and a slipping clutch...I'm told that a car with a CVT sounds and feels like it has a slipping clutch.
BTW, a CVT can be "programmed" to mimic a car with several gears, but just like most customers don't use their "Tiptronic-style" transmissions like a manual...and shift gears for themselves (except, maybe, on the ride home from the dealer) most car companies aren't building "stepped" CVTs.
Yeah, so I guess I'm trolling or something, but sometimes it's hard to get your Juke fix. Since you guys were discussing it I thought I'd check in with some owner perspective.
The CVT has a regular mode and manual shift mode, but to tell the truth, I don't need the fake shifts because I understand how the CVT works and kept an open mind so I adapted very quickly. Some people can't. They just obsess about how the sounds and sensations aren't the same and never get over it. I'm assuming the manual gate is there for them and not for those who are looking to sport things up. I mean, it's auto rev matched and everything so it feels very video game-like and not so much the way a manual trans fan would want anyway. There's no real reason to use it often, but it does come in handy when climbing very steep hills etc. The normal mode actually feels faster even though it isn't exactly. For a CVT it's really is sharp, probably less rubberbandish than most people expect. Where it really shines is 35mph and over. It's probably the best type of transmission ever for the freeway/interstate. Passing is effortless and refined in a way that makes stepped transmissions feel almost comically crude.
Anyway, I highly recommend the Juke.... for the right people. It IS a sporting machine but not in a traditional sports car kind of way. It's really more of a small economy hatchback with some serious roid rage. I've got 7" of ground clearance, practically non-existent front and rear overhangs, torque vectoring AWD, nearly 200 HP, and my turbo only needs to spool up once cuz o my CVT. I can hit bumps/dips/ramps/driveways at speeds that would peel half the mechanical bits right out from under a regular car and I can still get around in the winter when deep snow has other cars in the ditch. I might not be able to haul much stuff, but I had enough room for a 52in TV with the seats folded down and I seldom need more than that. Plus the tight rear seating keeps annoying people from saying stuff like "can we just ride with you?". Simply put, the Juke is the most omni-capable little runabout on the market.
I know many of you are still saying I could have had all that and more in a gently used WRX, and I could've, but there's a BIG difference.... the insurance premiums. Even with so-so mileage and taste for premium fuel, the Juke makes a way better case for itself as far as running costs.
i understand why they fake the gears in a CVT, but it's a dumb reason, and i'm trying not to support dumb.
irish44j wrote:
one other complaint about the "performance potential" rating.
You give the Juke, an econo-hatch with big tires, CVT and a good engine, 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.
You give the Mazda 3i, a sport compact in need of some power, 3 stars.
The Juke has more "performance potential" than a Mazda3? Really? What defines such potential? Autocross, trackwork, drag, availability of performance parts?
Each staffer adds in their own "performance potential" rating, along with the other ratings. What you see is a cumulative ranking from all the staff members that commented on the car.
I'm sure you could get a Skyactiv Mazda 3 to out autocross a Juke, but the Nissan is already quicker, and feels more nimble than the Mazda. Yes the Juke has a higher COG, but it because of this it would make for a fun rallycrosser. Between the cars it is kind of a wash....with a slight edge to the Juke.
Either car with an extra $5K thrown at it could be made into a formidable performer, but I'm not sure the 3 would come out on top. I'm also not sure how eager the Skyactiv engine would accept forced induction, or other mods, where the Juke already is turbocharged, and we've seen it in modified form. (Deltawing)
That said---try not to put too much emphasis on the "performance potential" . It is a pretty arbitrary figure.
ddavidv
PowerDork
7/27/12 4:36 p.m.
The Juke is stupid looking in a way that would keep me from ever considering one no matter how good it may be. The Caterham 7 is stupid looking in a "I don't care how ridiculous it looks, I'm having insane fun" way.
The Juke really is just another crossover that just happens to take ugly to a new level. Too many viable alternatives that don't look as idiotic means it will be the Pontiac Aztec of it's age.
