Beretta.net

This was amusing, and kinda sad. Also a little stupid, as I think the author must have been living in a hole for the last twenty years, as some of the features listed had been 'disappearing' thirty years ago... His comment about nobody missing manual windows but the chronically forgetful is wrong too, I prefer manual windows over power, and I know of at least three other people that do too. If it was just because I kept forgetting to close the windows before turning off the ignition, I would simply re-route the power supply to them...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/6-disappe ... 17982.html

There are 11 total features listed if you delve deeply enough into the article, including a note about spare tires. We looked at the Mazda RX-8 when it first came out, it didn't even come standard with a spare at all! "It has road-side assistance, you don't need a spare." That is great, provided that there is no where you can drive without cell-phone coverage... At the time, our commutes included a 35-minute drive through a steep twisty canyon that had zero cell-coverage for over 80% of it. Kind of stupid not to offer at least a donut-spare...

my 2010 chevy cobalt has a manual transmission, keys, crank windows, antenna, i actually had to check for a spare when i got, but i has that too, no ABS, yes, thats right, no anti-lock braking system and it has no air conditioning(this is still unbelievably an option these days.. and its pretty basic with everything else too.

Not all cobalts came with a doughnut spare. Some just include a can of fix-a-flat.

Speedy, it sounds like you may have gotten one of the last of the truly drivable, basic cars (if the car parks itself at the push of a button, I don't consider the car truly drivable, I also consider it more steering than driving when behind the wheel of an automatic too, just my personal bias), good find, I say!

Honestly, how ridiculous is it not to have a spare tire? I'm not being rhetorical here, despite the fact that I find it idiotic not to have one, is it just the view-point from someone who was around when every car simply had a full-size spare and the advent of donuts was a head-shaking event? Cars never came from the dealership with a spare fan-belt (yeah, I know, 'accessory' belt is more correct now), and I don't remember thinking that to be stupid, though it kind of is, we simply went out and bought one to toss in the trunk after we got stuck and learned our lesson... Most motorcycles come with a tool-kit stashed in a chintzy little pouch somewhere, but cars generally don't, why not? What car comes with a spare battery, despite the fact that you would almost certainly be stranded with a dead one? They don't even come with jumper-cables... So why a spare tire and jack? Stupid not to, or just tradition to have one? I would love to have a spare engine in my cars, just a little Briggs and Stratton-type job, something that can limp you home when you throw a rod, you know? And how about a clutch that can be changed on the side of the road in half an hour with a single wrench, I'd like one of those, too.

rettax3, you dont appreciate abs until you lack it in your daily driver, especially with the cobalts tiny narrow tires, if i lock up the brakes, im along for the ride, and it seems everytime i get some fresh tires on it, someone pulls out in front of me causing me to lock them up, then listen to da da da da da da da da da da for the next 20,000 miles

I've actually owned a number of cars with ABS, my '95 Z-26, both '97 Z-24s, my Plymouth van, and my '92 Grand Am had it. On really bad snowy roads, my Turbo Z-24 (un-stuckable winter car) and Z-26 were both nice to have with the ABS, and the Grand Am stopped faster than any car I've ever driven on dry roads. But I can do without it just fine, thank you very much. One of my most enjoyable cars not only has no ABS, it has no power brakes, in fact it has no brake discs at all -it is 3400 pounds of four-wheel drum car, and it stops very nicely. My oldest car is also four-wheel drum, although it has the optional power brakes -and it stops on a dime so long as the car is going forwards, backwards it can barely be slowed down.

But I don't hate on ABS specifically, cars that take over and drive for you just plain disgust me. Why do people find this acceptable? Don't they realize that by supporting this technology they are paving the way for regulations that prohibit people from driving their own cars someday? "Why, it just isn't safe to allow people to actually drive their own cars, people make mistakes." Machines (built and programmed by people) never do, right? There is a joke in aviation about future auto-pilots. 'Some day, the airplanes will all have an auto-pilot, a real pilot, and a dog. The real pilot's job will be to flip the switch to turn on the auto-pilot to fly the plane, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to turn off the auto-pilot or fly the plane! Well, I know all that is a long way out, but seriously, they are currently talking about requiring all new cars to have back-up cameras (because it is just too hard to turn around and look over your shoulder, or use the rear-view mirror). If you can't check behind you to see if it is clear to back up and you need a camera and proximity warning sensors, maybe you shouldn't be driving. If you need your car be beep at you and flash a picture of a cup of coffee and actually serve back into the lane for you because it senses you've changed lanes when it doesn't think you should, then maybe you simply shouldn't be driving. If you can't parallel park, maybe you shouldn't be driving (at least not to an area where you have to. Parallel parking is a tough skill to learn, but if you can't manage your vehicle that well, then maybe you should stay out of tight areas and congested locations, like cities where parallel parking is usually required). If you can't set a parking-brake except by touching a button, maybe you shouldn't be driving. If you need a computer to help you change lanes because you are too f@#!%ing dumb to check your mirrors, ... Yeah, if you don't get the idea by now, maybe you shouldn't be reading.... Sorry, I am writing this while tired, slightly bored, and slightly amused, so don't take me too seriously right now, but it really does p!$$ me off when people develop technologies on cars to be 'safer' when what they are really doing is yielding up personal responsibility and freedom of choice. How about a car that brakes for you if it 'thinks' your closure-rate to the vehicle it senses in front of you is too high? Hey, maybe I wanted to ram that SOB for a reason!

Safety features are actually nice, at least on the surface, but if a feature is there, people will become accustomed to using it -"I changed lanes and ran right over the guy next to me, because my car didn't beep at me or yank the steering-wheel out of my hands. No, I didn't check my mirrors, I don't need to, my car beeps at me or yanks the steering-wheel out of my hands if someone is next to me. The car's safety system is defective, it isn't my fault..." Can you honestly imagine someone growing up with one of these automated cars, then having to drive a 'real' car? They simply wouldn't know how. "Hey! There are four pedals and a light-switch down there! WTF! I can't drive this thing! Where's the 'drive me home' button, GPS, voice-activated radio, auto-park, collision-avoidance and lane awareness systems, what is a brake-pedal? Aaaa!" Pathetic. Okay, remember I said don't take this too seriously? Simply put, if you can't drive, don't. Ride the bus if you want the vehicle to just get you there... (But not hating on ABS, just for clarification -ABS is fine, so long as you know how to drive without it, and understand that you can still lock-up and slide if you are too hard on the brakes.) And leave bench seats up front on big ol' cars! And wing-windows too, darn it!

Speedy, next time you put new tires on your Cobalt, maybe you should put something wider on there... It should be able to take at least a 215 or 225, with the right wheels...

Manual transmissions are popular in Europe. Its an old story that Americans prefer Automatic gearboxes...

The last time we visited the UK, we rented a five-speed turbo Peugeot, it was a blast to drive. How many rental agencies in America even offer manual transmissions? It isn't so much that Americans are just too lazy to drive a stick, I think Americans are too distracted, and having a whole extra aspect of control while driving is too much for some of them, then they just get in that habit. It is also an issue with our rush-hour highway stop-and-go traffic, but even then 95% of the time I will prefer a clutch. I went from 50-50 either way was fine to 98% I hate autos, I guess I am just getting stuck in my ways, but I really don't care for all the new-car gizmos either, I think they continue to distract. Focus on the drive, focus on the car itself, and it can become an extension of you -then driving is really a pleasure and you don't need all the distracting gadgets. Hey, I am a car enthusiast, what can I say?

what about carbs. Those are long dead and gone tho. Then again so are flip up headlights, RWD, big engines, loud exhaust's and anything else that makes older cars cool. I refuse to buy a newer vehicle because it would lack a soul. The car world started dying when company's stopped competing on who could make the faster more bad ass car and started competing on who could make the most fuel efficient grocery getter.

by newer car, I mean nothing newer than a 98.

My newest vehicle is a '98! I had a newer motorcycle until it was lost last year. Most of my cars are mid-nineties and older, some are much older.

Yeah, I agree about the decline of automotive coolness. It is weird to think that now if you want something fast, it is on the top-end of the price-scale, like the Corvette, and back when my older cars were made, some of the faster cars were cheaper, because they were lacking the bells and whistles that were more costly to put in, and made the cars heavier too. The kind of car you drive does NOT define who you are, but it does say a little about your values and priorities... I know I harp on this a little too much, but I get compliments on my old Plymouth everywhere I take her, and this car is as stripped as they came -no power windows, no power locks, no A/C, no cruise-control, no rear-window defroster (which is a feature I really do appreciate on newer cars though), no power brakes, no power steering, no power seats, no power mirrors, no auto-tranny, no ABS, no Traction Control computer, heck -no computer, etc, etc. This car was made to go fast, and to get going fast quick. It does have a carburetor, is pretty loud (although my GTU is louder, I think), is RWD and has a big engine (6.3 liter). So far as the 'disappearing features' list, yeah, it came with bias-ply tires (and I have a set of new bias-plys for the car, very expensive and hard to find, but they came with the car -I don't run them usually because they don't handle as well, and they are too expensive for daily-driving), wing-windows, front and rear bench seats, and thankfully predates the 85 MPH speedometer -mine reads 150. It has a full-size spare, but unfortunately uses a pedal for the parking-brake (at least it isn't a button). Although they made a pillarless hard-top version of my car, mine is the rarer (and less valued, oddly enough) and lighter-weight B-pillared car with pop-out quarter-windows, instead of roll-downs -no problem with that for me. The only real amenities my car has is six windows that open for air, a good heater and three separate vent-controls for fresh air, two-speed wipers (it was an option) and a decent set of gauges -speedometer, tachometer/clock (tick-tock-tach), oil pressure, coolant temperature, fuel level and ammeter. I know some people would see a car like this next to a new Ford Focus or Volks Wagon Jetta and say, "Woah, look at that lame old car, it doesn't even have ipod synch capability, total fail dude." I don't want to know any of those people.