Talk:Car tuning

message: The secton that states neon lights are illegal in Scotland would appear to be incorrect as this page http://www.getinlane.com/page78.php disagrees. Should this have a "citation needed"?
Jckcip (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighting 

message: How does scooter tuning = car tuning. A scooter is not a car... anyone else see a problem here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.43.110 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, so I removed motorcycles from the definition. This: , motor bike, scooter or moped. It would need a proper source cited to be stated. Arny (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Car Tuning' 

message: I erased the following from the "Engine tuning" subsection:
 AMS, a performance shop in west Chicago. Put over 1000 horsepower to 4 wheels. On a 4G64 platform 4 cylinder. But its not the first.
The reason is that it's badly written and looks like advertising. If someone wants it back to the article, it should be rewritten and sourced properly. Arny (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erased a bit 

message: First, and most quickly, I agree with some other, there is no need for this article to be based solely on cars. There are trucks modified exactly the same way. Motorcycles. Why write a whole new article to cover them, when logically there is no need to separate them into different articles. The same fundamentals govern them all, unless you want to look at "car tuning" as a lifestyle/cultural thing (which this article doesn't). And even then, the primary motivation is close enough to make them fit together in a single article, easily.
Second, and most importantly, I'd like to bring up "tuning" as a phrase. It's obvious that "car tuning" has been adopted as the "JDM-style", for want of a better phrase, word to describe car modification. But how is this "tuning" a car while adding a full-race Chevy smallblock, traction bars, a hood scoop, roll cage and tubs n/ slicks to your Novanot "car tuning"? How is "building" or "hot rodding" your car different from "tuning" your car? The only difference is the type of cars used by each school of thought (and sadly, the imagined lifestyle/image, which is more important but even less relevant...true of all three of those I mentioned). But "car tuning" as a phrase ought to apply to all cars (and vehicles). If it doesn't for reasons of popular culture, and this is just a self-identifying phrase used to describe people who are "into" a certain stylistic approach. It really needs to make that clear, as "car tuning" is a generic phrase, and if it's going to be accepted as only a certain style of modifying certain types of cars, the article really needs to reflect that.
Which brings me the original point I came here to bring up. Originally "tuning" was in fact engine tuning, back in the days before the aftermarket was glutted with parts you could bolt on, body kits and performance chips. The term "tuning" was adopted by the JDM enthusiasts who liked to street race their cars, and it took a good deal of skill to learn how to make cars go faster using only certain factory or modified factory parts. Suspension tuning was also used to get good drag strip times (in the US...road racing was more popular in Japan, IIRC, but "tuning" as a phrase I believe came from US enthusiasts. In any case, they took "tuning" literally. They wouldn't add body kits to their cars, because they weren't available. When they were, they'd do it only if it actually made the car faster. The whole (I think) ridiculous "hellaflush" look originates from owners lowering their suspensions to lower center-of-gravity, which makes the car handle better and have less wind resistance. Now, people take good cars and "slam" them to the ground, ruining the suspension geometry, stuffing tires that are too thin and which rub into the fenderwells on wheels that are bigger and heavier than they need to be, slowing the car down. Then they add a bunch of weight in the form of amplifiers, subwoofers, flatscreens, etc. The cars ride so ridiculously low that if they drive too fast, not only do they hit the bumpstops on potholes, but they risk scraping their expensive body kits, basically turning them into lowriders only able to cruise slowly around town. Sometimes they actually increase engine power (hopefully at least counteracting some of the extra weight and drag they've added to the basic car), but usually they're content with a cool-looking cold air intake and an exhaust tip, which might add 5hp, but only when you're driving at high RPM's, WOT. Splurging on anodized aluminum and "billet" parts to make the engine bay is popular too, even when the internals are totally stock. And yet they call themselves "tuners". Because they can bolt on aftermarket suspension parts and body kits that are designed for that car? Usually not increasing the speed any, and often making handling worse...
But I'm digressing. Point is that once, "tuning" a car was actually "tuning" it, making modifications for the sole purpose of going faster. But people thought those fast cars were pretty cool, so they started cosmetically modifying cars to look similar. I'm sad that "tuning" has gotten watered down by such foolish bullcrap, but if it is indeed what the word is taken to mean by most people now, then the article should mention the actual ORIGINS of the word, and what it once meant, as opposed to what popular culture THINKS it means today. And maybe mention the fact that there are still plenty of people out there who actually tune their cars and engines themselves, even though most of them bring it to a shop and pay them to do the work, so they can drive around and (pretend to) be "tuners". It's still a far cry from when it was DIY in your garage. You couldn't just go out and buy a specially made intake manifold for your engine back then, you had to figure it out yourself, make parts from different sources work together. .45Colt 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tuning" as a term, "car" tuning 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Car tuning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216062300/http://app4.lasd.org:80/iic/details.cfm?qwert=%27%2E2%24%5ES%3F%3FDQ%40%20%20%0A to http://app4.lasd.org/iic/details.cfm?qwert=%27%2E2%24%5ES%3F%3FDQ%40%20%20%0A
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913222811/http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au:80/Home/RulesStandardsRegulations/VehicleStandardsInformation/ to http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RulesStandardsRegulations/VehicleStandardsInformation/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914180526/http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au:80/c_youngGLS_9.html to http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_youngGLS_9.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me that this article and the custom car article (a terribly written article by the way) have grown to overlap in many areas and cover very similar topics. It feels like we should draw a line in the sand about what each article should cover and what they shouldn't. Perhaps car tuning should focus purely on performance or mechanical modifications (with only a sidenote in the introduction, like it currently has, about how the term has colloquially grown to include visual mods too), and custom car can focus on either all modifications to cars, or just aesthetic ones. The custom car article needs a full rewrite as is anyway. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this and what you think should happen with these two articles. ~~ TKOIII (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Car tuning" vs "Custom car"