"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, David wrote:
>
> > > you can deal with the lack of power the slant six will run forever,
> > > and truth be told it's not *that* slow,
>
> > They had sufficient power, but they were pretty slow when you consider
> > the poor fuel-economy.
>
> Er...huh? Number one, the fuel economy wasn't poor for what the cars were.

That was then, this is now. If you look at my post I compare it with my modern
car which is much faster, *and* gets much better fuel economy. Do you find it an
apples to oranges comparison? Nothing wrong with those. Sometimes you need to
choose between apples and oranges. Or between an antique car and a modern
one.

> Number two, they aren't rockets in stock form, but they're plenty capable
> of keeping up with traffic.

Yup. I said they had sufficient power.

> Number three, "slow considering the poor fuel
> economy" is a nonsequitur.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you considering that sentence fragment on it's own?
It doesn't contain sequential statements. If you examine the entire sentence, you'll find that
part does follow from the previous part.

If you're trying to say you didn't get my point, I'll elaborate. Many people buy vehicles these days
with poor fuel economy. Usually there is some compensation. Often buyers accept the poor fuel
economy because the vehicle provedes good accelleration. Not so in this case. Nor do those
vehicles give exceptional cargo capacity. Or poser value