A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The dangers of DRLs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #381  
Old July 19th 05, 09:05 PM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:04:11 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, right now we just have a shift in sales numbers. It
>> will become an anomaly if the numbers drop back down afterwards.

>
> Of course they will. Is there any doubt that GM will continue to lose
> market share?


Yes, there is a lot of doubt. Currently they are winning market share,
even though the prices they sell at are higher as with their old pricing
structure.

>> it. And explain to me why none of the several hundred people I have
>> asked so far even mentioned DRLs.

>
> Duh. Most owners of DRL equipped cars are too dumb to switch on their
> regular ligths in low visibility conditions.


Not around here. Maybe where you are GM drivers are dumber than average
but I'd guesstimate that it's just your anti-GM-befuddled brain.

>>>>Webster: Visibility: the quality or state of being visible

>
> Of *what* being visible?


The object 'visible' is applied to.

> The road ahead can be visible or not (ie poor 'visibility').


And oncoming cars can be visible (DRLs) or blending into the background
(no DRLs).

Chris
Ads
  #382  
Old July 19th 05, 09:31 PM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:10:09 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:27:16 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>> > Because it doesn't make sense.

>>
>> You just claim it doesn't and don't even back your claim up. But even if
>> it didn't it would merely be a wrong view and no justification at all
>> for childish namecalling.

>
> I've had this discussion with so many people and so many times, and the
> factsw are out there, if you actually cared about the subject you'd have
> educated yourself on it by now instead of merely trying to "win" an
> argument.


I have studied the subject (ABS) quite dilligently and the facts are
indeed there, they just don't support your views. If this was the mid-90s
you would have been partly correct. A perfect driver was able to
outperform many ABS systems back then under lab conditions. ABS has
improved vastly over the years and the chance of you outperforming ABS
today under real life conditions is just about zero. And calling me a
dumbass for pointing this just shows how little confidence you have in
your own argumentation.

>> > Whatever. When you start thinking like an adult maybe people will
>> > start relating to you like an adult.

>>
>> I already think like an adult, which is why I don't call you any number
>> of names that you deserve much more than I deserve the names you are
>> calling me just because you happen not to like my opinion.

>
> Your "opinion" happens to be wrong, when it comes to ABS.


No, it is merely not as outdated as yours. And even if it was wrong a
clear thinking adult would just explain his views instead of refusing to
explain anything and calling the 'opponent' names like a thirdgrader.

>> > I suppose personal experience in instrumented test vehicles with the
>> > ABS enabled and disabled - in the same vehicle on the same test
>> > surfaces - isn't good enough for you? Too bad.

>>
>> It might be good enough, but your mere claim that you have said
>> experience is not. Also, even if you had the experience I would still
>> want to see an explanation, why this is so, which - if you actually
>> were a test engineer at an auto manufacturer - you would have a good
>> explanation for.

>
> It's real easy. When you brake on a split mu surface the high mu side
> will tend to make the vehicle rotate in that direction. Rather than
> force the driver to use steering input to correct, the ABS will dump
> pressure on the high mu side to the point that braking is effectively
> limited to little more than that offered by the low mu surface. Whereas
> without ABS, if the low mu side is ice or wet, smooth concrete there's
> really no problem just letting the low mu wheels lock and using lots of
> steering input to keep the vehicle pointed in the direction you want to
> go.


And if you misjudge the traction on the high mu surface and one of your
wheels on the high mu side locks up you are going to lose control. The
same happens if the low mu side suddenly gains traction or if the high mu
side loses traction. Or if you run into a pothole or any other kind of
small obstacle on the low mu side. In all these cases the ABS car is going
to continue going straight, whereas our crash test dummy Nagel is going to
be wrapped around a tree or smashed right into the obstacle he was trying
so hard to avoid.

Also modern ABS systems have improved vastly since you ('NDA probably
already expired') 'tested' ABS on a test track.

> Doesn't require a whole lot of skill, just reflexes fast enough to
> turn the steering wheel in the correct manner.


It requires a lot of skill to even judge the high mu surface good enough
to be sure not to lose control. And if one of my mentioned conditions
occurs (of course the test track all your claimed experience centers on
this is not going to be the case, but real life is not like your smooth
and predictable test track) you are going to wreck. Not even reflexes will
save you if you suddenly get grip on both sides with heavy steering input
on the front axle being applied. You will simply run off the road very
hard and very probably hit something harder than the cones you are using
on the test track.

>> As things are you claim you are an 'insider' like any number of usenet
>> denizens and are unable to back it up.
>>

> I really am not sure how far my NDA goes. I imagine it's expired by
> now, but I don't really know.


Guess what? I don't care. Your test track conditions don't apply to real
life and as your test apparently was many years back not even your
experience back then does carry any significance to judge today's ABS.

> I don't claim to be an "expert" - as I really only spent about six
> months working directly with ABS systems. But I do have experience that
> most people don't have, and lots more behind-the-wheel experience
> actually USING it than 95% of the public. (well, I hope. It would scare
> me to discover that a significant amount of people use their ABS every
> day...)


If what you say is true (which I doubt, but let's say it is) you worked on
ABS systems many years ago under nonrealistic (i.e. predictable) test
track conditions. In other words: Your 'experience' is worth nothing. And
thanks, I have enough experience with ABS to have a very good idea how it
works and where its limitations are.

>> Now go ahead and corroborate your claim. Models of the cars, what
>> happened, explanation. Can't wait...

>
> See above. Seen this behavior first in Dodge vans back when I was
> driving shuttle vans to get through college, would have been about
> 1993-1994 or so.


Oh my, driving crappy minivans surely qualifies you...

> All the drivers experienced what felt like near total brake failure
> when stopping on patchy ice, and lobbied the powers that be to not order
> ABS on any new vans as we felt it was unsafe.


I have plenty of experience with ABS both ABS and non-ABS (driving in
Austria a lot, where they prefer packed snow to salting the roads) and I
clearly prefer ABS even under these conditions, although I will readily
admit that having a truly horrible car with a truly horrible ABS like an
old Chrysler Minivan might change that.

> Things were much improved by then, don't get me wrong, but decisions
> were made, both customer driven and NHTSA driven, that sacrificed
> ultimate stopping distance for "idiot-proof" stability, thus making it
> easy for someone who actually had experience driving in low-traction
> conditions to "beat" the ABS. This held true for just about every
> American truck-based vehicle platform as of 4-5 years ago. Didn't have
> much experience with cars, but they tended to be intrinsically more
> stable due to better suspension geometry, so they were able to be tuned
> a little more aggressively.


In other words, you really only have experience with a few horrible
minivans under heavily unrealistic conditions. I didn't even suspect it
was _that_ bad.

> See, I didn't even bring up gravel or loose snow... (that's what you
> were expecting me to say, wasn't it?)


No, it wasn't. What I expected was exactly what you said, that you have a
bit of experience under controlled conditions with antiquated ABS systems
in truly terrible cars like ancient Dodge minivans.

Chris
  #383  
Old July 19th 05, 09:43 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:10:09 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:27:16 -0700, N8N wrote:
> >>
> >> > Because it doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> You just claim it doesn't and don't even back your claim up. But even if
> >> it didn't it would merely be a wrong view and no justification at all
> >> for childish namecalling.

> >
> > I've had this discussion with so many people and so many times, and the
> > factsw are out there, if you actually cared about the subject you'd have
> > educated yourself on it by now instead of merely trying to "win" an
> > argument.

>
> I have studied the subject (ABS) quite dilligently and the facts are
> indeed there, they just don't support your views. If this was the mid-90s
> you would have been partly correct. A perfect driver was able to
> outperform many ABS systems back then under lab conditions. ABS has
> improved vastly over the years and the chance of you outperforming ABS
> today under real life conditions is just about zero. And calling me a
> dumbass for pointing this just shows how little confidence you have in
> your own argumentation.
>
> >> > Whatever. When you start thinking like an adult maybe people will
> >> > start relating to you like an adult.
> >>
> >> I already think like an adult, which is why I don't call you any number
> >> of names that you deserve much more than I deserve the names you are
> >> calling me just because you happen not to like my opinion.

> >
> > Your "opinion" happens to be wrong, when it comes to ABS.

>
> No, it is merely not as outdated as yours. And even if it was wrong a
> clear thinking adult would just explain his views instead of refusing to
> explain anything and calling the 'opponent' names like a thirdgrader.


I have not called you a third grader yet, but you certainly seem to
reason like one.

>
> >> > I suppose personal experience in instrumented test vehicles with the
> >> > ABS enabled and disabled - in the same vehicle on the same test
> >> > surfaces - isn't good enough for you? Too bad.
> >>
> >> It might be good enough, but your mere claim that you have said
> >> experience is not. Also, even if you had the experience I would still
> >> want to see an explanation, why this is so, which - if you actually
> >> were a test engineer at an auto manufacturer - you would have a good
> >> explanation for.

> >
> > It's real easy. When you brake on a split mu surface the high mu side
> > will tend to make the vehicle rotate in that direction. Rather than
> > force the driver to use steering input to correct, the ABS will dump
> > pressure on the high mu side to the point that braking is effectively
> > limited to little more than that offered by the low mu surface. Whereas
> > without ABS, if the low mu side is ice or wet, smooth concrete there's
> > really no problem just letting the low mu wheels lock and using lots of
> > steering input to keep the vehicle pointed in the direction you want to
> > go.

>
> And if you misjudge the traction on the high mu surface and one of your
> wheels on the high mu side locks up you are going to lose control.


The point is, you don't have to get anywhere near locking up the wheels
on the high mu side to outbrake the ABS.

> The
> same happens if the low mu side suddenly gains traction


Why? You'll just stop faster.

> or if the high mu
> side loses traction.


Why? You'll just slide straight ahead.

> Or if you run into a pothole or any other kind of
> small obstacle on the low mu side.


Why?

> In all these cases the ABS car is going
> to continue going straight, whereas our crash test dummy Nagel is going to
> be wrapped around a tree or smashed right into the obstacle he was trying
> so hard to avoid.
>


Have you ever DONE any of these maneuvers in a real, live car? Do you
have any clue what the heck you're talking about? Survey says... NO.

> Also modern ABS systems have improved vastly since you ('NDA probably
> already expired') 'tested' ABS on a test track.


Since I was working on prototype vehicles, my experience is actually
only a couple years behind. Maybe 2-3 at most.

>
> > Doesn't require a whole lot of skill, just reflexes fast enough to
> > turn the steering wheel in the correct manner.

>
> It requires a lot of skill to even judge the high mu surface good enough
> to be sure not to lose control.


Absolute balls. A 16-year old can be taught to do it in a couple
hours.

> And if one of my mentioned conditions
> occurs (of course the test track all your claimed experience centers on
> this is not going to be the case, but real life is not like your smooth
> and predictable test track) you are going to wreck.


Balls.

> Not even reflexes will
> save you if you suddenly get grip on both sides with heavy steering input
> on the front axle being applied.


Explain. Straightening out the steering wheel would seem to solve the
problem quite nicely, which would seem to be a reflexive maneuver
(since the first feedback the driver would receive would be the nose of
the vehicle suddenly starting to turn in the direction of the steering
input.)

> You will simply run off the road very
> hard and very probably hit something harder than the cones you are using
> on the test track.
>


Odd that that hasn't happened yet, then, isn't it?

> >> As things are you claim you are an 'insider' like any number of usenet
> >> denizens and are unable to back it up.
> >>

> > I really am not sure how far my NDA goes. I imagine it's expired by
> > now, but I don't really know.

>
> Guess what? I don't care.


Obviously. It's clear you just want to "be right" and don't really
care about educating yourself at all.

> Your test track conditions don't apply to real
> life and as your test apparently was many years back not even your
> experience back then does carry any significance to judge today's ABS.
>


Balls.

> > I don't claim to be an "expert" - as I really only spent about six
> > months working directly with ABS systems. But I do have experience that
> > most people don't have, and lots more behind-the-wheel experience
> > actually USING it than 95% of the public. (well, I hope. It would scare
> > me to discover that a significant amount of people use their ABS every
> > day...)

>
> If what you say is true (which I doubt, but let's say it is) you worked on
> ABS systems many years ago under nonrealistic (i.e. predictable) test
> track conditions. In other words: Your 'experience' is worth nothing. And
> thanks, I have enough experience with ABS to have a very good idea how it
> works and where its limitations are.
>


If you had a "very good idea" of how it worked you wouldn't be arguing
with me, because I have enought experience to authoritatively state
that I am right and you are wrong. I was also apparently right when I
stated that even if I explained my statements in detail that you
wouldn't accept the explanations.

> >> Now go ahead and corroborate your claim. Models of the cars, what
> >> happened, explanation. Can't wait...

> >
> > See above. Seen this behavior first in Dodge vans back when I was
> > driving shuttle vans to get through college, would have been about
> > 1993-1994 or so.

>
> Oh my, driving crappy minivans surely qualifies you...


Read for comprehension, idiot. Where did I state that I was driving a
crappy minivan?

>
> > All the drivers experienced what felt like near total brake failure
> > when stopping on patchy ice, and lobbied the powers that be to not order
> > ABS on any new vans as we felt it was unsafe.

>
> I have plenty of experience with ABS both ABS and non-ABS (driving in
> Austria a lot, where they prefer packed snow to salting the roads) and I
> clearly prefer ABS even under these conditions, although I will readily
> admit that having a truly horrible car with a truly horrible ABS like an
> old Chrysler Minivan might change that.
>


Read for comprehension, idiot.

> > Things were much improved by then, don't get me wrong, but decisions
> > were made, both customer driven and NHTSA driven, that sacrificed
> > ultimate stopping distance for "idiot-proof" stability, thus making it
> > easy for someone who actually had experience driving in low-traction
> > conditions to "beat" the ABS. This held true for just about every
> > American truck-based vehicle platform as of 4-5 years ago. Didn't have
> > much experience with cars, but they tended to be intrinsically more
> > stable due to better suspension geometry, so they were able to be tuned
> > a little more aggressively.

>
> In other words, you really only have experience with a few horrible
> minivans under heavily unrealistic conditions. I didn't even suspect it
> was _that_ bad.


That's not what I said at all. I said "every American truck-based
platform" meaning at that time I'd driven just about all of them. Read
for comprehension, idiot.

>
> > See, I didn't even bring up gravel or loose snow... (that's what you
> > were expecting me to say, wasn't it?)

>
> No, it wasn't. What I expected was exactly what you said, that you have a
> bit of experience under controlled conditions with antiquated ABS systems
> in truly terrible cars like ancient Dodge minivans.
>


But that's not even close to what I said.

nate

  #384  
Old July 19th 05, 10:31 PM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:

>
> The GTO is a car for performance enthusiasts


You mean the 'fast in a straight line' kind of performance?
  #385  
Old July 19th 05, 10:40 PM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:43:56 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:10:09 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>> > Your "opinion" happens to be wrong, when it comes to ABS.

>>
>> No, it is merely not as outdated as yours. And even if it was wrong a
>> clear thinking adult would just explain his views instead of refusing to
>> explain anything and calling the 'opponent' names like a thirdgrader.

>
> I have not called you a third grader yet, but you certainly seem to reason
> like one.


No, I merely don't share your opinion. And unlike you I dont claim that
'experience' gathered a decade ago with some Dodge Minivan on some
nameless test track under controlled conditions is the pinnacle of ABS
knowledge.

I suggest you stop your dumb namecalling and start behaving like an adult.


>> > It's real easy. When you brake on a split mu surface the high mu
>> > side will tend to make the vehicle rotate in that direction. Rather
>> > than force the driver to use steering input to correct, the ABS will
>> > dump pressure on the high mu side to the point that braking is
>> > effectively limited to little more than that offered by the low mu
>> > surface. Whereas without ABS, if the low mu side is ice or wet,
>> > smooth concrete there's really no problem just letting the low mu
>> > wheels lock and using lots of steering input to keep the vehicle
>> > pointed in the direction you want to go.

>>
>> And if you misjudge the traction on the high mu surface and one of your
>> wheels on the high mu side locks up you are going to lose control.

>
> The point is, you don't have to get anywhere near locking up the wheels
> on the high mu side to outbrake the ABS.


That depends on the difference in mu. Your testbed conditions 'one side
perfect traction, one side almost zero, are unrealistic to put it mildly.

>> The same happens if the low mu side suddenly gains traction

>
> Why? You'll just stop faster.


You would if you weren't using 'lots of steering input' to one side to
counteract the torque created by two wheels exerting a force on the car
and the other two not counteracting this force. In reality the car will
all of sudden follow the heavy steering input and you consequently will
either run off the road (if the left side was slick and you were steering
to the left to counteract that force or into oncoming traffic (if the
right side was slick.

>> or if the high mu side loses traction.

>
> Why? You'll just slide straight ahead.


Try it under real world conditions and you will find that this is not the
case.

>> Or if you run into a pothole or any other kind of small obstacle on the
>> low mu side.

>
> Why?


Because the sudden jolt will usually upset the car enough to induce a spin.

>> In all these cases the ABS car is going to continue going straight,
>> whereas our crash test dummy Nagel is going to be wrapped around a tree
>> or smashed right into the obstacle he was trying so hard to avoid.
>>

> Have you ever DONE any of these maneuvers in a real, live car?


I have experimented quite a bit with ABS, yes.

> Do you have any clue what the heck you're talking about?


Yes, and apparently I have more clue than you do.

>> Also modern ABS systems have improved vastly since you ('NDA probably
>> already expired') 'tested' ABS on a test track.

>
> Since I was working on prototype vehicles, my experience is actually
> only a couple years behind. Maybe 2-3 at most.


'Experience' from a test track with controlled conditions in a freaking
minivan. Great.

>> > Doesn't require a whole lot of skill, just reflexes fast enough to
>> > turn the steering wheel in the correct manner.

>>
>> It requires a lot of skill to even judge the high mu surface good
>> enough to be sure not to lose control.

>
> Absolute balls. A 16-year old can be taught to do it in a couple hours.


.... for your controlled conditions. And if the conditions change within a
few feet, which they freqiently do in real life, said 16 year old will
kill himself and others.

>> And if one of my mentioned conditions occurs (of course the test track
>> all your claimed experience centers on this is not going to be the
>> case, but real life is not like your smooth and predictable test track)
>> you are going to wreck.

>
> Balls.


No, just the simple truth, which of course you don't want to hear. After
all you like to see yourself as such a super expert and hearing that your
expertise is theoretical if that is not what you want.

Btw, you indeed have balls to try to pass off your 'test track experience'
with a minivan as experience.

>> Not even reflexes will save you if you suddenly get grip on both
>> sides with heavy steering input on the front axle being applied.

>
> Explain. Straightening out the steering wheel would seem to solve the
> problem quite nicely,


Only if you can do so in the fraction of a second you have until your
steering input has turned the car beyond the point of no return.

> which would seem to be a reflexive maneuver (since the first feedback
> the driver would receive would be the nose of the vehicle suddenly
> starting to turn in the direction of the steering input.)


In other words, you have never tried it? You should, it might actually
enlighten you.

>> You will simply run off the road very hard and very probably hit
>> something harder than the cones you are using on the test track.
>>

> Odd that that hasn't happened yet, then, isn't it?


You were lucky so far.

>> > I really am not sure how far my NDA goes. I imagine it's expired by
>> > now, but I don't really know.

>>
>> Guess what? I don't care.

>
> Obviously. It's clear you just want to "be right" and don't really care
> about educating yourself at all.


No, I just don't care about your NDA and even less about your attempt to
pass yourself off as an expert because you supposedly have signed one.

>> Your test track conditions don't apply to real life and as your test
>> apparently was many years back not even your experience back then does
>> carry any significance to judge today's ABS.
>>

> Balls.


No, just the plain naked and very ugly truth. Why, do you think the car
companies log millions of miles on real roads under real conditions and
let pros handle the cars out there? Because test track experience counts
for nothing in real life conditions. Test tracks make it possible to study
isolated factors but they are unable to sufficiently simulate real world
situations, which is why Chrysler like all the other manufacturers goes to
Canada or Scandinavia to test their prototypes under real conditions
before they are put into production.

>> If what you say is true (which I doubt, but let's say it is) you worked
>> on ABS systems many years ago under nonrealistic (i.e. predictable)
>> test track conditions. In other words: Your 'experience' is worth
>> nothing. And thanks, I have enough experience with ABS to have a very
>> good idea how it works and where its limitations are.
>>

> If you had a "very good idea" of how it worked you wouldn't be arguing
> with me, because I have enought experience to authoritatively state that
> I am right and you are wrong.


In other words you are stomping your foot and claiming you are right.
Unfortunately you are not and I sincerely hope that your arrogance and
lack of real world experience will not cost someone their life.

> I was also apparently right when I stated that even if I explained my
> statements in detail that you wouldn't accept the explanations.


I never accept wrong explanations.

[whine ... yammer ...]

>> In other words, you really only have experience with a few horrible
>> minivans under heavily unrealistic conditions. I didn't even suspect it
>> was _that_ bad.

>
> That's not what I said at all. I said "every American truck-based
> platform" meaning at that time I'd driven just about all of them. Read
> for comprehension, idiot.


My bad. But all the worse for you at the same time. Trucks do not behave
like normal cars, especially not concerning brake performance and brake
handling. And yes, I have ample experience with truck braking under
limited traction conditions, both with and without ABS.

In other words: You have no experience worth a damn (no real world
experience, no car experience, no real world car experience) but you
assume you are the expert in this field because you have signed a NDA.

You know, Nate, I always thought you were an ok guy, but what you really
turned out to be Id rather not say, because then you would accuse me of
namecalling...

Chris
  #386  
Old July 19th 05, 10:41 PM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:04:45 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The GTO has exactly nothing to do with a Grand Prix. Different Chassis,
>>>different engine, not even the same ballpark performance wise. You are
>>>comparing a family sedan with a performance coupe - not gonna work.

>>
>>Regardless, spending over 33K on a freaking Pontiac is insane.

>
>
> Not any more insane than spending over 33k for a freaking Lexus.


Spending 33k on a Pontiac is crazy when you can get a Mazda RX8,
Subaru STI, Mitsu EVO for less.
  #387  
Old July 19th 05, 10:50 PM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:41:21 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:04:45 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>
>>
>>>C.H. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The GTO has exactly nothing to do with a Grand Prix. Different Chassis,
>>>>different engine, not even the same ballpark performance wise. You are
>>>>comparing a family sedan with a performance coupe - not gonna work.
>>>
>>>Regardless, spending over 33K on a freaking Pontiac is insane.

>>
>> Not any more insane than spending over 33k for a freaking Lexus.

>
> Spending 33k on a Pontiac is crazy when you can get a Mazda RX8, Subaru
> STI, Mitsu EVO for less.


The Mazda RX8 is the most overrated POS out there. Lackluster performance,
horrible mileage, crappy reliability. A true penis mobile, which merely
lives off its name made by its predecessor, which was quite fast when it
was not broken.

STI and Evo may be ok for travelling gnomes. Terrible ergos. The Evo is
known for massive reliability problems to boot. And neither can touch the
GTO performance wise.

Chris


  #388  
Old July 19th 05, 10:50 PM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:31:06 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>
>> The GTO is a car for performance enthusiasts

>
> You mean the 'fast in a straight line' kind of performance?


No.

Chris
  #389  
Old July 19th 05, 11:02 PM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:

> The Mazda RX8 is the most overrated POS out there.


Car and Driver liked it a lot.

> STI and Evo may be ok for travelling gnomes. Terrible ergos. The Evo is
> known for massive reliability problems to boot. And neither can touch the
> GTO performance wise.


In a straight line only. I'd like to see your GTO trying to keep up with them
on a mountain road or on wet pavement. I wont even mention ice or snow.

And 400 hp / 6 liters = 66.7 which is hardly impressive.
The Nissan G35 has 280 hp / 3.5 liters = 80.
  #390  
Old July 19th 05, 11:13 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



N8N wrote:
>
>

[snip!]

> But that's not even close to what I said.
>


Of course it isn't. But Chris needs to continue the argument - he's a
"last word in" sort of person.

"Did not."

"Did too."

GOTO 1



E.P.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option ls_dot1 Chrysler 11 May 26th 05 01:49 AM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Pete Technology 41 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Daniel J. Stern Driving 3 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Why no rear lights with DRLs? Don Stauffer Technology 26 April 26th 05 04:16 AM
Chevy Tahoe DRls? BE Driving 0 March 28th 05 03:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.