🚀 go-pugleaf

Ragnarsghost@hotmail.com wrote:
> The problem is, niche filling two seat roadsters have limited sales
> potential and it has nothing to do with appeal and everything to do
> with practicality. Almost everyone loves the small sports car, fat
> Americans and thin Europeans alike. But as an everyday driver they come
> up short and they just don't fit in with most peoples needs.

You, like the American auto manufacturers, still don't understand what
made the Miata successful; which is appeal and practicality in the same
car, for people who can fit into it. The Miata was the first car in its
form factor where the electrics worked all the time. It is  a car that
you can drive (assuming you aren't a lard ass) to the store, and out on
a winding road.

> Also comparing a high performance car like the vet to a miata is hardly
> fair. Each vehicle caters to a different type of driver.

Correct. The Miata to the driving enthusiast, the 'vette to the
lard-assed geriatric.

And when you say the 'vette has "only" 3" more hip room than the Miata
(in your earlier post), you display your lack of understanding of
numbers. 3" is frequently the difference between compact and full-size
(for example, Cobalt and Five Hundred).

> > > Then explain the Pontiac solstice and the Saturn sky.

Explain what about these blah copycat autos? What is it, like 20 years,
since the Miata was first made?

> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Don't know anything about them, but I'm willing to bet
> > money they're not even half the car as their import
> > competitors, for a comparable price.
> Do the research then flap your gums. Both the solstice and the sky are
> based of GMs Kappa platform. This architecture has been around for some
> time now in Europe in the form of the Opal speedster.

Thereby proving the point that GM doesn't think roadsters are popular
with the burger-gobbing natives.

> As far as price
> and quality go these models are too new to make that kind of
> determination.

I thought you just said they'd been around for some time. Put down that
order fo fries and pay attention!

> The difference in horsepower ratings between these two cars doesn't
> impress me much. As for the torque 7ft/lb can almost be negligible. It
> more a coefficient of the torque curve,

What is a "coefficient of a torque curve"? Is that like "rate of
speed"?

> You do have something of a point, I'll give you that. But I still say
> your knowledge of the American car scene sucks.

And you're an automobile-illiterate and  innumerate lard-ass defender.
So what?