🚀 go-pugleaf

Nexus7 wrote:
> 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.

The store, and just what are you going to put into that jap shit toy?
Its on got like 5cuft. of trunk space. practical it is not.
>
> > 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.

Driving enthusiast? Horseshit! There is nothing enthusiastic about the
Miata's wheezy little 160hp engine. Most of today's econo box shit
cars approach those horsepower ratings.
The Miata is a chicks car and has an appeal to individuals who what to
be seen in something cute. The Vette is a performance car that the
average moron like your self has no business being behind the wheel of.

> 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).

Wrong. Where the fuck did you learn math? The five hundred has 53.75"
compared to the cobalt's 49.5 that translates into 4.25" front hip
room and there is an over 7.2" difference in rear hip room. Also
shoulder and legroom in the five hundred is considerabley more than
that of the Cobalt .
>
> > > > 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?

Exactly the miata has been around since 1990 and it has been virtually
unchanged, talk about long in the tooth, that Jap piece is long over
due for retirement.
>
> > 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.

Wrong again dipshit, small roadsters simply translate into low sales
figures no matter how popular or appealing they are. It is a simple
fact of the automotive industry foreign and domestic.  Two seat sports
cars tend to garner high insurance rates, which place them out of the
practical range of young people. Older individuals with families find
them too small. This leaves us with single individuals (mostly women)
over 30 and the elderly. So tell me dickhead, just how many old fuckers
do you think are going to trade in the Buick's for a shitty little
miata?
Oh and BTW just how many Z3 roadsters do you think BMW has sold
compared to the 325I?
>
> > 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!

Is the concept of reading comprehension too hard for the likes of you?
As the original poster mentioned the platform has been around for a
while not the models. Are you really that stupid or are you just
Australian?
>
> > 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"?
>
More moronic bullshit.

> > 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?

"automobile illiterate"? look look the pot is calling the kettle black.