🚀 go-pugleaf

Ragnarsghost@hotmail.com wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> 
>>Nexus7 wrote:
>>
>>>themouthofsauron1960@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nexus7 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I see another larde butte has joined the thread who doesn't understand
>>>power to weight either.
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>The 'vette is a showcase of GM's 60s geriatric technology with ample
>>>hip room for el lardos to go to Dennys; why on earth would I waste my
>>>money on it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>The point still stands you diseased fuck, that 3" translates into a lot
>>>of real estate for those burger-fry-cheese-HFCS gobblers.
>>>
>>>
>>>>shoulder and legroom in the five hundred is considerabley more than
>>>>that of the Cobalt .
>>>
>>>That's the point goober, the post followed up to used hip room as the
>>>defining measure.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>No need to change perfection.
>>>
>>>Still the best convertible out there, unless you don't fit in it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>do you think are going to trade in the Buick's for a shitty little
>>>>miata?
>>
>>Oh, christ.  The mouthofsawdust said "Buick".  Didn't he see the story
>>in the L.A. Times a while ago about the GM exec who said that GM never
>>bothered to do any serious marketing for Buick in the past, because "as
>>Americans get older, their asses get fatter, and they'll always buy
>>Buicks to sit them in."
>>
>>
> 
> Buick has a built-in elderly market share, so serious advertisement
> really isn't necessary. Furthermore Buick has been considered an old
> mans car since the early 60s and Americans weren't fat then. So that
> shoots that theory in the ass.

Yes, 'murkans were fat then.  Red-state flyover 
'murkans have *always* been obese, and fat blowpig 
suburban 'murkans already were plentiful in the 1950s 
and 1960s.  Of course, it's only gotten worse since, 
particularly among children.  http://tinyurl.com/fluvo


> 
> BTW another reason for GM not spending advertising dollars on Buick
> could be the same reason they didn't advertise Oldsmobile. Every so
> often the rumor surfaces that Buick is the next division on the GM
> chopping block.
>