Nocturnal, be honest...NocturnalTSX said:I just saw a white on in person like a half hour ago, and to be honest w/u, I think it looks pimp! It kinda reminds me of a Rolls Royce Phantom. But yea its not so bad lookin in person
So what you are saying is, by "compensating" they are sexually inadequate. And the " slit side windows are very Gangsta" means they are schizophrenic and dysfunctional.kiteboy said:I don't like it and it's way too heavy. But I think D-C will sell a ton of them. It's a V8 Hemi sold at a price point where many who are "compensating" can afford it. The front end has that large truck/SUV get-outa-my-way look that appeals to people with anger-management issues. The slit side windows are very Gangsta.
Yes to the first point, and the side windows just remind me of some cars from the 30's where the doors were much taller than the windows. The 300 just seems appropriate as a bank robbery getway car with tommy guns stickin' out the windows.hip said:So what you are saying is, by "compensating" they are sexually inadequate. And the " slit side windows are very Gangsta" means they are schizophrenic and dysfunctional.
Actually I heard the Aztec had good dynamics as it was based on the same GM platform as their minivans.bob shiftright said:
Otherwise, if the dynamics of the car are superb, who really cares what it looks like? (The dynamics of the Aztec are as bad as the styling.)
Thank you for asking that.bob shiftright said:.....if the dynamics of the car are superb, who really cares what it looks like?.....
I don't know anything at all. But I actually stayed next-door to a Holiday Inn TWICE last week!larchmont said:
The first part, Bob knows a lot more than I do.
Not to start a debate about the dynamics of the Pontiac Aztec vs. the Porsche Carrera, but based on objective testing, Consumer Reports ranks the Aztec in next-to-last place for small SUVs.hip said:Actually I heard the Aztec had good dynamics as it was based on the same GM platform as their minivans.
Be careful what you say. Does this mean if GM or any company produced the best handling, best riding and best overall performing car you ever drove for ~$30K...
You'd buy it even if it looked butt ugly...? :surprised
In this competitive marketplace, there are usually alternatives with similar driving dynamics in most categories. I also think performance is the first priority, but if choosing between cars of simliar performance, I'd choose the better looking one.bob shiftright said:Would I consider a butt-ugly car? Sure. Absolutely. I buy a car to drive. Most of what I expect to see of my car is over the instruments.
I just don't know about those other cars, but I disagree about the BMW 2002.bob shiftright said:.....Off hand, I can think of a number of cars that had superb dynamics and marginal styling (at best) that went on to become "Classics". The Saab 96, "Adenauer" Mercedes 300, BMW 2002.....
I certainly considered the Accord V6 sedan. In fact, I still may buy an Accord for the family motor pool, ie. for my daughterhip said:Hey Bob,
Just one question...
If styling wasn't important to you and all you cared about is good dynamics and the view from the driver's seat, then why didn't you just get the Accord?
Off the subj, but.....what does anybody think are the chances that our TSX's can last anywhere near 350K? Or, let's say, 200K anyway?bob shiftright said:.....Every day for maybe the next 350,000 miles which is what my tightwad brother-in-law has on his '83 Accord.....