What the hell does 7+ points mean?
You said 7/10 so I said +7.
Doesn't that imply that the Azera is a better drivers car?
No, I would of SAID it was.
You see, the problem is that even if you didn't say that the Hyundai was sporty, the Azera still competes directly with all of those.
I didn't say it was sporty, infact I even said it was boring to drive.
Oh good god. You took that oh-so-obvious exaggeration seriously? And, with that in mind, you were surprised that I reacted to when you compared an '87 Town Car in a favorable light to the 300C and said the 300C had a suspension as spongy as an '84 Caddy? Hypocrite.
Turn about is fair play. Hypocrite. lol
So, what you are saying is that you see people that actually buy any of those cars new with anything other than their pensions? It is hard to believe that is possible.
To quote me:
Which would be great, had I been comparing them. I said that the 300C is closer to a cheap STS than it is to a Toyota Avalon or any of those. Not that it is an STS competitor. Two different phrases that mean two different things.
I addressed your reasoning for bringing in the STS. That is all.
If you want to start comparing things to the 3 series, than I can truthfully tell you that there are maybe 3 cars sold under $50,000 that can actually compete with it. And only one of them seats more than 2 people.
I referenced the 3-series just like you referenced the STS. That is all.
This coming from the person who said that the 300C can't be a driver's car because it compares negatively to the 3 series.
I was showing you what IS a driver's car, and that was the 3-series. I can name plenty of other examples, I just chose the 3-series because I had already mentioned it. I would be happy to name some more if you desire.
Yeah, I'm sure they would outright lie about suspension stiffness and body roll just to defy you, JCE.
Never said they did or did not. I simply said I do not read American auto mags reviews. And for that matter I don't want to hear an American auto journalist reviewing an American car--or any other car for that matter. Its my personal preference, which I am entitled to have.
And, again, they would do that for the Avalon why?
Like I said, Toyota COULD. I did NOT say they will or would. Come on, stop grasping for straws here.
Its pretty much common knowledge that the Azera and cars like it sell to the newly retired. That's 65. 65 + 10 to 15 = 80 to 85.
And in any case, you said the average buyer of the Azera is 10 to 15 years younger than the 300C buyer and then implied that the average buyer is around 20, making the average Hyundai buyer 5 to 10 years old.
Common knowledge? Show me facts and figures from a netrual source. Like I said before, your region probably differs from mine.
Me
Again, the 300 is no more a driver's car than a 1987 Lincoln Town Car. And the age range of the Azera is probably 10-15 years less than the 300. All I see driving 300's are 20-something moronic kids who think their car is luxurious and old people. And again, you can't call the Azera a "land yacht" and not call the 300 the same thing. I smell a hypocracy.
Yup, I most certainly said 20-somethings.
Then you seem to have atsronomically high standards. I fail to see any other affordable car that big with such good driving dynamics and outright fun.
I do have high standards yes, and that is my choice. And secondly I'm going to just agree to disagree with the 300 having "good driving dynamics" because I'm tired of the back and forth which ends up going nowhere.
And you missed the main part of mine: Yes, the much smaller and lighter Audi A6 is only a little bit off the Chrysler's time. How surprising how PWR works out. And in any case, that figure should be taken with a grain of salt anyways, as it is only a claimed figure. The A6 quattro was claimed by Audi to get to 60 in 7.1 and it took half a second longer when Autocar tried it.
I only provided a short rebuttle for the 0-60mph thing, I actually don't even prefer to care what that stat is most of the time--AND I think ALL auto magazines and manufacturer's claims are slanted and or incorrect. Unless you get ALL the cars on a neutral track with the perfect weather and with the same driver with extremely good skill I don't think anyone should take the numbers seriously. I thought it was funny to just show you the numbers, whether it is 7.1s or 6.9s or what-not it still proves my point about the smaller engine in the Audi being almost on par with the larger American unit. Are you not going to conceed that point?
You said things with more technology are faster. I gave you an example that proves that mantra to be patently false. I wasn't trying to strike up a chord with the Z06 love inside you, because I wasn't even aware it existed.
I simply stated that the FSI engine in the Audi had more technology. I did not say anything else, and the fact that you took off with that in a COMPLETELY different direction is almost entertaining. 👍
And for your information, I may like the ZO6 but trust me I do not love it, and there are a ton of other cars--all of which are slower--that I would prefer to own.
The one on Audi's website, of course.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc660.htm
After reading this:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc660.htm - I know what unladen means, which begs the question how do we know that the listed weight of the 300C is recorded in the same way?
Here's the thing: I did search for the actual weights, as I knew the A6 weighed nothing near the 300C. Within a minute I had the actual weights for both cars, and I posted the differences between the two cars. My main problem was that I messed up the math from kg to pounds.
In addition, you have been called out for the same thing before in one of your arguments, and my suspicions were proven correct when you said you did a Google search again to find weight values.
I made a mistake and owned up to it in the Shelby thread. And now that I've PROVEN that I did infact use google for my research should negate your inflammatory comments.
Find the mistake in my argument and I will own up to it like I did to my poor math.
You only did because *I* "called" you out on it just like you did me. Feels good doesn't it?
So, "you fail at life" is actually a real life, hurtful insult and not just a jovial nit to help drive home a point? Where have I been.
Dude wake up, seriously. I said you started the derogatory comments--you could of just as easily not said that sentence. You baited me, and I unfortunately took the bait. Either way, it was uncalled for. But I digress.
And I will straight up tell you why that is the case: I have truthfully gotten rather sick of your argument technicques.
Cool. Don't reply to them then? M5 and others seemed to have done alot better rebutting me with some sort of respect, why can't you. And, if you would like to know I rather don't like YOUR arguement techniques either. But I find it fun to have a debate with you. If you removed your insults, pot-shots, or what you consider "sarcasm" maybe it wouldn't be so hostile?
But then you start passing slanderous lies to try to debase other peoples opinions of a car. I said I would choose the 300C as it is a far better driver's car, so you proceed to spread bs about how it has the suspension of a mid 80's Caddy and has less enthusiast appeal than an '87 Town Car, even after I said that the Azera was the far better quality piece.
Brilliant. +5 points to you. It is apparent that your and my sarcasm seems to not be on the same wavelength. Re-read the first long post of mine in reply to yours, its rather obvious (to me at least) I was being overly sarcastic about the handling "comparing" it to the old American "boats".
You have a nasty habit of viewing things as, if it doesn't fit your vision (regardless of what the majority says), it is trash for whatever reason; and when people begin arguing with you about the highly controversial opinion you just raised, you throw a hissy fit and leave the discussion.
The bold portion is my opinion which I am entitled to and post about. The underlined portion is your interpretation. I leave the discussion because it gets too hostile on both sides, I do not want to resume these "conversations" because I will get angry and probably lose my cool and start using excessive profanity and or insults. So I leave to maintain my self control. And if I feel both sides have stated their opinions, and rebutted, and replied a 3rd time I consider that "beating a dead horse" and the said discussion is irrelevant afterwards as all arguements have been stated, addressed, and answered.
It makes you look very ignorant of other people's opinions, especially when you try to say the same thing of others. What you did with Doug (agree to disagree and then explain your reasoning) just recently would be a much better way to handle the debates you seem to constantly be in than packing up and heading out the second things start to look bad for your arguments.
Then why don't we agree to disagree then? I have no problem with that, and I was infact going to end this post as such. I prefer not to get into a shouting match. We are beating a dead horse here.
*edit*
So, again, agree to disagree. I needed to make sure it is clear that I will continue this thread discussion, just not our discussion.
I conceed that arguement, hah. How big are the boots? 
