No it isn't. Silver is silver. Chrome is much more reflective.
Just like purple and indigo are different colours.
Oh ok, then. So I guess silver isn't reflective enough
then try painting both chrome and silver in solid and see if "more reflection" of chrome is all that necessary. Go. Try. It won't make a difference, they are both shiny.
If you class 3.3 seconds as unnecessary, then surely you have a point where you'd class the acceleration as necessary. Where is this point?
Maybe, not too extreme...6-7 seconds? I don't drive so I don't know how fast that exactly is but I do know what I'm saying because my dad used to work at Toyota.
Your "guess" about supercars' fuel economy was wrong. I was asking if you wanted another one.
Sure, they are inefficient. Btw, your figure about Hummer is right, but Murcielago gets 9 mpg city as said in Road & Track. Enzo gets around 8 mpg. Gallardo gets 10. So is it that far from Hummer now?
Not really - they give the remaining 500hp, reliably, when running.
Yes, they give out the remaining 500 horses, but if it consumes that much power then I wouldn't bother putting it on and wasting more fuels by requiring 500hp to run.
You don't think VAG, who are making a HUGE loss on each car, would put four turbochargers on if there was no need for them, do you?
Oh, maybe just for show. Thats what supercars are all about - show.
So what's wrong with driving at 156mph if 155mph is okay?
Well you are 1mph over the speed limit 
What if I wanted to take my car to a track?
Sure, take it to the track then.
What?
You said that :
If you're in stop and go traffic, how are you going to use the power to speed?
Well, what if you're really bothered by all the stoplights, and want to just zip throught the next one. So you speed, trying to catch the light. It turns yellow. Of course, if you're in a 500hp M5 then you must be going pretty fast by then so you can't stop. Then another motorist who feels the same as you, irritated by the continuous onslaught of the stoplights, starts accelerating from the light before it turns green. I've seen it, just now, since I was walking home from the public library where I posted my previous two posts. I counted maybe 15 people doing what I mentioned above, because they were in such a hurry.
You aren't. You're only going to use the power on fast roads, such as Highways. Where there are less accidents per mile than any other type of road. So how is more power going to lead to more accidents?
In the city - read above.
The average car sold in the UK today has 105hp. There are fewer accidents per car per mile now than 40 years ago, when 105hp was some crazy, fabled, promised-land. The Ford Anglia - the truely average car of 1965 - had only 45hp. So again, how does more power lead to more accidents?
Yes...if what you claim is true then why is there so much more crashes counted in here than before...? I don't know about UK, and I never will, because I don't live there, but guess what? Roads in UK are more likely to cause accidents than Canada since your roads are so narrow. Also, take into consideration that back in 1965, there weren't airbags - or ABS or Lane Departure Warning or for that matter, electronics in the car! Those safety devices helped reduce accident rates by a lot, but that gain made by those devices are being offset by crashes related to speeding. This bridge we have in Greater Vancouver, called Patullo Bridge, have had more speed-related deaths than any other bridges in our area. Why? Because people are reckless. 140hp in a Cavalier is enough to take you to over 100km/h and try crashing from that speed. Now take a 500hp M5 and do the same. You'll probably end up with more speed than the Cavalier in the same stretch of road. That's why more power = more accidents.
Because environmentalism is "cool". If politicians care about trees and hamstring cars, while building yet another coal-fired power station, they get re-elected.
You're absolutely right there.
Why? You said that these fast cars hurt future generations. The E-Type was the first road car to hit 150mph. How did that hurt my generation compared to the previous one?
Yes it did....look at all the people who lost their lives before the manditory safety requirements were passed in the US. All the family members suffered and went though hard times, because their kids were speeding. If your car goes faster and faster and faster, then there's going to be even more
severe accidents. If all cars only went 30mph, then how would there be any life-threatening accidents? Maybe rear-ending, but that doesn't necessary kill. But if you crash at 120mph on a M5 then yes you will likely to die, therefore hurting future generations because first your family will suffer. There will be one less person to be out in the society working or contributing. Governments will be pressured by locals to improve the road (that's the case with Patullo, its not the bridge, its the people, but locals have been pushing for the replacement of the bridge.) where the crash took place, thus spending millions that could have been spent elsewhere, such as education. Education is the key to raising responsible kids.
You don't need to put color=black tags in. Black is the default font colour. You left several color tags open because of this.
Alright. Are you accusing me by saying that You left several color tags open because of this? I don't quite get the meaning.
Then you are responsible for as much carbon dioxide load as a single car per year, just by owning it (not to mention stereos, washing machines, fridges, your PS2...). Imagine what happens when you turn it on and the electricity comes down the pipes from the power station...
And guess what, my dad's car is an American car. My portable music player is iPod. Our washing machine is Kenmore. Our fridge is Kenmore also. Our stereo, we brought it along with us when I moved from Japan 5 years ago, on a plane, not a ship. My computer is Compaq. Do you call Kenmore, Compaq, Apple, and Oldsmobile Japanese stuff?
