WITHOUT QUESTION, THIS IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED IN 2010.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: WITHOUT QUESTION, THIS IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED IN 2010.
Next: WITHOUT QUESTION, THIS IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED IN 2010.
From: Not Leonard Cohen on 19 Feb 2010 13:21 In any model year, the most attractive for me would be the cheapest, with power NOTHING, computer-controlled NOTHING, manual EVERYTHING, lots of headroom and legroom, analogue sweep dials, no check lights. Airbags okay. If a manufacturer would build that car, I would then and only then consider "aesthetics".
From: Adrian on 19 Feb 2010 13:28 Not Leonard Cohen <brafield(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > In any model year, the most attractive for me would be the cheapest, > with power NOTHING, computer-controlled NOTHING, manual EVERYTHING, lots > of headroom and legroom, analogue sweep dials, no check lights. Airbags > okay. > > If a manufacturer would build that car, I would then and only then > consider "aesthetics". Basic-spec Toyota Aygo/Pug 107/Cit C1. Power steering & ABS/EBD/CSC (ESP is an option), unfortunately, but that's about your lot as far as toys go. Even got keep-fit windows. The other option, of course, is to go _properly_ retro. I've been giving 'erselfs 20yo Pug 205 a hoof today. If it was a 1.0, instead of 1.1, it wouldn't even have servo brakes. Good fun to lob about, and only cost us a hundred quid.
From: Mike Hunter on 19 Feb 2010 14:30 (Cross posting deleted, automatically) For starters without a microprocessor the manufacture could not meet the current EPA requirements and thus could not sell a car like that "Not Leonard Cohen" <brafield(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bec0a4b6-df83-4dfc-a997-00b76a463506(a)a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > In any model year, the most attractive for me would be the cheapest, > with power NOTHING, computer-controlled NOTHING, manual EVERYTHING, > lots of headroom and legroom, analogue sweep dials, no check lights. > Airbags okay. > > If a manufacturer would build that car, I would then and only then > consider "aesthetics". >
From: APLer on 19 Feb 2010 22:19 build <buildy(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:0e5edfa8-d9bd-49e2-b142-03036536d058(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 20, 1:40�pm, "Noddy" <m...(a)home.com> wrote: >> "boyari2" <boya...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:947399c1-8ce3-4366-865d-bc54963eb6a5(a)j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com. >> .. >> >> > NICE, HUH? >> >> >http://surftofind.com/dodge >> >> > Any worthy rivals? >> >> The new Camaro shits all over it. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Noddy. > > The old Camaro shits all the new Camaro and the old Firebird shits all > over the old Camaro ... draw your own conclusions. > And the vette (*any* version) and Viper (*any* version) tears both the above a new one. Having a sports car with more than 2 seats is a bad start.
From: clare on 21 Feb 2010 14:12
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:13:10 -0600, Ed Maier <evmaiertakethisout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2/21/2010 1:41 AM, build wrote: >> Hey you blokes are consumed by cubes, cubes are not everything. At the >> end of the day every car is a public wank. If i drive up to your Dodge >> Challenger in my MGA and drive away with your girlfriend in the >> passenger seat, which car is better? >> >> ;-) >> build >> > >We really need to know more about the girlfriend before we can make a >logical decision. > >Eddie > "you can have her I don't want her She's too fat foe me"? |