More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote
>>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
>>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
>>
>>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just blather
>>on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>
>
>You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
>under $25,000 anyway.
Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
will take care of that.
head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote
>>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
>>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
>>
>>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just blather
>>on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>
>
>You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
>under $25,000 anyway.
Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
will take care of that.
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote
>>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
>>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
>>
>>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just blather
>>on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>
>
>You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
>under $25,000 anyway.
Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
will take care of that.
head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote
>>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
>>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
>>
>>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just blather
>>on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>
>
>You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
>under $25,000 anyway.
Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
will take care of that.
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
gt under 25k is easy via carsdirect.com or via a good dealer haggle, they
give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an rsx.
It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer wants.
The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica gts
with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
turbo with a warranty.
Bri
"Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
wrote
> >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> >>
> >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
blather
> >>on about what it _isn't_.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> >under $25,000 anyway.
>
> Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> will take care of that.
>
>
give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an rsx.
It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer wants.
The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica gts
with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
turbo with a warranty.
Bri
"Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
wrote
> >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> >>
> >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
blather
> >>on about what it _isn't_.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> >under $25,000 anyway.
>
> Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> will take care of that.
>
>
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
gt under 25k is easy via carsdirect.com or via a good dealer haggle, they
give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an rsx.
It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer wants.
The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica gts
with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
turbo with a warranty.
Bri
"Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
wrote
> >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> >>
> >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
blather
> >>on about what it _isn't_.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> >under $25,000 anyway.
>
> Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> will take care of that.
>
>
give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an rsx.
It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer wants.
The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica gts
with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
turbo with a warranty.
Bri
"Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
wrote
> >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> >>
> >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
blather
> >>on about what it _isn't_.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> >under $25,000 anyway.
>
> Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> will take care of that.
>
>
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
On the topic of torque for around town driving I suppose that the 6 speed
manual would get the most out of the RSX type S. I bought a manual '98 CL
in April and it's got to be one of the sweetest gearboxes ever made outside
of the Miata, although it's the only manual I've ever owned.. Celica GT-S
engine is supposed to be even peakier than the GT, and Car and Driver said
so in the last comparo which was a year and a half ago I believe (the RSX
won). For best torque in a 4 I think the VW GTI is right up there. It has
180 lb ft at 1950 rpm or something like that. Nothing can touch turbo
torque. WRX is more money than most of the ones you're looking at. 2.5 RS
looks like it for less money. Me, I can't justify buying any new car. I
might be looking at a used Integra GS-R if I was looking more performance
car but the insurance is $600 a year more. I just keep searching until I
find one that's been babied. Most people on my street think my CL is brand
new.
"Brian" <tcpipman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UdKdneaNTPMwnrGiXTWJhg@britsys.net...
> gt under 25k is easy via carsdirect.com or via a good dealer haggle, they
> give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an
rsx.
> It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer
wants.
> The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
> around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica
gts
> with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
> consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
> reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
> turbo with a warranty.
>
> Bri
>
> "Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> > head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> > ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
> wrote
> > >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> > >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> > >>
> > >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
> blather
> > >>on about what it _isn't_.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> > >under $25,000 anyway.
> >
> > Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> > will take care of that.
> >
> >
>
>
manual would get the most out of the RSX type S. I bought a manual '98 CL
in April and it's got to be one of the sweetest gearboxes ever made outside
of the Miata, although it's the only manual I've ever owned.. Celica GT-S
engine is supposed to be even peakier than the GT, and Car and Driver said
so in the last comparo which was a year and a half ago I believe (the RSX
won). For best torque in a 4 I think the VW GTI is right up there. It has
180 lb ft at 1950 rpm or something like that. Nothing can touch turbo
torque. WRX is more money than most of the ones you're looking at. 2.5 RS
looks like it for less money. Me, I can't justify buying any new car. I
might be looking at a used Integra GS-R if I was looking more performance
car but the insurance is $600 a year more. I just keep searching until I
find one that's been babied. Most people on my street think my CL is brand
new.
"Brian" <tcpipman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UdKdneaNTPMwnrGiXTWJhg@britsys.net...
> gt under 25k is easy via carsdirect.com or via a good dealer haggle, they
> give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an
rsx.
> It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer
wants.
> The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
> around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica
gts
> with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
> consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
> reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
> turbo with a warranty.
>
> Bri
>
> "Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> > head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> > ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
> wrote
> > >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> > >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> > >>
> > >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
> blather
> > >>on about what it _isn't_.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> > >under $25,000 anyway.
> >
> > Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> > will take care of that.
> >
> >
>
>
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
On the topic of torque for around town driving I suppose that the 6 speed
manual would get the most out of the RSX type S. I bought a manual '98 CL
in April and it's got to be one of the sweetest gearboxes ever made outside
of the Miata, although it's the only manual I've ever owned.. Celica GT-S
engine is supposed to be even peakier than the GT, and Car and Driver said
so in the last comparo which was a year and a half ago I believe (the RSX
won). For best torque in a 4 I think the VW GTI is right up there. It has
180 lb ft at 1950 rpm or something like that. Nothing can touch turbo
torque. WRX is more money than most of the ones you're looking at. 2.5 RS
looks like it for less money. Me, I can't justify buying any new car. I
might be looking at a used Integra GS-R if I was looking more performance
car but the insurance is $600 a year more. I just keep searching until I
find one that's been babied. Most people on my street think my CL is brand
new.
"Brian" <tcpipman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UdKdneaNTPMwnrGiXTWJhg@britsys.net...
> gt under 25k is easy via carsdirect.com or via a good dealer haggle, they
> give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an
rsx.
> It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer
wants.
> The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
> around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica
gts
> with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
> consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
> reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
> turbo with a warranty.
>
> Bri
>
> "Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> > head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> > ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
> wrote
> > >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> > >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> > >>
> > >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
> blather
> > >>on about what it _isn't_.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> > >under $25,000 anyway.
> >
> > Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> > will take care of that.
> >
> >
>
>
manual would get the most out of the RSX type S. I bought a manual '98 CL
in April and it's got to be one of the sweetest gearboxes ever made outside
of the Miata, although it's the only manual I've ever owned.. Celica GT-S
engine is supposed to be even peakier than the GT, and Car and Driver said
so in the last comparo which was a year and a half ago I believe (the RSX
won). For best torque in a 4 I think the VW GTI is right up there. It has
180 lb ft at 1950 rpm or something like that. Nothing can touch turbo
torque. WRX is more money than most of the ones you're looking at. 2.5 RS
looks like it for less money. Me, I can't justify buying any new car. I
might be looking at a used Integra GS-R if I was looking more performance
car but the insurance is $600 a year more. I just keep searching until I
find one that's been babied. Most people on my street think my CL is brand
new.
"Brian" <tcpipman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UdKdneaNTPMwnrGiXTWJhg@britsys.net...
> gt under 25k is easy via carsdirect.com or via a good dealer haggle, they
> give great acceleration, but handling Im sure isnt as precise as say an
rsx.
> It really boils down to how much acceleration and handling this buyer
wants.
> The rsx really doesnt get interesting till 5-6k rpm, which in stop & go
> around town driving will sometimes be tough to attain. I drove a celica
gts
> with a 5 speed and have a similar opinion of it. If the altima is a
> consideration, why not maxima or g35? Rereading the sellers post, cheap,
> reliable and fast as hell, I'd have to vote wrx, or perhaps a used eclipse
> turbo with a warranty.
>
> Bri
>
> "Robb Gonyer" <Arcade-Dawg@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:b2knivk4kv24r5rtq6e0jmattdu6331nm0@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:12:39 -0400, "Gary Seven AKA: \"Mister
> > head\"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:34:19 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
> > ><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Gary Seven AKA: "Mister head"" <garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom>
> wrote
> > >>in message news:rv63hvchu6idmpg64lnkbipspmh6ehf7eu@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >>> Well, if we're going to nic pick the Mustang isn't really a Sports
> > >>> car... its a muscle car with OK handling.
> > >>
> > >>If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
> blather
> > >>on about what it _isn't_.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >You're right... come to think of it he won't be able to get a GT for
> > >under $25,000 anyway.
> >
> > Sure he will- a little haggling and the rebates that are out there
> > will take care of that.
> >
> >
>
>
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
Well that just declassifies my Jag XJS as a sports car.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
Well that just declassifies my Jag XJS as a sports car.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
Well that just declassifies my Jag XJS as a sports car.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More Advice on a sports car purchase (celica, eclipse, rsx, ,wrx, altima)
Well that just declassifies my Jag XJS as a sports car.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
Vlad
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:11:56 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:04:54 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowXLS@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:3F11E4F6.6B9F848A@mailcity.com...
>>> FWD 'Sportscar' is and oxymoron.
>>
>>> > If you're going to nitpick, you have to define sports car, not just
>>blather
>>> > on about what it _isn't_.
>>
>>Lol.....still can't do it I see.
>>You're still attempting to define it by what it _isn't_.
>>
>>What is a sports car?
>>
>>Blather away...
>>
>
>Here's how I classify them.
>
>Sports car.
>Has NO doors!
>Has no roof (soft top or maybe a 'T' bar - no power)
>Has 2 cozy seats - if you and your passenger total more than
>25stone/158Kg you will probably be in contact.
>Has a minimal mudguard or wheelarch height 2in/5cm and waistline to
>match.
>Is lightweight, less than 1980lb/900Kg.
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Is very low to the ground and you just about sit on the floor so the
>seat is about 1ft/30cm off the ground.
>Look up Caterham/Westfield 7, Dax Rush and Kylama.
>
>The other rag top cars you may think are sports cars are 'roadsters'
>or 'sports roadsters' as they have doors. They weigh a ton(ne) or
>more and are a bit taller at the waistline but 'sports roadsters'
>still have no more than 6in/15cm height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center.
>
>The real Sports coupe.
>Has 2 or 3 doors - if 3 door must be fastback.
>Has a fixed roof.
>Has 2 seats (if it is 2+2 it's a 2+2 Sports coupe)
>Is sleek and low, overall height - height from wheel arch to top of
>bonnet directly above hub center, is less than 59in (1.5m).
>Is lightweight - less than 2480lb/1125kg (2+2 2755lb/1250Kg).
>Has RWD and manual gearbox.
>Has a ground to seat height less than 15in/38cm.
>
>The cars listed in the subject are 'sports styled coupe' or
>'performance saloon'. The coupes can't claim the label 'sports
>coupe'. Any coupe based on a saloon or with FWD can only ever claim
>the be 'SPORTS STYLED'.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Brad
Honda Mailing List
7
07-08-2003 04:05 AM
simpleton
Honda Mailing List
12
07-01-2003 11:52 PM
MajorDome@mailcity.com
Honda Mailing List
24
07-01-2003 10:48 PM
Jacque_Strapp
Honda Mailing List
4
06-30-2003 09:07 PM
noway
Honda Mailing List
1
06-28-2003 11:47 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)