Quake3World

yeah maybe c4s and up, but the c3s looked class.

Turbine wrote:Corvette's are truly ugly car's.
They lack any style and certainly, class.

They look as if thou they where made for people with short dicks; to compensate for their lack of.

American and European car markets differ greatly when it comes to te actual look of the car, the European designers carry more class in their cars, because that is what Europeans want. Where did Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come from?

A corvette is good looking only in a American society and values sort of way.

Wow. Just...wow.

Turbine wrote:Corvette's are truly ugly car's.
They lack any style and certainly, class.

They look as if thou they where made for people with short dicks; to compensate for their lack of.

American and European car markets differ greatly when it comes to te actual look of the car, the European designers carry more class in their cars, because that is what Europeans want. Where did Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come from?

A corvette is good looking only in a American society and values sort of way.

I think you need to round out your knowledge a little before trying to make broad, sweeping statements.

Pantsman wrote:this is the part where i chime in and say audi's are ugly too.

Fool! Get thee from my sight!

Personal opinion, of course...nonetheless, I can't help but give you a for that one.

Bdw3 wrote:

Doombrain wrote:I think most people would take the audi over the yank car anyday.

lol, fact.

I'm no huge fan of American branded autos... but...

That girly Audi or a Vett.....

Fuck no.... give me the Vett!

Already have a people hauler that will last ages longer than an Audi anyway. (Toyota > * quality)
Hell even if we didn't I'll still rather have a Vett.

If it's a toyota, then yeah, it probably will last longer... but Audis consistenly have some of the best build quaility on the market. They definietly last the part. Expensive as hell to repair, but probably about the same as a vette...

currently the top 3 for quality for the automotive relm is as follows:

Toyota
Honda
Volkswagon

in that order btw, and this is North america as a whole. ( not only canada )

remember, Audi fits under vw

*yawn*

http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/au ... 3_IQSp.htm

lol, look at the poor 300C/Magi..

chrysler

where does subaru rank on that list?

hp/l means absolutly shit.
the only place hp/l matters is if you live in a country that taxes large displacment cars more or if you are racing in a class were displacement is limited.
horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

Grandpa Stu wrote:where does subaru rank on that list?

truthfully, quite low. subaru's for the longest time dident have much to there name when it came to durability, in northamerica atleast,

but from about the mid 90's when they compleatly revamped there engine line up, up to and including the Flat 4 Produced by Prorche/VW they have gotten ALOT beter.

let me see if i can find the chart that i was looking at before.

yea, i cant find it, its posted by JD power..

Overall, in the top 10, sub's are about 12'th overall.

LOL. The Audi is worse than the Jag and certainly much worse than average.

shaft wrote:*yawn*

http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/au ... 3_IQSp.htm

Maiden wrote:hp/l means absolutly shit.
the only place hp/l matters is if you live in a country that taxes large displacment cars more or if you are racing in a class were displacement is limited.
horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

DING DING DING! WINNAR! What ToxicDud is far too thick to realize is that hp/l is a nice measure of an engine's efficiency, but far from being a decent overall performance yardstick. You start talking kg/hp or lbs/hp, well that's a different story.

power to weight FTW!

R00k wrote:

Turbine wrote:Corvette's are truly ugly car's.
They lack any style and certainly, class.

They look as if thou they where made for people with short dicks; to compensate for their lack of.

American and European car markets differ greatly when it comes to te actual look of the car, the European designers carry more class in their cars, because that is what Europeans want. Where did Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come from?

A corvette is good looking only in a American society and values sort of way.

I think you need to round out your knowledge a little before trying to make broad, sweeping statements.

fuck yeah...

detroit's 'dreamcruise' is the shit

if you wanna see badass muscle

AmIdYfReAk wrote:power to weight FTW!

Yeah, same thing, spaz. Ever heard of a reciprocal?

Ya toxic us dumbfuck americans.

Nightshade wrote: DING DING DING! WINNAR! What ToxicDud is far too thick to realize is that hp/l is a nice measure of an engine's efficiency

is it even that?
I would think that mpg would be the stat there, but maybe I am missing your point. or maybe even cruising rpm???? funny,if it is mpg the Z06 even gets better milage than the RS4

shame how the super high tech "real" V8 gets its ass handed to it in almost every way by the worn out backassward pushrod V in the vette.
stupid americans

Nightshade wrote:

Maiden wrote:hp/l means absolutly shit.
the only place hp/l matters is if you live in a country that taxes large displacment cars more or if you are racing in a class were displacement is limited.
horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

DING DING DING! WINNAR! What ToxicDud is far too thick to realize is that hp/l is a nice measure of an engine's efficiency, but far from being a decent overall performance yardstick. You start talking kg/hp or lbs/hp, well that's a different story.

But if you're able to get more horsepower from a smaller engine, won't that help reduce weight? I mean, if the vette used 5 liters to get 500 hp, wouldn't that increase the hp/kg?
Maybe not... I don't know much about engines.

Also, I'm not sure I completely believe those fuel economy numbers... I find it hard to believe an Audi can be that bad. I mean, these are the people that can get 40+ mpg in the from a 4.2 L diesel V8 in the A8. Even my TT can easily hit 35 mpg on the highway. If those RS4 figures are correct, that's a huge disappointment...

No, it just means that the engine itself can be smaller. The RS4 is a perfect example, in that it's almost 700lbs heavier than the Z06, so the 'Vette has a better power-to-weight ratio. This is a direct measure of the car's performance.

So a smaller (e.g... 5.0 L) engine won't effectively weigh less than a larger one (e.g... 7.0 L)?
Huh. Didn't know that.

If that's the case, why not just make all engines massively large?

Nightshade wrote:No, it just means that the engine itself can be smaller. The RS4 is a perfect example, in that it's almost 700lbs heavier than the Z06, so the 'Vette has a better power-to-weight ratio. This is a direct measure of the car's performance.

No shit that its heavier. Its a 4 door all-wheel-drive luxury sedan. A C6 Z06 is just a huge engine and a chassis, not much comfort going on there.

werldhed wrote:If those RS4 figures are correct, that's a huge disappointment...

not really.
remember the rs4 will go 0-60 about 3 seconds faster than your TT and will blow the doors off 85% of the cars on the road.
it IS a damn fine machine.

werldhed wrote:So a smaller (e.g... 5.0 L) engine won't effectively weigh less than a larger one (e.g... 7.0 L)?
Huh. Didn't know that.

If that's the case, why not just make all engines massively large?

Because everyone except for the americans try to move the technology forwards. More HP/L means more efficient engines.