I know, just toying with him, I'm bored today configuring a new server. 1le will run with it every time, I'll bet I get a full explanation on how the Camaro is the Integra's intended competition and how Halogens are the shiznit and how JD Powers and Consumer reports are God's and how dare I think for myself.
The horror! I just haven't decided yet if I'm done with him or not....

 

I think that Daimler Chrysler hit the nail right on the head. I wouldn't want to own one, but I think that the car will do well in the US. I am so confident that I am buying some of their stock.

 

HIDs are VASTLY MORE EXPENSIVE than halogen headlamps

PLUS:

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1057508800888

"We compared 31 cars and trucks with halogen lights and 10 with HIDs, measuring their ability to light the road ahead and along the sides as well as checking them for glare (see Headlight testing).

Six out of 10 vehicles with HIDs and 9 out of 31 with halogens reached the 400-foot marker on our test course with low beams, compared with an average of 335 feet for all models tested.

The farthest so far: the inexpensive, halogen-equipped Mazda Protegé5. Its low beams illuminated our 600-foot marker without creating a glare problem."

DETAILED ARTICLE ON HID LIGHTS:

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/...advantages.html

and:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...d-analysis.htm

 

Why don't you tell the guy how you thought that aluminum heads (purely from a material point of view and vs. iron) made more power?

 

http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/16/pf/autos/safety/

"Eventually, new technology will improve and refine HID lamps. NHTSA may eventually recommend that HID lights be weakened...In the meantime, some luxury brands, such as Mercedes-Benz, already have computer-controlled load leveling to adjust the angle of headlight beams if there is extra weight in the back seat. In the future, predicts Flannagan, adaptive lighting will automatically alter headlamp angle and direction according to road conditions. Until then, if you spend much of your time in traffic, you should probably not bother buying HID headlights.

http://www.oemagazine.com/fromthemag.../pdf/glare.pdf

 

Thank you for being so predictable.... Maybe I should toss you a hint, as if my response to UminChu wasn't enough of a hint. I'm pushing your buttons, I didn't really want a response, everybody and their mother has seen them, nobody cares. Get it?

 

Where have I stated this?

 

You know DAMN WELL that you implied it (re: L78 with aluminum heads...It was only the IRON HEAD version that didn't make "335 RWHP.") LOL

NONE OF THEM were within 75 HP of making thta kind of power as they sat on the dealership lot in 1969.

Then you went into that asinine argument about GROSS rear wheel HP vs. NET rear wheel HP....

Remember THAT?

 

Stupid people HAVE to "push buttons," since the're incapable of winning their case by sticking with OBJECTIVE FACTS.

 

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black."

 

I stick with FACTS.

Want to argue some FACTS with me?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

That guy is ON RECORD claiming that "unaltered" 1969 Chevelles, equipped with L78 396s, produced "335 RHWP."

He's also on record implying that the aluminum head version made quantifiably MORE POWER than the iron head version. (See, I blew his original claim out of the water, so he resorted to the "but the aluminum head version did" argument.)

Neither of those claims has any basis whatsoever in reality.

Care to debate that?

 

I don't remember implying any such thing, you seem to extract whatever you think suits your argument and then go with it ignoring what people are saying.


I remember you going on and on and on and on and on and on about things nobody on an Acura based web site cares about.
It doesn't matter and isn't worth arguing about, yet for some reason you have this need to argue forever. I bet girls dump you by ignoring you because doing so to your face would yield a week long diatribe on the merits of how right you are and wrong they are. Get over it.

 

Then you memory is as faulty as your "facts."

Anyone can search the achives (by using various keywords) to see what you said and when.

"335 RWHP."

Was that "gross rear wheel HP" or "net rear wheel HP?"

 

Or, people give up trying to debate an issue with you because it's a one way argument. You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you, you're a Google boy who reads and then falls into the line of what your reading. As you were called before, you're a bench racer with no experience but what you've read.

As for being stupid, sure ask my wife, I'm stupid sometimes, you seem to be all the time.

 

And you sir are good at stating the obvious.

 

These quotes of yours speaks for itself:

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...num#post710738

(and what the hell is "GRWHP"?!)

"Ignorant twit, you're right about one thing though, non big block aluminum headed Chevelle's didn't make 335 GRWHP...
Last edited by Norse396 on 03-11-2004 at 11:49 PM"

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...num#post700621

 

Car has the type of styling that I would have to see in person to know if I like it or not, but it looks like an exciting design. There will be some market for the 300C, but I think the base models will be underperformers.

Sad to see Chrysler, with all of that MB engineering capability available, still reaching into the 'Hemi' bag of tricks. Can a 2 ton car feel nimble? Maybe. Or will it be a 'floater'? That's been the model for big American V-8 sedans. How will the 'cylinder disconnect' system perform and will it affect durability? Will the transmission (auto) be a slushbox? Will the interior feel like cheap plastic? Have to see...

Chrysler would have to really improve their track record in a lot of areas before I could seriously consider one of their products. I don't consider them in the same league as Honda/Acura.

 

How much "Gross Rear Wheel HP" was this "425 HP" 396 Corvette putting out?

 

I guess they can search it and draw their own conclusion either way. You seem to think this is about winning an argument, maybe you're a closet debate team groupie who knows.

I think most have decided, but since this horse was beaten into the ground awhile ago I'm not going to rehash something you're incapable of understanding. I do know if I am wrong about something I'll admit to it and I stated a few things about how I worded something in previous posts that you completely ignored.

Try to read this now, it's 2004, not 1969 and this doesn't matter anymore.

 

These quotes of yours speaks for itself:

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...num#post710738

(and what the hell is "GRWHP"?!)

"Ignorant twit, you're right about one thing though, non big block aluminum headed Chevelle's didn't make 335 GRWHP...
Last edited by Norse396 on 03-11-2004 at 11:49 PM"

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...num#post700621

Meanwhile, Hale's TRAP SPEED formula tells us that this "425 HP" Corvette below produced ~ 315 FLYWHEEL (~ SAE NET) HP

That's a whopping ~ 270 REAR WHEEL HP.:wow:

 

norse and harddrivin, please bring it into the PMs. Your arguments have no bearing on the Chrysler 300 vs Acura TL argument.

That said,

If the 300 handles as well as the TL (or at least the W/S210 E430 on which it is based) then it will be seriously on my shortlist. The car looks absolutley gangster (not gangsta, gangster, as if it should come equipped with gatling guns for the drive-by) especially in black. While the TL is handsome, available with a manual, and comes with more toys, the 300 has a V8, RWD, and a more interesting interior finish (not necessarily better, but more interesting).

 

It will handle better than the TL, largely due to the fact that it's rear wheel drive.

And this thread was going along JUST FINE until he jammed himself in here in an OBVIOUS attempt to start more crap....

Go back a few posts and see for yourself.

 

I'm just afraid they're going to Americanize the platform and stick overly soft springs and dampers so it "rides better on the highway" like they did to the Crossfire. I'm having nightmares that it's going to be a boat. I'm hoping DC proves me wrong.

 

1le,

This isn't 1969 so it doesn't matter. It's now 2004 and the cars built back then are not directly comparable to cars built today . I would think the reason for this would be ovious, in case it isn't here is yet another hint in a long line of them, cars back then are at a disadvantage to the ones built today, now it may not seem obvious why to you but I think the point is made.

flanagan,

Good point, I'll drop it.

 

flanagan,

Does the Crossfire seem cheap to you? I took one for a drive and it just felt like plastic everywhere.

The new 300's grill is just too big... Chrysler is great at making nice looking cars. Now if only they could make them better, that would make me interested.

 

Sorry, I don't see it outhandling the TL - not with its 225/60/18 'touring' tires. Sounds like they are taking the 'plush' ride.

 

There's a LOT more to the "handling" equation than skid pad grip and slalom times...

 

It does seem a little cheap, but then again the SLK always seemed cheap to me so there ya go.

I agree, but the tires are the first thing in the handling equation. If they have a 60 series sidewall, you're not going to feel much through the steering no matter how good the suspension is. Plus the tire selection is a good indication of the decisions made on the rest of the car.

 

Sure there's more to handling than slalom and skidpad. There's more to it than RWD and 'hemi' too. I'm trying to be open minded, but when I see '4000 lb American V-8 sedan sporting 60 series touring tires' it sounds like the suspension is probably slanted towards comfort. I would love to be wrong here and see Chrysler come out with a winner...

 

Priced the 300C at Chrysler's site. With options similar to what I have in my TL it priced at nearly 38K.

 

I just checked their wesbite.

You're correct; the car is under-tired for a 4,018 pound "performance" sedan.

 

we could probably call it a MERCEDES BENTLeY...hmm that sounded dumb:smackhead

 

Priced the 300C at Chrysler's site. With options similar to what I have in my TL it priced at nearly 38K.

 

Ok.

Fact 1: He has claimed no such thing in this thread.

Fact 2: See Fact 1.

Fact 3: You introduced those topics to this thread, not him.

Fact 4: Doing so was completely and utterly off topic, and offers no relevance whatsoever to this thread. Classic troll behavior.

Debate what? That you're a troll, attempting to divert and hijack the entire thread?

Fact 5: There is no debate, your behavior within your own posts is self incriminating. Case closed.

 

He introduced NEW TOPICS to this thread BEFORE I did.

And it's really none of your F***G business, as far I can tell.

 

No, actually you did and I quote.

End quote...

And I responded

To which the whole tirade began.

Sure it is, you don't own this forum.

 

http://www.youareanassclown.com/

 

You love playing the roll of troll....
If you're going to be one, be a good one, this is half assed at best Google boy...

 

Hey Norse and 1le - would ya'll please posts pictures of yourself on this forum so I can see what you two look like.

I have formed a "visual" of what each of you looks like, but I think everyone on this forum would really like to put a face to these posts.

Thanks,

 

jjsC5,

Shall I put on a 10 gallon hat?