PING-DeserTBob-seriously...

On 15 Dec 2005 11:26:19 -0800, "R. White"
wrote:


66FOURDOOR wrote:
you really believe consumer reports ?

YOU posted the damn link, not me.

And I'd believe Consumer Reports over Charlie Nudo any day. snip

Since 1936, CU has been testing consumer products (and exposing frauds
galore) to protect their members. I've found them to be wrong in very
very few cases.

that is very foolish on your part- the best way to rate a car, is buy
it and drive it yourself. snip

Which is what CU does...they buy them, they drive them, they test
them. When some commercial rag-mag like Road & Track writes about a
car, the manufacturer gives them the car gratis, plus puts little
"niceties" on the car and bribes the author and editor. This is well
documented for ANY of the automotive mags.

So says Charlie Nudo, he's right and everyone else is wrong...again. snip

Charlie Nudo....he does paranoid delusion RIGHT!

get a Jaguar or Mercedes.

Holy crap, are you serious? Good lord, the quality of those cars has
went straight down the toilet in recent years. snip

Jaquar = gussied up Taurus
Mercedes = "Decontented" to squeeze more profit out to fund the
Chrysler buyout.

OMG, you are making me laugh so hard I can hardly type.

JUNK

So sayeth NUDO! snip

Another NudoTurd drops into the toilet! FLUSH...FLUSH...FLUSH...

66FOURDOOR wrote:
http://www.aiada.org/publications.as...20&pub=FirstUp


wow, side impact dangers...you guys are risking your lives, daily

You said it, look at the Pontiac Grand Prix,

"The tests were conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).

The Toyota Sienna was the only van to get a top score in both front and
side impact tests for driver and passenger positions.

The lowest overall score went to the Pontiac Grand Prix four-door
sedan."

On 15 Dec 2005 10:58:34 -0800, "R. White"
wrote:


66FOURDOOR wrote:
http://www.cei.org/pdf/2353.pdf#search='dangers%20of%20small%20cars'

small cars are really unsafe- Ricky and DB got suckered into buying gas
misers, that are coffins on wheels- I'd trade up to a full frame GM
soon, if I was you fellas... snip

ROFL! GM hasn't even BUILT a "frame" car in years, except for the
notoriously lousy Chevy "Crap-piece" (and pre 1986 Buick Le Slobber,
Olds Deltard and Pontiac Bonne-turd twins), which is now monocoque.
Noodles also never said how unsafe GM X frames were in the '50s and
'60s...NO side protection at all, due to the absence of ANY structural
members along the side sills. After being outed by Consumer's Union,
GM, without admitting to design weaknesses, quietly dropped the X
frame and went back to pre-1957 ladder-type box frame with side sills
in '65. Even that won't guarantee side impact safety, as the test
data for gas guzzling, soon-to-be-gone Suburbans and Tahoes show.
Notice to Noodles: Chevy Suburbans and Ford "Exploders" (aptly named)
are selling for WHOLESALE here...they cannot GIVE them away. Many may
be exported to Mexiturd, or scrapped new for parts. One dealer out
here has already scrapped out three of them just to sell the power
trains and interior parts and took the carcass as a loss. So much for
US auto industry "brains"...which GM hasn't had in 40 years.

Sorry Charlie, I didn't get suckered into anything. My descision to buy
a CRV was based on hours of research and talking to owners of CRV's. snip

Charlie doesn't have enough education nor brains to know what
"research" is, let alone do any of it.

So much for GM being safe. snip

My '92 Cadillac was safe enough, although in a triple rollover my wife
got into, every piece of metal in that body was bent beyond
recognition. I was rather appalled by the lack of structural
integrity of that car after that major accident, but at least she
didn't die. More junior GM cars do not fare as well, as neither do
later Cadillacs, on which the body was cheapened and lightened
considerably. I also had a '92 Camaro, about as unsafe a car as I've
ever driven. Those things had a notoriously slippery rear end on wet
surfaces, and were lethal on ice, even with Goodrich T/As all around..

Early Hondas had a bad accident reputation, that much is a given.
Accident tow truck drivers call early Hondas "tin foil cars," and the
Japs just didn't have the knowledge nor the steel to build stronger
platforms, as strong composites weren't available then. The trick to
survival is to outwit the "Nudo driver"...some uneducated zhlub on a
cell phone steering with one thumb. I can spot 'em every time, and
can't count the amount of accidents I've avoided simply by steering
clear. What's great is when you steer out of harm's way from one Nudo
and he winds up hitting another Nudo broadside...makes me chuckle!

Oh yeah...my wife can't drive for ****...still can't. That's why I
keep her in a low powered car. The 250 HP of the Cadillac is what got
her into trouble in the first place. At one time, she had a '69 Road
Runner with the 383...I shudder to think what THAT was like! What's
funny? My '92 Cadillac had the exact same horsepower rating as my '55
Cadillacs, and got just slighly better gas mileage. Those Barr-Cole
engines in the '50s were lightyears ahead of other divisions'
crap...like that gawdawful small block Chevy.

dB

On 15 Dec 2005 11:49:37 -0800, "R. White"
wrote:


66FOURDOOR wrote:
http://www.aiada.org/publications.as...20&pub=FirstUp


wow, side impact dangers...you guys are risking your lives, daily

snip

The lowest overall score went to the Pontiac Grand Prix four-door
sedan." snip

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Noodles gets bitch slapped again!

And he's LOVIN' it!

But I don't have a GP 4-door

I have a GP 2-door, with the GTP performance/ground effects package

That means my engine makes as much HP, as BOTH your Honda-bombs put
together...

(laughter...)

Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door
sedan
Price as tested: $20,956 (base price: $17,395)
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, GM
engine-control system with port fuel injection
Displacement.....204 cu in, 3350cc
Power (SAE net).....210 bhp @ 5000 rpm
Transmission.....4-speed automatic with lockup torque converter
Wheelbase 107.5 in
Length.....194.8 in
Curb weight.....3450 lb
Zero to 60 mph.....7.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph.....22.9 sec
Street start, 5 to 60 mph.....7.9 sec
Standing 1/4-mile.....15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed.....(governor limited)121 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph.....195 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad.....0.79 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving.....19 mpg
C/D observed fuel economy.....28 mpg


And how much HP and torque do your Hondas have ?

And how much do your cars weigh ?

Ever see a battleship hit a fishing boat ?

ps- you're the fishing boat...i.e. you drive a coffin on wheels !

66FOURDOOR wrote:
But I don't have a GP 4-door

I have a GP 2-door, with the GTP performance/ground effects package

On that car the drivers side impact rating is 2 stars, that's even less
than the 4door.

You keep stepping in the **** everytime you talk about that un-safe dog
turd.

66FOURDOOR wrote:
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door
sedan
Price as tested: $20,956 (base price: $17,395)
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, GM
engine-control system with port fuel injection
Displacement.....204 cu in, 3350cc
Power (SAE net).....210 bhp @ 5000 rpm
Transmission.....4-speed automatic with lockup torque converter
Wheelbase 107.5 in
Length.....194.8 in
Curb weight.....3450 lb
Zero to 60 mph.....7.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph.....22.9 sec
Street start, 5 to 60 mph.....7.9 sec
Standing 1/4-mile.....15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed.....(governor limited)121 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph.....195 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad.....0.79 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving.....19 mpg
C/D observed fuel economy.....28 mpg

Why did you change the fuel mileage from what the article listed?

Are you that embarrassed?

It was listed as:

EPA fuel economy, city driving.....17 mpg
C/D observed fuel economy.....22 mpg

and you changed it to make it look like it got better fuel mileage.

You've got mental problems.

I posted the actual mileage I get with my car, checked at every fillup-
with the EGR valve disconnected.

Increased power and mileage, by simply unplugging one plug.

See Ricky, you're way outclassed on this subject.

Only a moron drives with the EGR valve on.

Now, take a good look at the HP and weight of the GTP GP- and compare
it to your Honda and Bob's Honda...

there's a difference...

which one would you want to be in, during a HEAD ON COLLISION ??

Not the Honda.

You guys are driving around in tin cans on wheels.

66FOURDOOR wrote:
I posted the actual mileage I get with my car, checked at every fillup-
with the EGR valve disconnected.

Increased power and mileage, by simply unplugging one plug.

See Ricky, you're way outclassed on this subject.


No Charlie, you posted this:

EPA fuel economy, city driving.....19 mpg
C/D observed fuel economy.....28 mpg

You are not the EPA. You are not Car and Driver. You outright lied.

Only a moron drives with the EGR valve on.

Now, take a good look at the HP and weight of the GTP GP- and compare
it to your Honda and Bob's Honda...

there's a difference...

which one would you want to be in, during a HEAD ON COLLISION ??

The Honda is rated 5 stars, your car is not. End of story.