Consider buying American!

That's true, my '07 Mustang GT convertible, with winter tires and traction
lock axle, is better in unplowed snow than my FWD '08 Lincoln MKZ with all
season radials. Both have traction control, but that needs to be turned off
to climb a steep grade. The RWD Mustang easily pulls my uphill driveway,
while the MKZ will sit with the wheels spinning. The Mustang is far superior
on wet and ice roads as well.

 

My driving experience has nothing to do with my experience reading
chassis specifications.

The "Severe disadvantage" you cite is OPINION. FWD cars can be well
tuned and do just fine in both daily driving and mildly sporting
conditions. As I've posted multiple times in this thread, RWD excels
in serious performance.

Ah, there's the Diz I know... just throw some insults when confronted
by contradictory information.

Fact Diz: 99.5% of drivers don't know what throttle steer, understeer,
or oversteer even are.

Opinion, not fact. FWD cars can be made to handle very well. In high
performance applications, RWD or AWD is better. Very few drivers drive
their cars at the limits, where it matters.

Here you go then: 99.5%

Now who's BSing, Diz?

Maybe not BMW's or upscale cars with traction control. Other folks
slide all over the road.

Yeah, right. Upscale RWD cars. Read what I wrote.

They have for a long time - why would they complain now?

Define "best"? Best for what? Best as an everyday driver? Best cost
to manufacture? Best maintenance cost? Best at the track in a
specified event?

For most drivers, FWD is a winner.

 

Maybe you should try driving, instead of "reading chassis
specifications" and coming up with your stupid, ignorant theories.

What part do you claim is not a "fact"? That the disadvantage is not
"severe"?

That's some amazingly petty nitpicking, coming from an idiot who
litters his ignorant argument with precise claims like "99.95%".

Sure it can do "just fine". But RWD is substantially superior, in
essentially all conditions excepting snow.

Your "99.95%" is *obviously* bullshit pulled from your ass.

Do you *really* think you're fooling anyone with a claim that your
"99.95% statement" is some great "contradictory information" to which
I had no rebuttal, so that I had no recourse but to insult?

Don't you know that you're getting your ass kicked, here?

Another idiotic, obviously false claim, pulled from your ass. Unless
you'd like to provide proof?

Besides, it's an irrelevant point to even try to make. One need not
know the definitions of those terms to appreciate a better-handling
car. Duh.

"FWD is inferior for handling" is a fact beyond dispute, and most with
a clue would agree that it "sucks" for performance driving.

It matters more than just "at the limits", which you would know, if
not for your ignorance of the situation.

Nice rebuttal.

You are. How about disputing my claims with facts and logic for a
change?

Your notions ARE obsolete. Essentially, NO ONE with a modern RWD car
puts weight in the back to aid traction. The weight balance is very
close to 50/50 already, and modern traction/stability-control systems
WORK.

Funny, I haven't seen that happening. Just who are these "other
folks" driving modern RWD cars that do not have traction control?

Hint: With just a few exceptions in the last decade, RWD cars HAVE
been "high end" cars.

See above. Most RWD cars on the road are "upscale" cars, and the vast
majority sold in the last decade have traction control. The only
exceptions might be Mustangs or something, and I'd be very surprised
if even they haven't had it for years.

Look. You are ignorant. You prove it with almost every one of your
statements, like this:

"The RWD owner has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow
tires"

You are wrong. You are ignorant. Your statements make it quite clear
that your perceptions of RWD cars, tires, and how they perform are
completely obsolete and utterly mistaken.

Nice rebuttal, again. Nice job of displaying your ignorance to the
world, then "yawning" when you get your ass handed to you.

Suffering from reading comprehension problems? Have we not been
discussing handling and performance?

For m most drivers, handling and performance don't really matter. For
them, FWD is fine.

But RWD is better. That's why all the best cars are RWD.

 

Have fun Diz, go insult someone else now. Conversing with you is like
teaching a pig to sing.

 

buy a honda, made in ohio.

 

? the profits go to the shareholders, which are mainly large
international funds, many of which are probably in your pension plan.

 

It's been a while, but last time I looked, Honda was the biggest
exporter of cars from the US. They built cars for Europe in the US,
not Japan, and the Europeans are buying more Hondas than they are Ford
Excursions.

 

Ok, well you're an idiot who has no concept of reality, and no
possibility of ever comprehending that he doesn't know what he thinks
he knows, so it's been great talking to you, bye.

 

you do understand that, as posted two posts ago, the "japanese"
companies pay shitloads in taxes in the US, while the "american"
companies pay zero, right?

 

except, of course, for the part that goes into the pockets of the
executives and is spent abroad.

I would feel like an idiot pumping money into a company that is
hemorrhaging money so bad that they are getting handouts from the
government, but still manage to pay their executives tens of millions
of dollars.

Chrysler chairman and CEO Robert Eaton made $16 million in 1997, when
Chrysler was losing money so badly it had to get bailed out.
In contrast, Jurgen Schrempp, CEO of highly lucrative Daimler who
bought them out, made $2.5 million.

In 2006, Ford CEO Alan Mulally made $28,183,476 in total compensation
according to the SEC.
In 2006, GM CEO Richard Wagoner made $10,191,153 in total compensation
according to the SEC.

"Analyst Ron Tadross at Banc of America Securities estimates the total
annual compensation of Toyota's CEO at under $1 million - about as
much as a vice president at GM or Ford Motor Co. makes in a good
year."
http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2005/11/28/toyota-manufacturing-powerhouse/

"Toyota's 32 top executives received just over $12 million in salaries
in the 12 months ended March. Lets see Toyota made something like
$13,000,000,000 in profits. With the top 32 executives getting about
$20,000,000 [including $8 million in bonuses] that is .15% of
earnings. Even if there are some other benefits not included in the
total that .15% figure for the top 32 executives doesn't really
compare to ludicrous pay of many CEOs in the USA. They are in a
different paradigm than the others. I think their paradigm is much
more effective (and the pay is the symptom of that system). I'll take
the executives of Toyota over the overpaid executives any time."
http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2007/06/23/no-excessive-senior-executive-pay-at-toyota/

"Honda doesn't disclose executive pay in detail, but the sum of
salaries and bonuses that Fukui shares with 36 board members, $13
million, is just about enough for the boss at a big American company."
http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0904/040.html

but look at it this way; the GM CEO's salary only accounts for a
couple of percent of the company's net loss; it wouldn't help all that
much to pay him nothing, so he might as well get $10 million, wtf.

 

Precisely. Honda Motors in America is Honda America, Toyota is likewise. The
American subsidiaries (not "subsidies" as you called them -- oops!) pay
American Coroprate taxes. Honda Japan does not pay taxes in the USA, but
Honda America does pay taxes in the USA. They will pay taxes at the same
rate as American-held corporations, and that rate may too low or too high,
depending on who is complaining, but there are corporate federal income
taxes.

 

I will second that. I have been driving Nokians on my GS-R for two
winters now and hey are great. They really go on snow and ice and
give a reasonable ride and surprisingly good dry handling.

 

why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
be jingoistic.

 

ever get the feeling that you might be the only one watching this - after all
you are about a week late.

I'm waiting for the 12 year old to come back with his crap about timing chains v
belts

--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

 

Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.

Jeff

 

Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
voilla, Canada is domestic.

 

It's a treaty. It took a lot more than a stroke of the pen.

The vast majority of the content from Michigan 3 cars comes from the US.

Most of the Michigan 3 plants that produce cars for the US are in the US.

Jeff

 

Nice attempt at saving face after getting your ass kicked.

Sorry, but I kicked your ass with facts and reason. The insults you
deserved also.

 

LOL - you're truly a legend in your own mind.

 

Interesting, but the Stoned Wheat Thins from Red Oval Farms I buy are
labeled "imported".