Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elanlover
BUZZZZZZZ.....................wrong answer.
|
Actually, not. Just because you can quote a different source than what I've seen doesn't mean that my own quote is non-existant.
Even so, let's analyze your own quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elanlover
"I had always been very anti front-drive, but, wherever I went, I found confirmation that it was preferrable for getting quickly from A to B in a small car."
"Then there were the advantages of packaging and powertrain availability; with a rear-drive project we would have found it increasingly difficult to borrow another manufacturer's powertrain. There was a mass of evidence."
|
Basically what he's saying is that FWD makes a better go-fast grocery-getter (i.e. something that you can sip around town in quickly without worrying about oversteer) and they had those powertrains available to them from Isuzu already, so from an accounting POV it made more sense. I don't see where he's saying FWD makes a better sportscar.
In fact, I think he's pointing out specifically that they chose FWD for
non-sport reasons (grocery-getting isn't a sport). He even admits that he hated FWD entirely until he saw the benefits in
saloons. I think you're seeing what you want to see.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elanlover
Imagine a FWD car created that eliminated all these arguements that support the above stated FALLACY.
|
I don't think you get it. An argument based upon an impossible assumption (e.g. future magic-engineering that might make FWD equivalient in performance to RWD) is fallacious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elanlover
What's the dividing line? Pick it then go drive the Elan.
|
I've driven an m100. I very much consider it a sportscar. Haven't I already said that twice?
Have you actually read anything I've posted, or are you just arguing with me based upon what you
assume I'm saying?