[Elanlover]

Holy Crap Batman! Are you even reading your own posts?

You said:

Originally Posted by transio

You really believe that? By Lotus' own words, they went with FWD for "controllability" (i.e. no oversteer). They used BS marketing lingo to try to sell people on FWD's advantages (which at the time were in increasing demand), but there is no way Lotus at the time, or you now, will convince anyone that a FWD setup had, has, or will ever have, a competitive advantage over RWD.

And then in response to me showing you were wrong in your above statement by supplying the FACTS and QUOTES directly from the Lotus engineers in charge of the project:

Originally Posted by transio

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.

Uhmm..............yes. Your quote is non-existant. Exactly who at Lotus provided THAT quote huh??? Someone other than the actual lotus engineers or chairman at Lotus? Sorry, but I defer to those who MADE tha car not some unspecified source you claim to have provided. Your quote isn't a quote at all unless you can provide the source.

Originally Posted by transio

Even so, let's analyze your own quote:

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.

Again...............HOLY CRAP BATMAN! You just aren' reading. Or are guilty of your own malady of reading what you want to read.

1. Its not my quote. ITS THE ENGINEER'S QUOTE.

2. I bolded sports car enough times that i figure most people would understand they were building one! Not just some grocery getter as you're claiming they did. Guess you're right and they are wrong huh.

3. They DID NOT have those powertrains available from Isuzu. The Elan began life with a TOYOTA powertrain. The car was already designed to be FWD for all the previously stated reasons and, late in life, became Isuzu based partly due to the GM conneciton.

4. Did he or I claim FWD is a better sportscar? Anywhere? You need to read more.

5. Clearly, they felt FWD in a small engine and small car layout had advantages. Do I have to re-read it to you?

6. Sportscar design - not grocery getter. How much more do I, or LOTUS themselves need to spell that out for you? Do I need to copy the entire book for you before you believe. Guess all the Lotus engineers that were quoted just lied right? Must have been so you could be proven right. I'm sure they looked that far into the future just for you.

7. He never said hated in any quote I wrote. You amaze me with your quantum leaps in logic (if you can call it that). And, he clearly said RACING SALOONS as were he saw the advantage. RACING. You think he was driving them to the store or on a track????

Originally Posted by transio

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.

Oh I get it. Just now in fact. You're simply not credible. Even when I provide you with the Webster's definition of a FALLACY, you tell me creating an imaginary scenario is a fallacy when it clealry doesn't meet the definition provided.

Oh, by the way, have you ever DRIVEN an M100 - exentsively (a ride at the dealership doesn't count)? I doubt you have although i'm sure you'll now tell us you have. Anyone who has wouldn't be making claims like you are about Lotus' motivations for going FWD.

Originally Posted by transio

I've driven an m100. I very much consider it a sportscar.

The only sensible thing you've said.

Originally Posted by transio

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?

I'm not arguing about whether you've said its a sprtscar or not. Its all the OTHER stupid things you've said, your inability (or reluctance) to actually read what i've posted and your audacity to imply that I"M not reading.

Did I read everything you said propoerly or did I magically misquote you somehow when I cut and pasted your own remarks into this thread in full context without leaving anything out??????

Well, I'm through with you thanks. I don't mind debating ideas with people who provide facts, listen to other facts presented and don't try to retract previous statements, take things out of context or twist and invent meaning to suit their own positions. I just don't think you're one of those people.