|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
We MB nuts understand...
...
__________________
John Shellenberg 1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Indeed it does. Its even worse with a clutch in the rain on a standing start up hill.
__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Perfectly describes my sentiments
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
LOL
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I personally prefer 4WD.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
A tall ship and a star to steer her by.
B |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
We MB nuts understand...
Absolutely. Just don't even bother trying to explain that to the guy with a huge ugly wing on the back of his front-drive Civic. If he's not smart enough to realize that his hunk of injection-molded testosterone is creating aerodynamic drag while not helping the handling or stability of the car in any way, then he's not likely to understand the issues at stake in front vs. rear drive. One thing you constantly run into is "but front-drive is better on snow and ice." Well, that's true, if you don't know how to drive. Some rear-drive cars don't have enough weight in the back, but that's easy to fix. I've passed droves of front-drivers on some pretty slick snowpack and ice. That's in my Fairlane. With regular tires. There's only one reason that so many carmakers have been trying to sell front-drive as the better alternative: Cost. It's a lot cheaper to cram everything into the front of the car than to run it out to the back. Chrysler is finally figuring out that FWD doesn't work out so well in big cars. Ford never really forgot it, they're still selling the Crown Victoria (ever wonder why so many police departments use them exclusively?). GM is off starting it's "Revolution," which as likely as not means they're going to keep pushing the same warmed-over cars with worse and worse styling at us. Oh well; at least some of us know what's what.
__________________
Once and future king: '64 Ford Fairlane w/approx 238,000 - looks rough, but amazingly reliable if you know how to look after it; I will soon begin work to totally restore and modernize it. Family vehicles that I lay some claim to: '78 300D w/approx 350,000 original, '62 Ford F100 4x4, '90 Ford E150 w/171,000 original |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Feel better?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How could I not feel better after a good rant?
__________________
Once and future king: '64 Ford Fairlane w/approx 238,000 - looks rough, but amazingly reliable if you know how to look after it; I will soon begin work to totally restore and modernize it. Family vehicles that I lay some claim to: '78 300D w/approx 350,000 original, '62 Ford F100 4x4, '90 Ford E150 w/171,000 original |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Chrysler is finally figuring out that FWD doesn't work out so well in big cars."
Uh, I think it's the Mercedes ownership that is moving the cars to RWD. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Hmm...I own both, and have owned both for nearly 20 years now.
In rain, kind of a draw. Snow, FWD, yes. More better. Argue all you want there. Get power to the road when you have 300HP, RWD. My SD sucks in the snow(yes, it has good tires). My Audis are nearly unstoppable(with marginal tires even)
__________________
past MB rides: '68 220D '68 220D(another one) '67 230 '84 SD Current rides: '06 Lexus RX330 '93 Ford F-250 '96 Corvette '99 Polaris 700 RMK sled 2011 Polaris Assault '86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper) |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|