http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/rev...03/Act/Showall/ (http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/38803/Act/Showall/)
Overall: 6/10
"A big improvement over the outgoing model, Grand Vitara now challenges the best in this class. Power could be better, but a comprehensive list of standard safety features, competent road manners, and adequate passenger space make Grand Vitara a "must see" compact SUV."
This SUV looks really great. :praise:
(http://www.mediacomservices.com.au/lores/img_smc_Suzuki_Logo_Vert.jpg)
(http://www.nextdaypets.com/images/smilie/bow.gif)
Quote(http://www.mediacomservices.com.au/lores/img_smc_Suzuki_Logo_Vert.jpg)
(http://www.nextdaypets.com/images/smilie/bow.gif)
Are you fo' real?
Suzuki used to have unique stying, but this is just another cookie-cutter small SUV.
Suzukis rule, man. Get with it.
<_< -_- :mellow:
QuoteQuote(http://www.mediacomservices.com.au/lores/img_smc_Suzuki_Logo_Vert.jpg)
(http://www.nextdaypets.com/images/smilie/bow.gif)
Are you fo' real?
Suzuki used to have unique stying, but this is just another cookie-cutter small SUV.
Cookie-cutter? It looks like a smooth-edged version of an early-'90s Sidekick.
The Grand Vitara is one of the few remaining compact/mid-size SUVs with a frame and selectable 4WD.
It's awesome! Suzuki's awesome!
Isn't this just a dressed-up Equinox? <_<
QuoteQuoteQuote(http://www.mediacomservices.com.au/lores/img_smc_Suzuki_Logo_Vert.jpg)
(http://www.nextdaypets.com/images/smilie/bow.gif)
Are you fo' real?
Suzuki used to have unique stying, but this is just another cookie-cutter small SUV.
Cookie-cutter? It looks like a smooth-edged version of an early-'90s Sidekick.
The Grand Vitara is one of the few remaining compact/mid-size SUVs with a frame and selectable 4WD.
It's awesome! Suzuki's awesome!
Looks too much like a Rav4, Equinox, mini MDX and probably some others that aren't coming to mind.
QuoteIsn't this just a dressed-up Equinox? <_<
Mechanically unrelated, actually. It still looks like a cross between an Equinox and an 05 RAV4, definitely well within the cookie-cutter realm.
It's far too wide to be a Sidekick, the proportions aren't cloes.
Well fucking balls to all y'all naysayers!
It looks attractive enough, but I thought it looked like a Hyundai. Not sure why.
You guys are a bunch of weenies, 'cept 93JC. this is the only small SUV with REAL 4wd, with poiwer going to the rear wheels. YOu pansies. :rolleyes:
No, it's not. It's one of several. Xterra, Liberty, and Sorento are others.
Personally it reminds me of the Touareg. Or at least the headlights to.
QuoteYou guys are a bunch of weenies, 'cept 93JC. this is the only small SUV with REAL 4wd, with poiwer going to the rear wheels. YOu pansies. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but it doesn't have the offroad ability of the
Toyota Corolla!
I see no Touareg, but I do see some X3 in the lower front fascia.
QuoteI see no Touareg, but I do see some X3 in the lower front fascia.
When we've got this many people "seeing" this many different styling cues in the vehicle, I'm inclined to say they didn't copy anyone at all, they just didn't style it to stick out.
QuoteNo, it's not. It's one of several. Xterra, Liberty, and Sorento are others.
:rolleyes: those are expensiver, silly fool.
Quote
expensiver
:blink: rokon.gif
QuoteQuote
expensiver
:blink: rokon.gif
:lol:
QuoteXterra, Liberty, and Sorento are others.
Since when in the hell are these
small?
QuoteQuoteNo, it's not. It's one of several. Xterra, Liberty, and Sorento are others.
:rolleyes: those are expensiver, silly fool.
Base price comparison:
Liberty: $19,380
Sorento: $18,995
Xterra: $20,850
Grand Vitara: $18,999
They're all in the same general price area.
And, for 93JC, a size comparison, lengths (inches):
Liberty: 174
Sorento: 180
Xterra: 179
Grand Vitara: 177
They're all about the same size, too.
Holy crap, it's that long?
This new one will seem huge compared to the old one.
(Cherokee is only 165" long :praise:)
I was looking at a Cherokee on the road today. Nothing unusual, but I was thinking to myself how beautiful it is, in a classic, rugged, way.
:praise:
(http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jc/images/95cherokee_spt.jpg)
They don't make 'em like that anymore :( :praise:
QuoteThey don't make 'em like that anymore :( :praise:
Check the Commander thread, I think you'll find that they do. ;)
This is where it's at:
(http://www.4x4offroads.com/image-files/south-africa-jeep-tj-wrangler.jpg)
:praise:
QuoteQuoteThey don't make 'em like that anymore :( :praise:
Check the Commander thread, I think you'll find that they do. ;)
Kinda fugly
Too expensive
Too big
100% auto
No FourPointOh Straight6
Imo
QuoteHoly crap, it's that long?
This new one will seem huge compared to the old one.
(Cherokee is only 165" long :praise:)
Even a CR-V or Vue is over 180 inches. The old GV was just especially short for the current market, the RAV4 and the Element are the only other 05s under 170 inches (and they were still longer).
This vehicle probably has a better powertrain than its competitors do, very nice :)
Why do you say that? I believe it's the same engine as the current XL-7, which is nothing special at all.
Mainly because of the manual transmission. ;) But, I thought the 2.7l was extremely smooth? And, look what its competition has! There is nothing special about the I4s of the Rav4 and CR-V or even the V6 of the Escape.
Especially smooth? It's not standing out in my mind, but maybe.
In the XL-7, it was underpowered and rather noisy, but that could be attributed to that car's extra weight. But aside from the manual option, I doubt this engine will prove much better than such V6s as the Santa Fe/Tucson/Sportage 2.7, Liberty 3.7, or the RAV 2.4, which I do not hold in high regard. The CR-V 2.4 is a very nice engine, and I do like the Escape 3.0 and 2.3, Santa Fe/Sorento 3.5, even the Equinox/Torrent 3.4. And of course there's the 06 RAV's 3.5.
QuoteEspecially smooth? It's not standing out in my mind, but maybe.
In the XL-7, it was underpowered and rather noisy, but that could be attributed to that car's extra weight. But aside from the manual option, I doubt this engine will prove much better than such V6s as the Santa Fe/Tucson/Sportage 2.7, Liberty 3.7, or the RAV 2.4, which I do not hold in high regard. The CR-V 2.4 is a very nice engine, and I do like the Escape 3.0 and 2.3, Santa Fe/Sorento 3.5, even the Equinox/Torrent 3.4. And of course there's the 06 RAV's 3.5.
Besides the upcoming Rav4's 3.5, i don't see a nicer engine than this.
And besides, this thing is REAR drive, bitches. :praise:
What's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Only the Escape/Tribute and Forester XT have more power without having much, much more weight as well.
QuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
QuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Small utes with equal or lesser displacement AND equal or lesser hp:
BMW X3 (base)
Honda Element
Honda CRV
Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner (base)
Hyundai Santa Fe (base)
Hyundai Tuscon (base)
Jeep Liberty (base)
Jeep Wrangler (base)
Land Rover Freelander
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue (base)
Subaru Forester (base)
Toyota RAV4
Granted many of those have more powerful engine options, but they all
start with less power.
QuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Small utes with equal or lesser displacement AND equal or lesser hp:
BMW X3 (base)
Honda Element
Honda CRV
Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner (base)
Hyundai Santa Fe (base)
Hyundai Tuscon (base)
Jeep Liberty (base)
Jeep Wrangler (base)
Land Rover Freelander
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue (base)
Subaru Forester (base)
Toyota RAV4
Granted many of those have more powerful engine options, but they all start with less power.
the X3 2.5 is dead. ;)
Whose side are you on?! :angry:
Yeah, you're right.
QuoteWhose side are you on?! :angry:
Yeah, you're right.
Yours. ;)
Sides, the X3 costs about $12 grand more, so that's out of the question. :praise:
QuoteQuoteWhose side are you on?! :angry:
Yeah, you're right.
Yours. ;)
Sides, the X3 costs about $12 grand more, so that's out of the question. :praise:
Out of the question for what?
If the lower engine option still existed on the BMW, it would only serve to further our point.... <_< It can only help to argue that an SUV from a luxury marque that is significantly more expensive than the Suzuki has less power than it. Unfortunately that's no longer an option.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhose side are you on?! :angry:
Yeah, you're right.
Yours. ;)
Sides, the X3 costs about $12 grand more, so that's out of the question. :praise:
Out of the question for what?
If the lower engine option still existed on the BMW, it would only serve to further our point.... <_< It can only help to argue that an SUV from a luxury marque that is significantly more expensive than the Suzuki has less power than it. Unfortunately that's no longer an option.
I thought we were talking about SUV's that were small and cheap too.
QuoteOnly the Escape/Tribute and Forester XT have more power without having much, much more weight as well.
HP/L is your criteria for what makes a good engine? Ricer. :P
QuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
QuoteQuoteOnly the Escape/Tribute and Forester XT have more power without having much, much more weight as well.
HP/L is your criteria for what makes a good engine? Ricer. :P
Who said anything about hp/liter? It is a simple fact that only a handful of the Grand Vitara's competitors have more power.
QuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Small utes with equal or lesser displacement AND equal or lesser hp:
BMW X3 (base - used to)
Honda Element
Honda CRV
Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner (base)
Hyundai Santa Fe (base)
Hyundai Tuscon (base)
Jeep Liberty (base)
Jeep Wrangler (base)
Land Rover Freelander
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue (base)
Subaru Forester (base)
Toyota RAV4
Granted many of those have more powerful engine options, but they all start with less power.
...
QuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Small utes with equal or lesser displacement AND equal or lesser hp:
BMW X3 (base)
Honda Element
Honda CRV
Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner (base)
Hyundai Santa Fe (base)
Hyundai Tuscon (base)
Jeep Liberty (base)
Jeep Wrangler (base)
Land Rover Freelander
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue (base)
Subaru Forester (base)
Toyota RAV4
Granted many of those have more powerful engine options, but they all start with less power.
And all but two are four-cylinders.
Being standard doesn't make it a better engine.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Small utes with equal or lesser displacement AND equal or lesser hp:
BMW X3 (base)
Honda Element
Honda CRV
Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner (base)
Hyundai Santa Fe (base)
Hyundai Tuscon (base)
Jeep Liberty (base)
Jeep Wrangler (base)
Land Rover Freelander
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue (base)
Subaru Forester (base)
Toyota RAV4
Granted many of those have more powerful engine options, but they all start with less power.
And all but two are four-cylinders.
Being standard doesn't make it a better engine.
It does, however make the Suzuki more powerful than all of the vehicles I listed, base vs. base. If you'll notice, 5 of them do not have better engine options, so the Suzuki is more powerful than any trim of those vehicles.
QuoteQuoteQuoteOnly the Escape/Tribute and Forester XT have more power without having much, much more weight as well.
HP/L is your criteria for what makes a good engine? Ricer. :P
Who said anything about hp/liter? It is a simple fact that only a handful of the Grand Vitara's competitors have more power.
Wasn't reading carefully, too many things going on. Looking at hp vs. weight:
Grand Vitara: 185, 3582
Santa Fe: 200, 3752
Liberty: 210, 3851
Vue: 250, 3630
RAV4 (06): 268 (weight unknown, but unlikely to be much more than the GV, current version only weighs 3119)
Furthermore, having more power than 4-cylinder competitors doesn't make it a good engine. A Chrysler Sebring 2.7 has more hp than an Accord 2.4, does that make the Sebring's a better engine?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
Small utes with equal or lesser displacement AND equal or lesser hp:
BMW X3 (base)
Honda Element
Honda CRV
Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner (base)
Hyundai Santa Fe (base)
Hyundai Tuscon (base)
Jeep Liberty (base)
Jeep Wrangler (base)
Land Rover Freelander
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue (base)
Subaru Forester (base)
Toyota RAV4
Granted many of those have more powerful engine options, but they all start with less power.
And all but two are four-cylinders.
Being standard doesn't make it a better engine.
It does, however make the Suzuki more powerful than all of the vehicles I listed, base vs. base. If you'll notice, 5 of them do not have better engine options, so the Suzuki is more powerful than any trim of those vehicles.
Irrelevent. I'm talking about the engine, not the car. Making a mediocre engine standard doesn't make it a better engine.
QuoteIrrelevent. I'm talking about the engine, not the car. Making a mediocre engine standard doesn't make it a better engine.
And what am I talking about, lollipops and unicorns? I'm not
suggesting the engine is "better" because it's standard, I'm saying the engine
is more powerful, because it IS.
I believe this was your comment, which started the debate:
QuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
That, to me, would suggest that you find the engine to be lacking in both the hp and displacement departments.
Well answer this question: Of those 13 SUVs I listed, which one has either more displacement or more hp than the Vitara?
QuoteQuoteIrrelevent. I'm talking about the engine, not the car. Making a mediocre engine standard doesn't make it a better engine.
And what am I talking about, lollipops and unicorns? I'm not suggesting the engine is "better" because it's standard, I'm saying the engine is more powerful, because it IS.
I believe this was your comment, which started the debate:
QuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
That, to me, would suggest that you find the engine to be lacking in both the hp and displacement departments.
Well answer this question: Of those 13 SUVs I listed, which one has either more displacement or more hp than the Vitara?
My comment was in response to "Besides the upcoming Rav4's 3.5, i don't see a nicer engine than this."
There isn't really anything especially nice about this engine. It doesn't have much power except compared to a group of 4-cylinders that you brought up (most of which have higher end engine options). I didn't bother to bring up this engine's lack of refinement in the XL-7, it didn't seem relevent to the sort of concerns that the member whom I just quoted (Rag) would have about an engine.
So what is especially nice about this engine? All you've said is that it is standard equipment, and has more power than the standard engines on a number of other small SUVs. I'm talking only about the engine.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
performance...
QuoteQuoteQuoteIrrelevent. I'm talking about the engine, not the car. Making a mediocre engine standard doesn't make it a better engine.
And what am I talking about, lollipops and unicorns? I'm not suggesting the engine is "better" because it's standard, I'm saying the engine is more powerful, because it IS.
I believe this was your comment, which started the debate:
QuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
That, to me, would suggest that you find the engine to be lacking in both the hp and displacement departments.
Well answer this question: Of those 13 SUVs I listed, which one has either more displacement or more hp than the Vitara?
My comment was in response to "Besides the upcoming Rav4's 3.5, i don't see a nicer engine than this."
There isn't really anything especially nice about this engine. It doesn't have much power except compared to a group of 4-cylinders that you brought up (most of which have higher end engine options). I didn't bother to bring up this engine's lack of refinement in the XL-7, it didn't seem relevent to the sort of concerns that the member whom I just quoted (Rag) would have about an engine.
So what is especially nice about this engine? All you've said is that it is standard equipment, and has more power than the standard engines on a number of other small SUVs. I'm talking only about the engine.
Alright if, let's get this straight. I...am...also...only...talking...about...the...engine. Slow enough for you? Let's for a moment, for the sake of your comprehension, pretend that the cars themselves do not exist. Let's line up the 14 engines on the ground by themselves. I'm not talking what is standard and what is not, I'm not talking refinement or anything else. Just answer the following question: Which one has the most hp
and the largest displacement?
Your next post should contain only two words:
<insert model name here>
hint: it should say "Grand Vitara"
The Grand Vitara V6 has more hp and displacement than the 4-cylinder models that you listed.
What's your point? Does that make it a good engine?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
performance...
How do you figure? Consumer Guide estimated a 0-60 in the 9s, many competing models beat that.
QuoteThe Grand Vitara V6 has more hp and displacement than the 4-cylinder models that you listed.
What's your point? Does that make it a good engine?
Whether or not it was a good engine wasn't the question. You brought up a lack of power and a small displacement. I listed 13 models that it beats in those areas. It's okay to admit you weren't very right if (it's really about time you were even slightly incorrect once). I'm wrong all the time. Alright, enough arguing for one day. I should really be doing more homework. :)
For almost any engine, especially a V6 or above, you can find lots of cars with less power. Doesn't mean it's a good engine though. Take this example:
The Dodge Stratus 2.7-liter V6 has 200 horsepower. That's more hp and displacement than any number of other midsize 4-cylinder sedans. Does that make it a good engine?
QuoteFor almost any engine, especially a V6 or above, you can find lots of cars with less power. Doesn't mean it's a good engine though. Take this example:
The Dodge Stratus 2.7-liter V6 has 200 horsepower. That's more hp and displacement than any number of other midsize 4-cylinder sedans. Does that make it a good engine?
We weren't discussing whether it was "good" or not, only whether it had insufficient displacement and/or hp numbers. I (think I) have proven it does not.
QuoteQuoteFor almost any engine, especially a V6 or above, you can find lots of cars with less power. Doesn't mean it's a good engine though. Take this example:
The Dodge Stratus 2.7-liter V6 has 200 horsepower. That's more hp and displacement than any number of other midsize 4-cylinder sedans. Does that make it a good engine?
We weren't discussing whether it was "good" or not, only whether it had insufficient displacement and/or hp numbers. I (think I) have proven it does not.
I was talking only about whether it was good or not, I showed you the post I was referring to. A 2.7-liter V6 and 185 horsepower is, as a V6 engine, lacking in displacement and horsepower, and certainly isn't anywhere near the top of its class unless it belies both its specs and the previous experience I've had with it in the XL-7.
Looking at it that way, it doesn't matter what its competitors' base-model 4-cylinders are. Judged as an engine, it should be compared against V6s. Only when it is judged as an piece of the automobile (I'm not judging it that way, and you said you aren't either), it should be judged against whatever engine the competing models put in comparable vehicles.
Then apparently we are arguing different points. I agree with you that my statements do not make it true that the GV has a "good" engine. You were, however, incorrect in your assertion that the GV has "low power" and "rather low" displacement for this class. The fact that it is a V6 is irrelevant. Fair enough? :)
I wasn't talking about for its class, unless you consider its class to be V6 small SUVs. As a V6, it is down on displacement and horsepower.
QuoteI wasn't talking about for its class, unless you consider its class to be V6 small SUVs. As a V6, it is down on displacement and horsepower.
I consider its class to be small SUVs, no other restrictions. It is relatively unimpressive for a V6, yes, I have never denied that. But it is not underpowered for the small SUV class.
But I was never talking about the class in general. Even the worst V6 can't be too underpowered in a class that includes so many 4-cylinder models.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
performance...
How do you figure? Consumer Guide estimated a 0-60 in the 9s, many competing models beat that.
First of all, that's an estimated time. Second, CR guys are wussies and get really slow numbers for their cars. I estimate it in the low 8's.
QuoteBut I was never talking about the class in general. Even the worst V6 can't be too underpowered in a class that includes so many 4-cylinder models.
Alright buddy, I don't have the time or energy to continue this debate. You should really consider law school; people get payed big money to twist words there. I declare you the winner by IKFSIA (I Can't F*cking Stand It Anymore). :lol:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
performance...
How do you figure? Consumer Guide estimated a 0-60 in the 9s, many competing models beat that.
First of all, that's an estimated time. Second, CR guys are wussies and get really slow numbers for their cars. I estimate it in the low 8's.
Consumer Guide and Consumer Reports are two unrelated publications. And below average is below average, if you're going to decrease their figures for one car, all the competitors' go down as well.
It's just not that impressive.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
performance...
How do you figure? Consumer Guide estimated a 0-60 in the 9s, many competing models beat that.
First of all, that's an estimated time. Second, CR guys are wussies and get really slow numbers for their cars. I estimate it in the low 8's.
Way to carry the torch Rag. Just make sure your arguments make
sense. ;)
QuoteQuoteBut I was never talking about the class in general. Even the worst V6 can't be too underpowered in a class that includes so many 4-cylinder models.
Alright buddy, I don't have the time or energy to continue this debate. You should really consider law school; people get payed big money to twist words there. I declare you the winner by IKFSIA (I Can't F*cking Stand It Anymore). :lol:
How did I twist your words? You jumped on a statement that I made to someone else in another context, and finally agreed that you were talking about something different than I was.
BTW, I did briefly consider law school, but the good jobs are hard to find and very stressful, and I really didn't feel like spending that much time in college.
QuoteQuoteQuoteBut I was never talking about the class in general. Even the worst V6 can't be too underpowered in a class that includes so many 4-cylinder models.
Alright buddy, I don't have the time or energy to continue this debate. You should really consider law school; people get payed big money to twist words there. I declare you the winner by IKFSIA (I Can't F*cking Stand It Anymore). :lol:
How did I twist your words? You jumped on a statement that I made to someone else in another context, and finally agreed that you were talking about something different than I was.
BTW, I did briefly consider law school, but the good jobs are hard to find and very stressful, and I really didn't feel like spending that much time in college.
Speaking from experience man, you could've been a damn good lawyer. I'm out for today have a good one. :) If I was opposing you I'd run out of the courtroom pulling my hair out and screaming. :P
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut I was never talking about the class in general. Even the worst V6 can't be too underpowered in a class that includes so many 4-cylinder models.
Alright buddy, I don't have the time or energy to continue this debate. You should really consider law school; people get payed big money to twist words there. I declare you the winner by IKFSIA (I Can't F*cking Stand It Anymore). :lol:
How did I twist your words? You jumped on a statement that I made to someone else in another context, and finally agreed that you were talking about something different than I was.
BTW, I did briefly consider law school, but the good jobs are hard to find and very stressful, and I really didn't feel like spending that much time in college.
Speaking from experience man, you could've been a damn good lawyer. I'm out for today have a good one. :) If I was opposing you I'd run out of the courtroom pulling my hair out and screaming. :P
:D
In all seriousness though, having the most information is key to a successful argument. I have this much auto info because I find it interesting, I doubt I could be as enthralled by law.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's nice about this engine? Low power, rather low displacement.
But it's better than all the competitors except the new rav's engine and the forester XT.
Based on...
performance...
How do you figure? Consumer Guide estimated a 0-60 in the 9s, many competing models beat that.
First of all, that's an estimated time. Second, CR guys are wussies and get really slow numbers for their cars. I estimate it in the low 8's.
Consumer Guide and Consumer Reports are two unrelated publications. And below average is below average, if you're going to decrease their figures for one car, all the competitors' go down as well.
It's just not that impressive.
whoops. I thought you said CR. :lol:
There goes my whole argument... *backs out of thread slowly*