The Neon Light Goes Out This Week
Date Posted 09-20-2005
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. -- The Dodge Neon, which hit the streets more than a decade ago as Detroit's answer to the Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla, will have its swan song at Chrysler's Belvidere, Ill., plant Friday, when the last model is scheduled to roll off the line.
The Neon will be replaced in 2006 with the Dodge Caliber, which is set to compete against the Toyota Matrix and the Pontiac Vibe. The Belvidere plant is undergoing a $419 million renovation this fall so the Caliber can hit the market by early spring.
The original Neon's ad campaign was almost more memorable than the car. It showed a white Neon facing into the camera and saying "hi." Neon sales peaked at 245,000 in 1996 but have declined since.
What this means to you: Time to say "bye" to the would-be import fighter that said "hi."
I, for one, won't miss the little crap box. I just hope the Caliber is worthwhile.
You know, the Neon isn't that bad to drive. The driving dynamics are actually quite good. Of course, the crappy interior and poor reliability record and general cheapness of the vehicle ultimately makes it a crapbox. But at least it's fairly entertaining to drive.
Crap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
QuoteCrap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
But FWD = crapbox. :devil:
QuoteCrap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
The made by Mattel interior as well as it's exceptionally poor aging (there aren't many things on the car that
don't stop working or fall apart certainly make it a crapbox. The power wasn't bad, and the handling wasn't bad, but that does not make it a good car.
I could care less if the dash is made of plastic, squeaks and rattles can get annoying sometimes yes. But for the price of entry, it's a perfectly good car.
I've been wanting to get a Coupe DOHC, strip it and go have some fun.
The only major annoyance I have found is the squeaky brakes problem. Bad headgaskets can occur too, but if you use the 1998 and 3/4 style MLS headgasket after the first failure and install it properly, it'll last just as long as any other.
The auto tranny was pretty crappy too, it only had 3 gears and poor ratios, but the 5 speed was a very smooth unit. I learned to drive stick on one. :)
Neons also have the distinction of being among the least safe compacts based on crash tests.
Quote... it only had 3 gears and poor ratios...
I can attest to that. :praise:
Other than that it was fun.
I've driven a 2000, so maybe the "Mattel interior" is directed to the first generation? I certainly didn't find it overly cheap. I mean, it was cheap, but the car's cheap to buy. You don't get a Neon for luxury; I would assume most people know this.
The only thing I didn't like about the interior was the steering wheel design on the earlier models...pre '97 I think. I drove a '98.
I always thought Neon R/T's were cool...
QuoteQuote... it only had 3 gears and poor ratios...
I can attest to that. :praise:
Other than that it was fun.
I've driven a 2000, so maybe the "Mattel interior" is directed to the first generation? I certainly didn't find it overly cheap. I mean, it was cheap, but the car's cheap to buy. You don't get a Neon for luxury; I would assume most people know this.
My brother has an '03 and the interior is pretty cheap. And for some reason, the car only offered power windows on the front windows.
However, given that he bought the car a year ago used for less than $7K USD and it still had a warranty on it, the cheapness of the interior can be overlooked. Thus far it hasn't broken down on him. The gas mileage is pretty bad for a small car, though. My brother was telling me that he gets like 25-26 mpg average on a tank and he drives like a little old lady (never takes it above 3000 rpm, accelerates slowly, etc). My car sees 4K+ rpm regularly, has a bigger and more powerful engine and weighs more and I averaged over 29 mpg all summer long. Granted, his is an auto (4 spd), but I'd still expect a couple MPGs more than he gets.
QuoteQuoteCrap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
But FWD = crapbox. :devil:
Oh shutup man.
QuoteCrap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
If that's all you're concerned about, and if there weren't any other cars that surpassed it in both ways, it wouldn't be.
I can assure you that the latter is the case, I have to hope you consider more than the former.
QuoteQuoteCrap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
If that's all you're concerned about, and if there weren't any other cars that surpassed it in both ways, it wouldn't be.
I can assure you that the latter is the case, I have to hope you consider more than the former.
For the price, I'd definitley buy one.
As I said, I don't care about the quality of the plastic inside the car.
I've spent ALOT of time in the passenger seat of one, and I spent a few hours driving the same one and they're fine cars. I know the family that owns it, and they havn't had any problems with it, other than one failed headgasket. It went through 3 teenage boys driving it, and as a good friend of one of them, I can assure you they put it through hell. :lol:
It performs well, is generally dependable and is dirt cheap.
QuoteQuoteQuoteCrap box eh?
132hp base 150hp optional with a slick 5 speed and nimble handling do not equal crap box.
If that's all you're concerned about, and if there weren't any other cars that surpassed it in both ways, it wouldn't be.
I can assure you that the latter is the case, I have to hope you consider more than the former.
For the price, I'd definitley buy one.
As I said, I don't care about the quality of the plastic inside the car.
I've spent ALOT of time in the passenger seat of one, and I spent a few hours driving the same one and they're fine cars. I know the family that owns it, and they havn't had any problems with it, other than one failed headgasket. It went through 3 teenage boys driving it, and as a good friend of one of them, I can assure you they put it through hell. :lol:
It performs well, is generally dependable and is dirt cheap.
But there are other cars that do the same thing much better. Well short of "fine".
Like what?
QuoteLike what?
I'd rather have a Spectra than a Neon. It's cheaper, and nicer, in my opinion.
I can't find a Spectra for under $3000 Used here.
I'm talking used....I'd never buy a car new. First gens is what I'm talking about.
Hell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
132 and 150 hp isn't good enough anymore, I suppose.
I just read in R&T today that the HHR depressinly slow, or something to that effect. :o Since when has 172 hp been insufficient on a small car?! My...how times have changed since the Neon came out.
I won't miss that goofy little car.
Chrysler actually cut the 150hp motor for the second gen, leaving the 132hp SOHC to cover all the models (not sure about the ACR or R/T models though).
Hell, 132hp is plenty even now for a 4 door compact.
QuoteHell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
Sentra?
What the
hell were they smoking?!?!? The Sentra is absolutely the single last compact I'd ever buy. There isn't a single thing about the Sentra that the Neon doesn't do much, much better.
Sentra! Jesus Christ, it blows my mind! Sentra!!
I guess this is why I wouldn't even wipe my ass with C&D, let alone read the rag.
QuoteChrysler actually cut the 150hp motor for the second gen, leaving the 132hp SOHC to cover all the models (not sure about the ACR or R/T models though).
Hell, 132hp is plenty even now for a 4 door compact.
ACR and R/Ts came with the 150hp SOHC engine, until this year. This year they ditched the 150hp motor completely.
QuoteQuoteHell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
Sentra?
What the hell were they smoking?!?!? The Sentra is absolutely the single last compact I'd ever buy. There isn't a single thing about the Sentra that the Neon doesn't do much, much better.
Sentra! Jesus Christ, it blows my mind! Sentra!!
I guess this is why I wouldn't even wipe my ass with C&D, let alone read the rag.
Well of course you wouldn't. The pages are too slippery and you could get some nasty paper cuts.
QuoteI can't find a Spectra for under $3000 Used here.
I'm talking used....I'd never buy a car new. First gens is what I'm talking about.
Hell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
It sounded as though you were comparing it new to other new cars.
As to the $3k Spectra, AutoTrader produced 16 results. And the oldest would be several years newer than the oldest Neon. (But those Spectras were dreadful).
BTW, for $3K, I'd buy a Protege, Escort, Esteem, or Mirage over a Neon. I'd probably even buy a Cav/Sunf first.
Quote
Quote
I guess this is why I wouldn't even wipe my ass with C&D, let alone read the rag.
Well of course you wouldn't. The pages are too slippery and you could get some nasty paper cuts.
:lol: :praise:
QuoteQuoteHell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
Sentra?
What the hell were they smoking?!?!? The Sentra is absolutely the single last compact I'd ever buy. There isn't a single thing about the Sentra that the Neon doesn't do much, much better.
Sentra! Jesus Christ, it blows my mind! Sentra!!
I guess this is why I wouldn't even wipe my ass with C&D, let alone read the rag.
Actually, Car and Driver put the Neon is a tie for 6th of 10 with the Mitsu Lancer, and the Sentra in eighth.
This was in 2002, BTW.
Well if it makes you feel any better, they placed the Echo in 10th IIRC.
They called it a mistake. :P
We're talking about two different comparos then. You must be talking about the 2000 one, I'm talking about the 02.
QuoteQuoteI can't find a Spectra for under $3000 Used here.
I'm talking used....I'd never buy a car new. First gens is what I'm talking about.
Hell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
It sounded as though you were comparing it new to other new cars.
As to the $3k Spectra, AutoTrader produced 16 results. And the oldest would be several years newer than the oldest Neon. (But those Spectras were dreadful).
BTW, for $3K, I'd buy a Protege, Escort, Esteem, or Mirage over a Neon. I'd probably even buy a Cav/Sunf first.
$3,000 Canadian, and that's a quite high estimate. There's plenty in the $1500 range.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI can't find a Spectra for under $3000 Used here.
I'm talking used....I'd never buy a car new. First gens is what I'm talking about.
Hell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
It sounded as though you were comparing it new to other new cars.
As to the $3k Spectra, AutoTrader produced 16 results. And the oldest would be several years newer than the oldest Neon. (But those Spectras were dreadful).
BTW, for $3K, I'd buy a Protege, Escort, Esteem, or Mirage over a Neon. I'd probably even buy a Cav/Sunf first.
$3,000 Canadian, and that's a quite high estimate. There's plenty in the $1500 range.
Again, the Neon had a three-year head start. A 1995 car is generally less expensive than a 1998.
QuoteWe're talking about two different comparos then. You must be talking about the 2000 one, I'm talking about the 02.
Yup, I'm talking about the 2000 one. It had the EK bodystyle Civic.
(http://pic.classifieds1000.com/1091989340-98868-149.166.231.47.jpg)
QuoteActually, Car and Driver put the Neon is a tie for 6th of 10 with the Mitsu Lancer, and the Sentra in eighth.
This was in 2002, BTW.
I poked around and found it on the C&D website.
Some questionable stuff in their review though:
"If you're a stickler for driving finesse, the Neon has a troubling remoteness about it, as if you were piloting a simulator." --> Outright lie. Very direct feel.
"The shifter feels like an assemblage of loose-fitting parts," --> Must have confused it with another car. Not the case whatsoever.
"the throttle is stiff," --> :blink:
"the steering is inclined to abrupt transitions when that's not at all what you intended." --> I would tend to agree.
"The engine is mild enough in its audio output, but why does it have to sound like a leaf blower instead of a cammer four?" --> Don't know what they're talking about. Sounds just fine.
"The interior feels crowded with curvaceous plastic gestures and plump seats, and the wheel pushes close to your chest." --> The bit about the plastic is spot-on, but the seats are in no way 'plump', and the wheel doesn't 'push on your chest'. You'd have to be a midget to need to have to move the seat that far forward.
"Everywhere, you see blatantly man-made materials with a relentless and unnatural shininess about them." --> 'Man-made materials'? As opposed to what, materials made by our giant monster overlords? The bit about the 'shininess' is flat out silly: the Neon has very dull plastic (which is what I had assumed most people gripe about besides the general texture of the stuff).
"For this kind of money, do you really mind that the seats appear to be covered in the same material in which bicyclists shrink-wrap their posteriors?"---> Feels like the stuff in a Toyota Celica, actually. Thin, rough material.
"Can you live with a plastic wheel that feels like sandpaper? For sure, it's not slippery." ---> Must have been trippin' when they wrote this nonsense.
"The back seat is remarkably low and close to the floor, and there's zero toe space under the front seats. It has to be low to make head clearance; the rear glass is directly above. It's hard. For shade, a few low-tech black strips across the window top block the sun. At least the cushion is deftly shaped so you get thigh support despite its lowness." --> double-you tee eff. I had no problem in the back of the Neon. Plenty of room for my legs and feet. No headroom though, to that I can attest.
Their Corolla review is mildly amusing. I especially like the bits about the "haul-ass motor" and "superb interior gloss". The Corolla's engine is a lazy lump meant for a grandpamobile, and somehow glossy plastics make the Corolla superb but make the Neon shite... <_<
The Corolla managed a 0-60 of close to 8 seconds in that test, definitely praiseworthy.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI can't find a Spectra for under $3000 Used here.
I'm talking used....I'd never buy a car new. First gens is what I'm talking about.
Hell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
It sounded as though you were comparing it new to other new cars.
As to the $3k Spectra, AutoTrader produced 16 results. And the oldest would be several years newer than the oldest Neon. (But those Spectras were dreadful).
BTW, for $3K, I'd buy a Protege, Escort, Esteem, or Mirage over a Neon. I'd probably even buy a Cav/Sunf first.
$3,000 Canadian, and that's a quite high estimate. There's plenty in the $1500 range.
Again, the Neon had a three-year head start. A 1995 car is generally less expensive than a 1998.
What is the cheapest '98 Spectra?
The cheapest '98 Neon is $1,200 Candian.
http://www.trader.ca/powerpage/details.asp...70&adid=4429830 (http://www.trader.ca/powerpage/details.aspx?vlotid=1045570&adid=4429830)
Year 1998
Make DODGE
Model NEON
Exterior Colour red
Interior Colour grey
Transmission Automatic
Engine Size 2.0, 4 cyl.
Fuel Type Gas
# Doors 4
Price $1,200.00
Mileage 140,000 km
Warranty Available
Stock # 711950B
Date 9/21/2005
Ad Code CPYLLX
Web Ad ID 4429830
$1,028.81 USD for a 1998 Vehicle with 87,000 miles.
I like driving Corolla's... :ph34r:
In the '00 Comparo, they called the Neon 5 speed "slick".
QuoteThe Corolla managed a 0-60 of close to 8 seconds in that test, definitely praiseworthy.
I've got to admit, for a compact, that's damn good.
QuoteThe Corolla managed a 0-60 of close to 8 seconds in that test, definitely praiseworthy.
I didn't see any figures, and the Neon is quite easily capable of handing the Corolla its ass on a dull black-grey plastic platter.
In the June 2000 issue, the cars finnished like this:
13: Kia Sephia LS
12: Daewoo Nubria CDX
10 (tie): Toyota Echo
10 (tie): Suzuki Esteem 1.8GLX Sport
9: Saturn SL2
8: Mitsubishi Mirage DE
7: Chevrolet Prism (Toyota Corolla, really)
6: Hundai Elantra GLS
5: Dodge Neon ES
4: Honda Civic LX
3: Ford Focus ZTS
2: Nissan Sentra GXE
1: Mazda Protege ES
Neon-
Highs: Drives bigger than it is, high style interior, trusty brake feel
Lows: Outrageous wind noise, too much engine vibration, and you must press a scratchy-clunky button to release the ignition key
The Verdict: Big car feel comes to the low price class
"In go power, the Neon falls a bit behind the lead pack - a half second slower to 60, for example - but it feels peppy once you get used to the stiff throttle spring. THe clutch strokes easily, the shifter is slick, and the brakes are firm, all qualities that ear high marks with us. We rated teh Neon an eight for fun to drive, just one point behind our overall favourite"
Damn it, after typing all that out I finally find the article online.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=3899 (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=3899)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI can't find a Spectra for under $3000 Used here.
I'm talking used....I'd never buy a car new. First gens is what I'm talking about.
Hell, even the 2nd gen C&D tested they placed 5th out of 13.
Behind the Protege, Focus, Sentra and Civic.
It sounded as though you were comparing it new to other new cars.
As to the $3k Spectra, AutoTrader produced 16 results. And the oldest would be several years newer than the oldest Neon. (But those Spectras were dreadful).
BTW, for $3K, I'd buy a Protege, Escort, Esteem, or Mirage over a Neon. I'd probably even buy a Cav/Sunf first.
$3,000 Canadian, and that's a quite high estimate. There's plenty in the $1500 range.
Again, the Neon had a three-year head start. A 1995 car is generally less expensive than a 1998.
What is the cheapest '98 Spectra?
The cheapest '98 Neon is $1,200 Candian.
http://www.trader.ca/powerpage/details.asp...70&adid=4429830 (http://www.trader.ca/powerpage/details.aspx?vlotid=1045570&adid=4429830)
Year 1998
Make DODGE
Model NEON
Exterior Colour red
Interior Colour grey
Transmission Automatic
Engine Size 2.0, 4 cyl.
Fuel Type Gas
# Doors 4
Price $1,200.00
Mileage 140,000 km
Warranty Available
Stock # 711950B
Date 9/21/2005
Ad Code CPYLLX
Web Ad ID 4429830
$1,028.81 USD for a 1998 Vehicle with 87,000 miles.
The Spectra was still called the Sephia in 1998 (the car was redesigned for 98, but the name didn't change until 02). I had thought they'd changed the name with the redesign, I didn't remember the Spectra name being that new.
That said, there were five 98 or newer Sephias on AutoTrader (US version) priced below $1,028.81 USD, and the only two with listed mileage were below 87K.
QuoteNeon-
Highs: Drives bigger than it is, high style interior, trusty brake feel
Lows: Outrageous wind noise, too much engine vibration, and you must press a scratchy-clunky button to release the ignition key
The Verdict: Big car feel comes to the low price class
"In go power, the Neon falls a bit behind the lead pack - a half second slower to 60, for example - but it feels peppy once you get used to the stiff throttle spring. THe clutch strokes easily, the shifter is slick, and the brakes are firm, all qualities that ear high marks with us. We rated teh Neon an eight for fun to drive, just one point behind our overall favourite"
Of course, those are the standards of five years ago, and the Neon has barely changed since then. ;)
So because the car is older, it's a crap box?
Yes there are better cars new vs new, I'm not arguing that.
But in the used car market, they're a pretty good deal for the money, not many can compete. And they're certainly not "crap boxes". :rolleyes:
I wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
QuoteI wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
Ignorance. :rolleyes:
;) :lol:
QuoteSo because the car is older, it's a crap box?
Yes there are better cars new vs new, I'm not arguing that.
But in the used car market, they're a pretty good deal for the money, not many can compete. And they're certainly not "crap boxes". :rolleyes:
For about $5,000 used, they're half decent. Any more, and they're crap boxes.
And I was only explaining why they were more favorable towards the car in 2000 than they were in 2002 and are now: standards change.
QuoteI wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
In 2000, interior styling was still something of an unknown in economy cars. Compared to blandies like the Corolla, Civic, Protege, or Sentra, or uglies like the Echo or (debatably) the Focus of that era, it was high-style.
QuoteQuoteSo because the car is older, it's a crap box?
Yes there are better cars new vs new, I'm not arguing that.
But in the used car market, they're a pretty good deal for the money, not many can compete. And they're certainly not "crap boxes". :rolleyes:
For about $5,000 used, they're half decent. Any more, and they're crap boxes.
And I was only explaining why they were more favorable towards the car in 2000 than they were in 2002 and are now: standards change.
What makes them crap boxes?
Lower grade plastic used in the dash?
Wind noise?
QuoteQuoteI wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
In 2000, interior styling was still something of an unknown in economy cars. Compared to blandies like the Corolla, Civic, Protege, or Sentra, or uglies like the Echo or (debatably) the Focus of that era, it was high-style.
hmm...blandies and uglies, eh? Sounds more like a description of your ex-girlfriends than econcar interiors if, but I'll take your word for it. :P
Totally joking, but I just had to use that. :lol:
QuoteQuoteQuoteI wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
In 2000, interior styling was still something of an unknown in economy cars. Compared to blandies like the Corolla, Civic, Protege, or Sentra, or uglies like the Echo or (debatably) the Focus of that era, it was high-style.
hmm...blandies and uglies, eh? Sounds more like a description of your ex-girlfriends than econcar interiors if, but I'll take your word for it. :P
Totally joking, but I just had to use that. :lol:
:lol: :praise:
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo because the car is older, it's a crap box?
Yes there are better cars new vs new, I'm not arguing that.
But in the used car market, they're a pretty good deal for the money, not many can compete. And they're certainly not "crap boxes". :rolleyes:
For about $5,000 used, they're half decent. Any more, and they're crap boxes.
And I was only explaining why they were more favorable towards the car in 2000 than they were in 2002 and are now: standards change.
What makes them crap boxes?
Lower grade plastic used in the dash?
Wind noise?
No refinement, no ride comfort, little seat comfort, no interior quality. When you get into the $5K+ range, you find cars that exceed the Neon's abilities without those flaws. The Focus and Protege come immidiately to mind.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
In 2000, interior styling was still something of an unknown in economy cars. Compared to blandies like the Corolla, Civic, Protege, or Sentra, or uglies like the Echo or (debatably) the Focus of that era, it was high-style.
hmm...blandies and uglies, eh? Sounds more like a description of your ex-girlfriends than econcar interiors if, but I'll take your word for it. :P
Totally joking, but I just had to use that. :lol:
You call me picky and then come out with that. <_< :P
QuoteNo refinement,
Can anyone define "refinement" for me? The most descriptive definition I've been told is "precision". Precision of what I do not know, which is why I hate the word "refinement" with a passion.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI wasn't aware the Neon ever had a "high-style" interior, 5 years ago or otherwise.
In 2000, interior styling was still something of an unknown in economy cars. Compared to blandies like the Corolla, Civic, Protege, or Sentra, or uglies like the Echo or (debatably) the Focus of that era, it was high-style.
hmm...blandies and uglies, eh? Sounds more like a description of your ex-girlfriends than econcar interiors if, but I'll take your word for it. :P
Totally joking, but I just had to use that. :lol:
You call me picky and then come out with that. <_< :P
:D
And have you personally been in/driven a Neon in comparison with the others?
I've been in both first and second generation Neons, and while the second gen trip was long ago and short, I didn't find it bad at all. Nothing noticably different from the Foci I've been in, or my co-workers Protege.
If they changed the seats from first to second gen, it must have been for the worst because I've had no problems with Neon seats on longer trips (went on a camping trip in that 1st gen I've driven).
Maybe because I just don't care about those things (besides seat confort, which I dont agree with) is why I don't share your point of view.
QuoteQuoteNo refinement,
Can anyone define "refinement" for me? The most descriptive definition I've been told is "precision". Precision of what I do not know, which is why I hate the word "refinement" with a passion.
Precision? I'm talking NVH.
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo refinement,
Can anyone define "refinement" for me? The most descriptive definition I've been told is "precision". Precision of what I do not know, which is why I hate the word "refinement" with a passion.
Precision? I'm talking NVH.
So "unrefined" means "noisy" in your lexicon?
What about "uninspired"?
QuoteAnd have you personally been in/driven a Neon in comparison with the others?
I've been in both first and second generation Neons, and while the second gen trip was long ago and short, I didn't find it bad at all. Nothing noticably different from the Foci I've been in, or my co-workers Protege.
If they changed the seats from first to second gen, it must have been for the worst because I've had no problems with Neon seats on longer trips (went on a camping trip in that 1st gen I've driven).
Maybe because I just don't care about those things (besides seat confort, which I dont agree with) is why I don't share your point of view.
Even if you don't care about those things, you sacrifice absolutely nothing by buying a Focus or Protege. Both have comparable power (though not with the basest base engines) and even better handling, and once you get over $5K, you can easily pick up either of them.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo refinement,
Can anyone define "refinement" for me? The most descriptive definition I've been told is "precision". Precision of what I do not know, which is why I hate the word "refinement" with a passion.
Precision? I'm talking NVH.
So "unrefined" means "noisy" in your lexicon?
What about "uninspired"?
Uninspired? Bland.
"Refined", according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, means:
1. Free from coarseness or vulgarity; polite.
2. Free of impurities; purified.
3. Precise to a fine degree.
So I'm a little confused as to how you can twist that into "noisy".
Jargon.
So "uninspired" and "unrefined" are nonsensical, convoluted and vague (the definition of "jargon" from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)?
Good. Because that's what I've thought all along. So, how about you be more refined in your descriptions and stay away from meaningless terms peddled by buffoons. ;)
QuoteSo "uninspired" and "unrefined" are nonsensical, convoluted and vague (the definition of "jargon" from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)?
Good. Because that's what I've thought all along. So, how about you be more refined in your descriptions and stay away from meaningless terms peddled by buffoons. ;)
C'mon now, is it really fun that way? ;)
I anticipated such a response. Shall I criticize your next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of these definitions:
4 entries found for handling.
han?dle Audio pronunciation of "handling" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hndl)
v. han?dled, han?dling, han?dles
v. tr.
1. To touch, lift, or hold with the hands.
2. To operate with the hands; manipulate.
3. To deal with or have responsibility for; conduct: handles matters of corporate law.
4. To cope with or dispose of: handles problems efficiently.
5.
a. To direct, execute, or dispose of: handle an investment.
b. To manage, administer to, or represent: handle a boxer.
6. To deal or trade in the purchase or sale of: a branch office that handles grain exports.
v. intr.
To act or function in a given way while in operation
n.
1. A part that is designed to be held or operated with the hand.
2. An opportunity or a means for achieving a purpose.
3. Slang. A person's name.
4. Games. The total amount of money bet on an event or over a set period of time.
QuoteI anticipated such a response. Shall I criticize your next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of these definitions:
4 entries found for handling.
han?dle? Audio pronunciation of "handling" ( P )? Pronunciation Key? (hndl)
v. han?dled, han?dling, han?dles
v. tr.
? 1. To touch, lift, or hold with the hands.
? 2. To operate with the hands; manipulate.
? 3. To deal with or have responsibility for; conduct: handles matters of corporate law.
? 4. To cope with or dispose of: handles problems efficiently.
? 5.
? ? ? ? a. To direct, execute, or dispose of: handle an investment.
? ? ? ? b. To manage, administer to, or represent: handle a boxer.
? 6. To deal or trade in the purchase or sale of: a branch office that handles grain exports.
v. intr.
? ? To act or function in a given way while in operation
n.
? 1. A part that is designed to be held or operated with the hand.
? 2. An opportunity or a means for achieving a purpose.
? 3. Slang. A person's name.
? 4. Games. The total amount of money bet on an event or over a set period of time.
No you shall not criticize my next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of those definitions, since my mention of car's handling refers specifically to the first, second (referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands), fourth (to cope with turns) and fifth (to direct a car into a maneuvre/to execute a maneuvre) definitions you've presented.
B-hoo y-ha.
QuoteQuoteAnd have you personally been in/driven a Neon in comparison with the others?
I've been in both first and second generation Neons, and while the second gen trip was long ago and short, I didn't find it bad at all. Nothing noticably different from the Foci I've been in, or my co-workers Protege.
If they changed the seats from first to second gen, it must have been for the worst because I've had no problems with Neon seats on longer trips (went on a camping trip in that 1st gen I've driven).
Maybe because I just don't care about those things (besides seat confort, which I dont agree with) is why I don't share your point of view.
Even if you don't care about those things, you sacrifice absolutely nothing by buying a Focus or Protege. Both have comparable power (though not with the basest base engines) and even better handling, and once you get over $5K, you can easily pick up either of them.
Myself personally, I only like the 1st gens.
Personal preferance. And there are no Foci that compare to the 1st gen Neon, and the competing Protege isn't as good.
If I had the choice between a '00 Neon, Focus and Protege, I would chose them in this order:
Protege
Neon
Focus
Even moreso if it was a Neon R/T.
Again, have you personally been in/driven a Neon in comparison with the others?
QuoteQuoteI anticipated such a response. Shall I criticize your next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of these definitions:
4 entries found for handling.
han?dle Audio pronunciation of "handling" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hndl)
v. han?dled, han?dling, han?dles
v. tr.
1. To touch, lift, or hold with the hands.
2. To operate with the hands; manipulate.
3. To deal with or have responsibility for; conduct: handles matters of corporate law.
4. To cope with or dispose of: handles problems efficiently.
5.
a. To direct, execute, or dispose of: handle an investment.
b. To manage, administer to, or represent: handle a boxer.
6. To deal or trade in the purchase or sale of: a branch office that handles grain exports.
v. intr.
To act or function in a given way while in operation
n.
1. A part that is designed to be held or operated with the hand.
2. An opportunity or a means for achieving a purpose.
3. Slang. A person's name.
4. Games. The total amount of money bet on an event or over a set period of time.
No you shall not criticize my next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of those definitions, since my mention of car's handling refers specifically to the first
You touch, lift, or hold the car, and that describes its cornering characteristics?
, second (referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
Handling doesn't tend to refer to one's ability to manipulate the steering wheel.
, fourth (to cope with turns)
Maybe, the only thing close you've presented.
and fifth (to direct a car into a maneuvre/to execute a maneuvre)
That's representative of the driver's abilities, not of the car's.
definitions you've presented.
B-hoo y-ha.
T-hry a-hgain. ;)
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd have you personally been in/driven a Neon in comparison with the others?
I've been in both first and second generation Neons, and while the second gen trip was long ago and short, I didn't find it bad at all. Nothing noticably different from the Foci I've been in, or my co-workers Protege.
If they changed the seats from first to second gen, it must have been for the worst because I've had no problems with Neon seats on longer trips (went on a camping trip in that 1st gen I've driven).
Maybe because I just don't care about those things (besides seat confort, which I dont agree with) is why I don't share your point of view.
Even if you don't care about those things, you sacrifice absolutely nothing by buying a Focus or Protege. Both have comparable power (though not with the basest base engines) and even better handling, and once you get over $5K, you can easily pick up either of them.
Myself personally, I only like the 1st gens.
Personal preferance. And there are no Foci that compare to the 1st gen Neon, and the competing Protege isn't as good.
There are no pre-2000 Focuses either, and no (or if any, few) first-gen Neons over $5,000. And I'ds still take a 1996 Protege over a 96 Neon.
If I had the choice between a '00 Neon, Focus and Protege, I would chose them in this order:
Protege
Neon
Focus
What does the Neon do that a Focus can't do better?
Even moreso if it was a Neon R/T.
Again, have you personally been in/driven a Neon in comparison with the others?
Extensively.
.....
I like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
QuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
QuoteQuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
for an autorosser, dodging cones is what tis all about..
Hmm, my C&D mag in front of my says the Focus takes 9.4 seconds and the Neon takes 8.8. That's a pretty big gap for "going both ways". Don't forget the Neon automatic is crap. 3 speeds and poor ratios don't do well in acceleration.
I've driven a 1st gen Neon (learned to drive stick on it) but no Foci. I don't understand your obsession with them, it's like my dad and his base model Volvo station wagons he slobbers about.
Too bad the Focus with better grip, "steering and control" can't control itself better around some cones than a "crap box" Neon. :o
QuoteQuoteQuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
for an autorosser, dodging cones is what tis all about..
Most people don't by economy cars for "autorossing".
QuoteHmm, my C&D mag in front of my says the Focus takes 9.4 seconds and the Neon takes 8.8. That's a pretty big gap for "going both ways". Don't forget the Neon automatic is crap. 3 speeds and poor ratios don't do well in acceleration.
I've driven a 1st gen Neon (learned to drive stick on it) but no Foci. I don't understand your obsession with them, it's like my dad and his base model Volvo station wagons he slobbers about.
True, I may be thinking of automatic vs. automatic tests I've seen.
As to my "obsession" with the car, I'll just have to say that you need to drive it. Short of the expensive Mazda3, you will get the most driving enjoyment out of the car than any other econobox. I also appreciate the creature comforts of a smooth ride and a roomy interior, and its incredible value for the money.
Drive it, and then a 2nd-gen Neon, and you'll know what I'm talking about. I personally couldn't care less about tire grip to the decimal place or how it does at 60 mph on a track.
If I ever get the chance to do so, I will.
I'd be suprised if in my lifetime I'll ever own a Focus or 2nd gen Neon though.
It would break precedent, wouldn't it? :P
QuoteQuoteNo you shall not criticize my next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of those definitions, since my mention of car's handling refers specifically to the first
You touch, lift, or hold the car, and that describes its cornering characteristics?
(referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
I suppose I should have made it more explicit... More on this below.
, second (referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
Handling doesn't tend to refer to one's ability to manipulate the steering wheel.
It does tend to refer to one's manipulation of the steering wheel. How else do you plan on making the car turn? Psychokinesis? "The Force"?
I'm covering all the bases. I might use "handling" to express the skill needed to make the car execute turns. You referred to my "next mention of a car's 'handling'": you didn't specify whether you meant the vehicle's inherent ability to take corners or the driver's ability to control the vehicle. I assumed both.
, fourth (to cope with turns)
Maybe, the only thing close you've presented.
Close? I'd like you to explain to me just how it is that handling doesn't refer to the vehicle's ability to cope with turns. :rolleyes:
and fifth (to direct a car into a maneuvre/to execute a maneuvre)
That's representative of the driver's abilities, not of the car's.
Not necessarily. It's also representative of the car's abilities, insofar as to allow the driver to use his or her abilities to direct the car's motion.
Like I said though, I thought by "car's handling" you meant a car's ability to handle turns as well as the driver's ability to handle a car.
definitions you've presented.
Shikaka!
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo you shall not criticize my next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of those definitions, since my mention of car's handling refers specifically to the first
You touch, lift, or hold the car, and that describes its cornering characteristics?
(referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
I suppose I should have made it more explicit... More on this below.
So when I say "this car handles well" I mean "drivers are able to manipulate the steering mechanism with their hands well"? Don't think so.
, second (referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
Handling doesn't tend to refer to one's ability to manipulate the steering wheel.
It does tend to refer to one's manipulation of the steering wheel. How else do you plan on making the car turn? Psychokinesis? "The Force"?
I'm covering all the bases. I might use "handling" to express the skill needed to make the car execute turns. You referred to my "next mention of a car's 'handling'": you didn't specify whether you meant the vehicle's inherent ability to take corners or the driver's ability to control the vehicle. I assumed both.
Where have you ever seen a car's handling referring to anything but the car? You put a lousy driver in a sports car and a good one in a Stratus, does that mean the Stratus will have better handling?
, fourth (to cope with turns)
Maybe, the only thing close you've presented.
Close? I'd like you to explain to me just how it is that handling doesn't refer to the vehicle's ability to cope with turns. :rolleyes:
I'd say handling would refer to a car's ability to cope with turns, but that doesn't sound quite like what the dictionary was referring to. Their example for that definition was "handles problems efficiently", which doesn't really sound much like what you're putting forward.
and fifth (to direct a car into a maneuvre/to execute a maneuvre)
That's representative of the driver's abilities, not of the car's.
Not necessarily. It's also representative of the car's abilities, insofar as to allow the driver to use his or her abilities to direct the car's motion.
Like I said though, I thought by "car's handling" you meant a car's ability to handle turns as well as the driver's ability to handle a car.
Need I bring out Corvette vs. Stratus again?
definitions you've presented.
Shikaka!
....
QuoteWell if it makes you feel any better, they placed the Echo in 10th IIRC.
They called it a mistake. :P
I hate the Echo!
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo you shall not criticize my next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of those definitions, since my mention of car's handling refers specifically to the first
You touch, lift, or hold the car, and that describes its cornering characteristics?
(referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
I suppose I should have made it more explicit... More on this below.
So when I say "this car handles well" I mean "drivers are able to manipulate the steering mechanism with their hands well"? Don't think so.
So when I say "this car was easy to handle" do I mean "the vehicle can easily cope with turns"...?
:rolleyes:
, second (referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
Handling doesn't tend to refer to one's ability to manipulate the steering wheel.
It does tend to refer to one's manipulation of the steering wheel. How else do you plan on making the car turn? Psychokinesis? "The Force"?
I'm covering all the bases. I might use "handling" to express the skill needed to make the car execute turns. You referred to my "next mention of a car's 'handling'": you didn't specify whether you meant the vehicle's inherent ability to take corners or the driver's ability to control the vehicle. I assumed both.
Where have you ever seen a car's handling referring to anything but the car? You put a lousy driver in a sports car and a good one in a Stratus, does that mean the Stratus will have better handling?
You put a lousy driver in a sports car and he might not be able to HANDLE the car...
Crikey man, do you speak English?
, fourth (to cope with turns)
Maybe, the only thing close you've presented.
Close? I'd like you to explain to me just how it is that handling doesn't refer to the vehicle's ability to cope with turns.? :rolleyes:
I'd say handling would refer to a car's ability to cope with turns, but that doesn't sound quite like what the dictionary was referring to. Their example for that definition was "handles problems efficiently", which doesn't really sound much like what you're putting forward.
What?! You've been insisting this is the sole meaning of "a car's handling" the whole frickin' time!
and fifth (to direct a car into a maneuvre/to execute a maneuvre)
That's representative of the driver's abilities, not of the car's.
Not necessarily. It's also representative of the car's abilities, insofar as to allow the driver to use his or her abilities to direct the car's motion.
Like I said though, I thought by "car's handling" you meant a car's ability to handle turns as well as the driver's ability to handle a car.
Need I bring out Corvette vs. Stratus again?
Go ahead, whip it out again. Won't amount to anything beyond reinforcing the fact you don't have a particularly good grasp of the word handling's meanings.
definitions you've presented.
Shikaka!
....
;)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo you shall not criticize my next mention of a car's "handling" for not adhering to one of those definitions, since my mention of car's handling refers specifically to the first
You touch, lift, or hold the car, and that describes its cornering characteristics?
(referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
I suppose I should have made it more explicit... More on this below.
So when I say "this car handles well" I mean "drivers are able to manipulate the steering mechanism with their hands well"? Don't think so.
So when I say "this car was easy to handle" do I mean "the vehicle can easily cope with turns"...?
:rolleyes:
I have never seen anyone refer to a car being "easy to handle", only the latter.
, second (referring implicitly to the manipulation of the steering mechanism with my hands)
Handling doesn't tend to refer to one's ability to manipulate the steering wheel.
It does tend to refer to one's manipulation of the steering wheel. How else do you plan on making the car turn? Psychokinesis? "The Force"?
I'm covering all the bases. I might use "handling" to express the skill needed to make the car execute turns. You referred to my "next mention of a car's 'handling'": you didn't specify whether you meant the vehicle's inherent ability to take corners or the driver's ability to control the vehicle. I assumed both.
Where have you ever seen a car's handling referring to anything but the car? You put a lousy driver in a sports car and a good one in a Stratus, does that mean the Stratus will have better handling?
You put a lousy driver in a sports car and he might not be able to HANDLE the car...
Crikey man, do you speak English?
, fourth (to cope with turns)
Maybe, the only thing close you've presented.
Close? I'd like you to explain to me just how it is that handling doesn't refer to the vehicle's ability to cope with turns. :rolleyes:
I'd say handling would refer to a car's ability to cope with turns, but that doesn't sound quite like what the dictionary was referring to. Their example for that definition was "handles problems efficiently", which doesn't really sound much like what you're putting forward.
What?! You've been insisting this is the sole meaning of "a car's handling" the whole frickin' time!
I know that's what I'm saying, but the dictionary includes no such definition.
and fifth (to direct a car into a maneuvre/to execute a maneuvre)
That's representative of the driver's abilities, not of the car's.
Not necessarily. It's also representative of the car's abilities, insofar as to allow the driver to use his or her abilities to direct the car's motion.
Like I said though, I thought by "car's handling" you meant a car's ability to handle turns as well as the driver's ability to handle a car.
Need I bring out Corvette vs. Stratus again?
Go ahead, whip it out again. Won't amount to anything beyond reinforcing the fact you don't have a particularly good grasp of the word handling's meanings.
You keep referring to handling as a driver's ability to drive the car. In the sense that it is used at almost always related to cars, the difference between drivers is irrelevent. It refers to the car, not the driver.
definitions you've presented.
Shikaka!
....
;)
AAAugh!! stop doing that !!!
How dare two people carry on a conversation that's over ten words long, uses proper English, and isn't laden with smilies. :rolleyes:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
for an autorosser, dodging cones is what tis all about..
Most people don't by economy cars for "autorossing".
And I'd reckon they don't
buy them for autcrossing, either.
QuoteHow dare two people carry on a conversation that's over ten words long, uses proper English, and isn't laden with smilies. :rolleyes:
no, it just gets confusing and there are too many colors, etc, to skip over while reading the post.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
for an autorosser, dodging cones is what tis all about..
Most people don't by economy cars for "autorossing".
And I'd reckon they don't buy them for autcrossing, either.
:lol:
(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/4048/bye3eq.jpg)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
for an autorosser, dodging cones is what tis all about..
Most people don't by economy cars for "autorossing".
And I'd reckon they don't buy them for autcrossing, either.
What's that on the left there? :lol:
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1041/DSCN914.th.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=DSCN914.jpg)
There were plenty of economy cars at the autocross.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the Neon over the Focus mainly for styling (both interior and exterior), it's faster and it has better handling.
As my proof, even though the Focus generates more grip the skidpad (0.81 vs 0.79 - skidpad mostly a test of tire grip, not actual chassis dynamics) it outpaced it in the slalom 58.1mph to 56.9mph.
Depends on who you ask for acceleration, I've seen it go both ways. But handling is no contest, unless you only care how fast you can dodge cones. The Focus's steering and control give it an easy lead.
Have YOU driven both the Focus and Neon? <_<
for an autorosser, dodging cones is what tis all about..
Most people don't by economy cars for "autorossing".
And I'd reckon they don't buy them for autcrossing, either.
What's that on the left there? :lol:
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1041/DSCN914.th.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=DSCN914.jpg)
There were plenty of economy cars at the autocross.
How did the Club Wagon fare?
Quote[What's that on the left there? :lol:
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1041/DSCN914.th.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=DSCN914.jpg)
There were plenty of economy cars at the autocross.
I was just being an ass and correcting ifcar's typo. I didn't necessarily agree with his statement.
QuoteQuoteHow dare two people carry on a conversation that's over ten words long, uses proper English, and isn't laden with smilies. :rolleyes:
no, it just gets confusing and there are too many colors, etc, to skip over while reading the post.
It wasn't written with you in mind. If it's too complicated for you, you don't have to read it.
QuoteQuote[What's that on the left there? :lol:
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1041/DSCN914.th.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=DSCN914.jpg)
There were plenty of economy cars at the autocross.
I was just being an ass and correcting ifcar's typo. I didn't necessarily agree with his statement.
So you think that autocross ability is important for economy cars? <_<
QuoteQuoteQuote[What's that on the left there? :lol:
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1041/DSCN914.th.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=DSCN914.jpg)
There were plenty of economy cars at the autocross.
I was just being an ass and correcting ifcar's typo. I didn't necessarily agree with his statement.
So you think that autocross ability is important for economy cars? <_<
Not really, but I'm sure some people
do use them for autocrossing, which, I believe, was 280's point.
I believe the ability to be fun and competent dynamically is an important attribute for all cars.
That's the thing: the Focus is much more fun than the Neon, it just goes a bit slower in and out of cones.
QuoteThat's the thing: the Focus is much more fun than the Neon, it just goes a bit slower in and out of cones.
I don't disagree with you there. While I've driven neither cars, I've read that the Focus is very fun to drive (I've heard very, very good things about the SVT 3 door model particularly). Before, I used to believe that specifications on a piece of paper is all that mattered for driving, but feel is so much more of it.
Although, I'd love to get an SRT-4 out on a track.
All this is making me want to go and buy a 1g Neon to show you guys what they are capable of.
Maybe when I sell my red car, I'll buy one under the pretense that it'll be my beater (but I'll end up modifying it).
All this is making me want to buy ifcar a dictionary for Festivus.
All this is making me want to go out and buy a Cherokee and squish your economy cars. :praise:
QuoteAll this is making me want to buy ifcar a dictionary for Festivus.
You can continue to go ahead and use only dictionary definitions, but be prepared to be called on it if you don't.
I will be carefully monitoring your posts for exceptions. :ph34r: