RE: BMW X3 M Competition vs. Jaguar F-Pace SVR
Discussion
big_rob_sydney said:
You're hilarious Phil. Still feeling all butt-hurt I see because you're too stupid to win an argument.
In any case, many straw men here wanting to attack the messenger and not the message. If I chose to drive a small, medium, or large size car, it does not change the fact that these things seriously diminish visibility of following vehicles.
If you want to play the "what about you and your car" game, then I fear you are too stupid to understand this article and what is being discussed.
Had the exact same comments about the stupidly over-sized nature of these abominations been made by Mother Teresa, I'm sure some of you would have found an equally stupid counter to her, and ignored the inherent issues being discussed.
Try and play the ball, and not the man, and then you'll maybe have something worth listening to.
And you genuinely think that you are winning?In any case, many straw men here wanting to attack the messenger and not the message. If I chose to drive a small, medium, or large size car, it does not change the fact that these things seriously diminish visibility of following vehicles.
If you want to play the "what about you and your car" game, then I fear you are too stupid to understand this article and what is being discussed.
Had the exact same comments about the stupidly over-sized nature of these abominations been made by Mother Teresa, I'm sure some of you would have found an equally stupid counter to her, and ignored the inherent issues being discussed.
Try and play the ball, and not the man, and then you'll maybe have something worth listening to.
Just pointing out the unbelievable hypocrisy of your position. In any event, the ball was played by reflecting your "argument" to demonstrate the absurdity. But you're unable to grasp that it seems,
Usually people attack SUVs on grounds of impracticality, poor economy, or size. Yet you choose to drive a car which is less practical, worse economy and longer. So you attack the SUV based on the one metric where you think you can score a point - it's taller than your car! Oh noes!
Your post just makes you look like an irrational angry person, and your argument has no merit whatsoever. I don't think I'll be replying to this thread again as any review of these things acts as a moron magnet.
Just say you don't like the cars, they're not for you. That's fine. If you try to justify your prejudice with a ridiculous and meritless argument, while doubling done on hypocrisy, don't be surprised if people point and laugh at you.
Usually people attack SUVs on grounds of impracticality, poor economy, or size. Yet you choose to drive a car which is less practical, worse economy and longer. So you attack the SUV based on the one metric where you think you can score a point - it's taller than your car! Oh noes!
Your post just makes you look like an irrational angry person, and your argument has no merit whatsoever. I don't think I'll be replying to this thread again as any review of these things acts as a moron magnet.
Just say you don't like the cars, they're not for you. That's fine. If you try to justify your prejudice with a ridiculous and meritless argument, while doubling done on hypocrisy, don't be surprised if people point and laugh at you.
big_rob_sydney said:
PhilboSE said:
big_rob_sydney said:
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.
Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.
I agree, how dare these vans, lorries and SUVs interfere with your God-given right to see the car in front of the vehicle in front of you? It's an utter disgrace, I'm not surprised you're outraged.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.However, I have a different issue. I despise so-called "executive" cars. I hate those things for the unbridled selfishness of the owners of those abominations,
Where most of these executive cars won't take 4 suitcases, the need for a large boot is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that can carry 4 people and their luggage.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I'm an angry man and having an oversized car makes me feel better about my failings at life". These "executive" cars are even longer than these oversized SUV abominations!
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my Mini and been unable to park because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where these stupidly long cars take up additional space and prevent me from parking.
f
k you, and the stupidly impractical overly long nail you rode in on.In any case, many straw men here wanting to attack the messenger and not the message. If I chose to drive a small, medium, or large size car, it does not change the fact that these things seriously diminish visibility of following vehicles.
If you want to play the "what about you and your car" game, then I fear you are too stupid to understand this article and what is being discussed.
Had the exact same comments about the stupidly over-sized nature of these abominations been made by Mother Teresa, I'm sure some of you would have found an equally stupid counter to her, and ignored the inherent issues being discussed.
Try and play the ball, and not the man, and then you'll maybe have something worth listening to.
t and certainly are not winning the argument here. You are the guy who has started calling people names and you are complaining about them "playing the man and not the ball?"I think the X3/Stelvio/GLC are the acceptable face of the SAV they have foot prints smaller than big boy versions yet offer the same kind of practically and a raised driving position if that's what you like (that doesn't bother me either way) the X3 is smaller than my 7, fits in parking spaces whereas the 740d doesn't and the X3M isn't a big car by modern standards against the likes of the X7/GLS/XC90 etc...
The souped up versions are bonus as you don't have to have a diesel if you want some grunt, you get AWD, 5 seats and big boot in a car that can run to 100mph in just over 8 seconds, it's a perfectly good car to tool about in I don't understand what people hate about them.
The souped up versions are bonus as you don't have to have a diesel if you want some grunt, you get AWD, 5 seats and big boot in a car that can run to 100mph in just over 8 seconds, it's a perfectly good car to tool about in I don't understand what people hate about them.
Whilst I generally dislike SUV’s I own one as with x3 kids and a dog and living in the sticks with plenty of muddy tracks instead of roads, it makes perfect sense.
What I don’t like is angry opinionated people like Rob telling me I’m selfish.
He raises the question of what is NEEDED.
Well, who decides that then? Him?
Yep - that will work.
Whilst he’s at it perhaps he should regulate everything we buy. After all, I’d hate to buy a T-shirt, book or coffee that I don’t actually need.
In fact, why is he even on this website which celebrates everything from high performance sports cars (anything over 70mph is not needed obviously) to luxury models (leather seats and walnut dash totally superfluous of course).
Clearly the man lacks the intelligence to see he cannot make a reasoned argument out of his own angry opinion. Worse still he’s a hypocrite based on his own North Korean style social policy.
You don’t like SUV’s Rob. We get it. That’s it. Leave it there. The more you respond the more stupid you come across.
But, by all means have a go, as I’m sure you will. (because you’re not very bright
)
As for whinging about playing the man not the ball after he started the name calling????
Just wow
What I don’t like is angry opinionated people like Rob telling me I’m selfish.
He raises the question of what is NEEDED.
Well, who decides that then? Him?
Yep - that will work.
Whilst he’s at it perhaps he should regulate everything we buy. After all, I’d hate to buy a T-shirt, book or coffee that I don’t actually need.
In fact, why is he even on this website which celebrates everything from high performance sports cars (anything over 70mph is not needed obviously) to luxury models (leather seats and walnut dash totally superfluous of course).
Clearly the man lacks the intelligence to see he cannot make a reasoned argument out of his own angry opinion. Worse still he’s a hypocrite based on his own North Korean style social policy.
You don’t like SUV’s Rob. We get it. That’s it. Leave it there. The more you respond the more stupid you come across.
But, by all means have a go, as I’m sure you will. (because you’re not very bright
)As for whinging about playing the man not the ball after he started the name calling????
Just wow
Edited by Maldini35 on Saturday 1st February 18:43
Is buy the Jag just because of the engine and the absurdity of that noise coming from an SUV.
The BMW will sell well though because the deals make it too cheap to turn down. Was talking to a chap the other night who has gone from an M135i to the X3M because itv was son cheap. He seemed to quite like it.
The BMW will sell well though because the deals make it too cheap to turn down. Was talking to a chap the other night who has gone from an M135i to the X3M because itv was son cheap. He seemed to quite like it.
ajap1979 said:
Just how good are these X3MC deals? I’ve never seen any figures quoted. Incidentally a friend told me about one of their clients who drives one and he’s only 22. Insurance must be crazy.
Lots of chat here (or try bimmerpost);https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
big_rob_sydney said:
sidesauce said:
big_rob_sydney said:
the article said:
...both would be more dynamically accomplished if they sat closer to the ground and went to fat camp. But they are also quicker in a straight line than most decade-old supercars, big enough to lug a family and come with the slippery weather security of clever all-wheel drive systems. Plus you can even take them off-roading. Only kidding!
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.
Do you feel this way about vans trucks/lorries and buses? If you don't then that's fair enough but maybe others buying SUVs feel safer being higher up/more visible to them? I have no dog in this fight as I'm not an SUV lover at all but your vitriol says more about you than it does about those who choose to drive them.
trucks/lorries and buses are the size they are because the form factor of their intended function requires them to be that size. How a bus can carry 50 people if it is a 2 seat convertible has yet to be explained to me.
Of course we know those vehicles are larger than normal sized cars. Thank you Captain Obvious.
But we are taking about a situation where people have discretion to buy what they like, and selfishly choose something so overbearingly large, when it is not NEEDED.
If you still don't get it, maybe next time I'll use smaller words for you.
Such a strong keyboard warrior but I find you to be a joke at this point, especially as you use the exact same 'Captain Obvious' insult and offer to use 'smaller words for you' insult on other threads to anyone who disagrees with you or who has a different point of view. Case in point, for those reading, is the recent BMW i8 thread. Quite literally, it's time to get some new material - what you're working with is tired and worn out. We're all bored of your pathetic repetitions.
You also have a habit of making arguments that have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. Who else was talking about 2-seat convertibles in this thread? Oh that's right, nobody... Yet I'M the one with a lack of intelligence? Ok. Go ahead, try to use smaller words if it makes you feel better, it'll certainly make me laugh at you more.
If you're not able to see on the road due to SUVs sharing the streets with everything else on them then you simply shouldn't be driving dear.
Edited by sidesauce on Saturday 1st February 23:07
big_rob_sydney said:
the article said:
...both would be more dynamically accomplished if they sat closer to the ground and went to fat camp. But they are also quicker in a straight line than most decade-old supercars, big enough to lug a family and come with the slippery weather security of clever all-wheel drive systems. Plus you can even take them off-roading. Only kidding!
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.lotus116tornado said:
big_rob_sydney said:
the article said:
...both would be more dynamically accomplished if they sat closer to the ground and went to fat camp. But they are also quicker in a straight line than most decade-old supercars, big enough to lug a family and come with the slippery weather security of clever all-wheel drive systems. Plus you can even take them off-roading. Only kidding!
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.t driver who isn’t able to adjust his driving to suit the conditions offered him. Presumably he is the type of prick that drives right up peoples arses, as oppose to maintaining a safe distance, as it is the only reason why having a tall vehicle in front of him would hamper his visibility to the extent that it would pose a danger to himself. Presumably he doesn’t possess the basic ability to circumnavigate a stationary object in a safe manner if he cannot see through it either. What a crap driver. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff