RE: Lister Stealth | Spotted
Discussion
Taz1111 said:
Julian Scott said:
Taz1111 said:
Nish Gnackers said:
You been inside for a long stretch ? 
I just don't understand why. Unreliability seems to be part of the sales contract?Much clearer. Thanks.
Taz1111 said:
Julian Scott said:
So it's internet strangers' friends that have had problems.
Much clearer. Thanks.
Why do you come on here as if you're a rep for JLR defending their cars. You're as much a victim as all the others buying their cars.Much clearer. Thanks.
Julian Scott said:
julian64 said:
I would tax it out of existence
Why? Because you don't like it?Are you sure you're on the right website?
Its far too big and heavy to be allowed that power. It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill.
It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.
It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car.
This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.
Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But its almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance.
So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence.
julian64 said:
Julian Scott said:
julian64 said:
I would tax it out of existence
Why? Because you don't like it?Are you sure you're on the right website?
Its far too big and heavy to be allowed that power. It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill.
It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.
It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car.
This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.
Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But its almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance.
So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence.
julian64 said:
No to both. Not sure I'm on the right website.
Its far too big and heavy to be allowed that power. It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill.
It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.
It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car.
This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.
Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But its almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance.
So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence.
Wrong on many counts. The stop and turn very well, body is well controlled Its far too big and heavy to be allowed that power. It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill.
It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.
It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car.
This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.
Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But its almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance.
So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence.
I wouldn’t buy one, but they go, stop and turn very well.
julian64 said:
Stuff that wasn’t particularly fun or correct.
The problem is that yeah, by all means tax this egregious waste of resources out of existence.But what about people having kids?
Do you REALLY need 3 children?
What about big houses?
Why not mandate every family gets the space they need, council tax rises exponentially as the bedroom to occupant ration diminishes.
Holidays, meat, number of shoes, imported food & drink…
If we aren’t free to make mistakes we have no freedom at all.
I would ban lots of things, but don’t want my things banned.
As it is the anti-car lobby are chipping away.
I take the point that über-power SUV’s are like catnip to these people, but don’t encourage the nanny stare element please.
Stick Legs said:
julian64 said:
Stuff that wasn’t particularly fun or correct.
The problem is that yeah, by all means tax this egregious waste of resources out of existence.But what about people having kids?
Do you REALLY need 3 children?
What about big houses?
Why not mandate every family gets the space they need, council tax rises exponentially as the bedroom to occupant ration diminishes.
Holidays, meat, number of shoes, imported food & drink…
If we aren’t free to make mistakes we have no freedom at all.
I would ban lots of things, but don’t want my things banned.
As it is the anti-car lobby are chipping away.
I take the point that über-power SUV’s are like catnip to these people, but don’t encourage the nanny stare element please.
It just needs a little common sense so we can all live in a degree of mild harmony. Otherwise I see you rushing toward the world you've just described
julian64 said:
Julian Scott said:
julian64 said:
I would tax it out of existence
Why? Because you don't like it?Are you sure you're on the right website?
Its far too big and heavy to be allowed that power. It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill.
It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.
It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car.
This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.
Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But its almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance.
So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence.
"Too big and heavy to be allowed all that power?" So if it was smaller but with the power it would be OK? Or the same size but with less power? And allowed on whose basis?
"It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill." ....easy to just reply with 'b
ks', but lets actually educate you because I'm sat waiting for a flight. The SVR stops quicker than the Tesla S, Porsche Taycan 4S or the Merc S500
50kph-0 SVR = 8m (Tesla 10m, Porsche 10m, Merc 9m)
100kph-0 SVR = 32m (Tesla 35m, Porsche 33m, Merc 33m)
150kph-0 SVR = 66m (Tesla 80m, Porsche 72m, Merc 74m)
200kph-0 SVR = 132m (Tesla 148m, Porsche 134m, Merc 135m)
Handling is obviously subjective, but as a basic reference, the review with the SVR and the M3 Touring tipped the handling in favour of the SVR.
"It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.' - how often do you see performance SUVs with tow bars? Or the drivers of them talking about going off-road"[/b]
"It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car." Environmentally unfriendly on what basis? So it's ok if I don't go shopping in it? I've just taken it to France, three people, my bike, the dog and brought back 10 cases of wine.
"This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.". Are you really sinking to the depths of phallic extension to back up your facts on taxing a car out of existence? Maybe it's you that needs the hug.
"Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But it's almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance." It is my decision. It replaced an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadfrifoglio that averaged worse fuel consumption. I also cycle 3 times as far each year as I drive which has zero environmental impact. And how is it dangerous....as we've pointed out, it stops very very well.
"So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence." and what would a sensible choice be in your clearly superior opinion?
So we're back to taxing it out of existence because you don't like it? How much of an arse does that make you sound?
In summary, you're definitely not on the right website. TreehuggerHeads.com or SanctimoniousHeads.com are perhaps a better choice for you.
Big Love.
julian64 said:
Stick Legs said:
julian64 said:
Stuff that wasn’t particularly fun or correct.
The problem is that yeah, by all means tax this egregious waste of resources out of existence.But what about people having kids?
Do you REALLY need 3 children?
What about big houses?
Why not mandate every family gets the space they need, council tax rises exponentially as the bedroom to occupant ration diminishes.
Holidays, meat, number of shoes, imported food & drink…
If we aren’t free to make mistakes we have no freedom at all.
I would ban lots of things, but don’t want my things banned.
As it is the anti-car lobby are chipping away.
I take the point that über-power SUV’s are like catnip to these people, but don’t encourage the nanny stare element please.
It just needs a little common sense so we can all live in a degree of mild harmony. Otherwise I see you rushing toward the world you've just described
As for speed limits, it was initially a 1964 race car with less power than diesel saloons put-out that triggered it, way before the term SUV was thought of. But nice try.
julian64 said:
blueg33 said:
Wrong on many counts. The stop and turn very well, body is well controlled
I wouldn’t buy one, but they go, stop and turn very well.
I think we'll have to disagree.I wouldn’t buy one, but they go, stop and turn very well.
Your piece was an opinion piece and I’d wager you haven’t driven one.
Mine was based on experience
As someone else said, you can’t disagree with facts
Julian Scott said:
Wow. Quite an achievement to manage a post that is ignorant, arrogant and sanctimonious all in one. My congratulations.
"Too big and heavy to be allowed all that power?" So if it was smaller but with the power it would be OK? Or the same size but with less power? And allowed on whose basis?
"It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill." ....easy to just reply with 'bks', but lets actually educate you because I'm sat waiting for a flight.
The SVR stops quicker than the Tesla S, Porsche Taycan 4S or the Merc S500
50kph-0 SVR = 8m (Tesla 10m, Porsche 10m, Merc 9m)
100kph-0 SVR = 32m (Tesla 35m, Porsche 33m, Merc 33m)
150kph-0 SVR = 66m (Tesla 80m, Porsche 72m, Merc 74m)
200kph-0 SVR = 132m (Tesla 148m, Porsche 134m, Merc 135m)
Handling is obviously subjective, but as a basic reference, the review with the SVR and the M3 Touring tipped the handling in favour of the SVR.
"It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.' - how often do you see performance SUVs with tow bars? Or the drivers of them talking about going off-road"[/b]
"It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car." Environmentally unfriendly on what basis? So it's ok if I don't go shopping in it? I've just taken it to France, three people, my bike, the dog and brought back 10 cases of wine.
"This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.". Are you really sinking to the depths of phallic extension to back up your facts on taxing a car out of existence? Maybe it's you that needs the hug.
"Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But it's almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance." It is my decision. It replaced an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadfrifoglio that averaged worse fuel consumption. I also cycle 3 times as far each year as I drive which has zero environmental impact. And how is it dangerous....as we've pointed out, it stops very very well.
"So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence." and what would a sensible choice be in your clearly superior opinion?
So we're back to taxing it out of existence because you don't like it? How much of an arse does that make you sound?
In summary, you're definitely not on the right website. TreehuggerHeads.com or SanctimoniousHeads.com are perhaps a better choice for you.
Big Love.
the next response... "Too big and heavy to be allowed all that power?" So if it was smaller but with the power it would be OK? Or the same size but with less power? And allowed on whose basis?
"It looks like it has the stopping power of a bus, with the handling of an elephant on a shopping trolley going down a steep hill." ....easy to just reply with 'b
ks', but lets actually educate you because I'm sat waiting for a flight. The SVR stops quicker than the Tesla S, Porsche Taycan 4S or the Merc S500
50kph-0 SVR = 8m (Tesla 10m, Porsche 10m, Merc 9m)
100kph-0 SVR = 32m (Tesla 35m, Porsche 33m, Merc 33m)
150kph-0 SVR = 66m (Tesla 80m, Porsche 72m, Merc 74m)
200kph-0 SVR = 132m (Tesla 148m, Porsche 134m, Merc 135m)
Handling is obviously subjective, but as a basic reference, the review with the SVR and the M3 Touring tipped the handling in favour of the SVR.
"It will be driven by the sort of people who never use the power for anything but the bragging rights of how fast they can tow things, while pretending they can off road.' - how often do you see performance SUVs with tow bars? Or the drivers of them talking about going off-road"[/b]
"It will spend its life probably being the most environmentally unfriendly shopping car." Environmentally unfriendly on what basis? So it's ok if I don't go shopping in it? I've just taken it to France, three people, my bike, the dog and brought back 10 cases of wine.
"This is just something for tree huggers to point to and say ridiculous, its just an unjustifiable phallic extension. And to be honest as much as I hate tree huggers, I would agree with them.". Are you really sinking to the depths of phallic extension to back up your facts on taxing a car out of existence? Maybe it's you that needs the hug.
"Yes its completely your own decision to have a massive BHP fuel guzzling elephant on the road in the current environmental climate. But it's almost certainly a danger to everyone around you because its ability in a straight line would be completely unmatched to its cornering or stopping distance." It is my decision. It replaced an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadfrifoglio that averaged worse fuel consumption. I also cycle 3 times as far each year as I drive which has zero environmental impact. And how is it dangerous....as we've pointed out, it stops very very well.
"So yea until the customers show some sense I would tax it out of existence." and what would a sensible choice be in your clearly superior opinion?
So we're back to taxing it out of existence because you don't like it? How much of an arse does that make you sound?
In summary, you're definitely not on the right website. TreehuggerHeads.com or SanctimoniousHeads.com are perhaps a better choice for you.
Big Love.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff