I take it all back

Are those 40 modern cars or 40 cars of any year? I can't think of too many better looking modern cars. BMW...no, Benz...no, all the Japanese makes...no...other American cars...well the vette. Also, have you driven one? The high beltline gives it a real gangster feel, and somehow makes the car more comfortable. Reminds me of the...er, um W117 (?) (the 450SEL body...I really need to work on my memory of chassis numbers) Richard

And following that, the after-birth (stolen from Mel Brooks: "History of the World - Part 1" - referring to the birth of art, and then the critics being the inevitable afterbirth).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Well, then you're even more deluded than I originally thought, 'cause I'm not.

DS

Of any year.

DS

Looks like this thread has been "hijacked" by the bitch boys, but I'll respond anyway. I saw one too, at the dealer, and looked at it all over and sat in it. It looks fantastic. It appears large, powerful, and luxuruious far beyond its cost. I think they could charge $50k for it if they wanted to, so the way it's priced I think you'll see a lot of "touring" 300s on the road. I have a 94 LHS, which stickered for $30k a decade ago, and the 300 is a lot more car than that.

I also think if it comes up behind you, you'd want to move over; the nose, and particularly the healights, are really high.

My least favorite thing about it is the trunk lid area. I hated that on the

300m, and darned if that wasn't the only thing they copied. In pictures, I thought the C-pillar looked too Mercedes, but it's not as bad in person.

I was living an hour from Detriot (spelling intentional) at the time the Aztek was released. They didn't show up on the roads, they didn't show up on the roads, they didn't show up on the roads, then suddenly *BLAM*, there were scads of them running around. An associate with family members working for GM told me about the "get Azteks on the road in the hands of our employees so the public at large will think they're cool and popular" thing. Only from the mind of GM...

Or a "No, really, it's different!" Buick Rendezvous. Have you seen the size of the incentives they've offered on these two road toads just to get them to move?

DS

Yeah, Dan, right!

Hmm. In the past few weeks, you also described a '94 LHS as a 'road toad'. Picked the same term for the abominable Aztec, did you?

Yikes! No accounting for taste, I suppose!

--Geoff

I think it qualifies from a rear or rear-3/4 view, certainly. Not so bad from the front.

DS

And, its just "the next thing." Auto mags never notice what is good, they're only interested in "new." Thats how junkers like the Renault Alliance win "Car of the Year."

My change of heart for the 300 is based solely on actually seeing it in the flesh (or sheetmetal as the case may be.)

If you want to be that naive, go right ahead. I still contend that it is not JUST advertising dollars, but a shallow-minded bias toward "new and improved!" whether or not anything is truly 'improved' that lead car magazines to slather praises on new models. At any rate, praise or criticism of a model from any of the generic new-car magazines, Consumer reports, JD power, etc. is meaningless in my mind.

Implication? I've always assumed it as fact.

The Scion (which looks like a shrunken Element) has stolen the title, I think.

I'd like to see the actual sales profile. My observation is they sold a HUGE flurry when the thing first came out, but haven't moved a single one in the past 6 months (OK, I exaggerate). My point being there was a small-but-willing market that now seems to be satisfied.

Who cares about THAT.... my question is "how do you back up to get at it if you've got a flat tire (duh!) that reduces your ground clearance by a few inches?" Wouldn't the undercarriage snag on the spare? What if you're on uneven ground? That CAN'T be how it really works!

If so, its just further proof that minivans have strayed SO far from their original market niche (inexpensive, practical) that they've become ridiculous. I do like the fold-to-the-floor seating,though.

Extend that same thinking across all passenger car and light duty truck vehicle segments, and you're spot-on. *Everything* is more expensive and complicated than it needs to be, and it's ostensibly all being done in the name of satisfying the consumer. Apparently we've come to demand luxury appointments in our pickup trucks, pickup-truck utility in our cars, and other nonsense that does little, if anything, to really make the driving experience more efficient, practical, or inexpensive.

Sure, it's a nice idea. But when given the choice as we were recently between picking a van with that feature, or picking a far less expensive '03 van without the whoop-de-doo seats, we made the less expensive choice. It just made a lot more sense to realize that it was something we could live without and didn't need to pay for.

I guess we're unusual.

--Geoff

My newest vehicle is a '93 and my SECOND-newest is a '73. I'm more unusual than you are... :-p

Seriously, I'm rarely tempted by new cars (the 300-C is an exception) because they're just too ridiculously tarted-out with useless fluff for my taste. That would be OK if it didn't also jack the price up to 3x what a car should really be worth.

I'm glad to see that finding typographical slips is one skill you possess. Is it the only one?

Matt

A "Q-Tip" at the wheel.