I don't think I want a car that looks like a security van.
I don't either, but we're not the target market for this thing. It's clearly being marketed to the same people who like Humvees, and will probably cost damn near as much. Let's face it, this car is straight out of a James Bond fantasy novel crossed with cyberpunk.
Reminds me a whole lot of the Honda Element, actually. Number 2 ugliest vehicle currently on the roads, after the new Hummer. IMHO.
And honestly, who needs a 45-inch flat screen TV and home theatre system in the back of their vehicle? Wouldn't it be easier and more comfortable to buy a nicer, smaller car and put the TV in your living room?
We've been saying for years that the Element looks like an inflatable Hummer pool toy! Moves it from the category of "fugly" into "aww, sorta cute in its own special way".
And have you SEEN an Aztec (http://www.autoworld.com/news/pontiac/aztec-1.jpg)? Now that's fugly!
I read that as sinus too. I am not sure I would want a car named after a body cavity.. I mean, what does it run on? Snot? While it would be a new fuel source, I would hate to see what the emissions would be like.. EWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, what gives a car body strength is the curves of the metal which help reinforce it, just as a folded piece of paper is stronger than a flat one.
So, in order to have a flat car, you either have one that is easily dented, or thicker metal. Real armored cars have flat panels because it's easier to make flat plates of armor than curved ones.
So, if you make it heavier so it will stand up to collisions, you're going to pay hell with fuel economy. I see that they claim it to have excellent fuel economy with a diesel engine. Well, in that case, all I can assume is that it's horribly underpowered.
So, in conclusion, we've got an underpowered, flat, ugly armored car with a horrible name.
Umm... Have I made a mistake somewhere or has Ford?
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2005 22:23 (UTC)Yes.
I don't think I want a car that looks like a security van.
I don't either, but we're not the target market for this thing. It's clearly being marketed to the same people who like Humvees, and will probably cost damn near as much. Let's face it, this car is straight out of a James Bond fantasy novel crossed with cyberpunk.
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2005 22:24 (UTC)Yeesh.
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2005 23:19 (UTC)And honestly, who needs a 45-inch flat screen TV and home theatre system in the back of their vehicle? Wouldn't it be easier and more comfortable to buy a nicer, smaller car and put the TV in your living room?
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2005 23:30 (UTC)And have you SEEN an Aztec (http://www.autoworld.com/news/pontiac/aztec-1.jpg)? Now that's fugly!
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2005 23:33 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 00:28 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 02:50 (UTC)Including the BAtmobile-style window shutters that cover all the glass when it's parked.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 02:50 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 02:55 (UTC)But I still read that as "sinus"
no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 03:30 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 04:49 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2005 16:29 (UTC)Now, what gives a car body strength is the curves of the metal which help reinforce it, just as a folded piece of paper is stronger than a flat one.
So, in order to have a flat car, you either have one that is easily dented, or thicker metal. Real armored cars have flat panels because it's easier to make flat plates of armor than curved ones.
So, if you make it heavier so it will stand up to collisions, you're going to pay hell with fuel economy. I see that they claim it to have excellent fuel economy with a diesel engine. Well, in that case, all I can assume is that it's horribly underpowered.
So, in conclusion, we've got an underpowered, flat, ugly armored car with a horrible name.
Umm... Have I made a mistake somewhere or has Ford?