|
Yep, dropped some answers in your general direction.
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
CannonFodder posted:No joke answers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
I would like to clarify that when I take "useful" parts from a car, this may be anything from pinching a valve cap for one of the other cars, or as in the most recent case, cutting a three foot hole out the roof panel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Alright so I am going to break my usual editorial stance and say that I totally disagree that the 70s sucked for cars; sure, if you were a fan of American cars yes, but if you look to Japan and Europe, it was a golden age. I mean, the 70s saw the Porsche 930 and 928, the BMW 2002 Turbo and the birth of the 3-, 5-, 6- and 7-Series as well as the M1, the OG VW Golf, the Renault 5, the Lancia Stratos, the Lamborghini Countach, the Ferrari 512 BB, the Z-car, the RX-7, the Honda Civic and Accord as well as the Toyota Celica. I chose the 70s because, while there were some good cars, the general feeling is one of "meh". The beauty and charm of the 60s stuff is largely gone, and the "modern" products (and build quality) of the 80s have yet to hove into view. The next closest decade for me would have been the 40s, but I think that's a little unfair, as the issue with stuff from that decade (a huge amount of barely warmed-over 30s products) is pretty much down to the automotive (and every other industry) having had the poo poo kicked out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
meatpimp posted:The Stig was a pro choice. I'm surprised only one of y'all picked Schumacher. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Various Americans posted:Cavalier
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
I find the usual problem with "worst" car opinions is you have to take into account what the car was meant to be. For instance, Micras are basic city cars, and they do that job pretty well and reliably. So even if they're not fantastic, they're doing their job. A truly terrible car must not only be terrible on the face of it, it has to fail to do what it's meant to do, and the lower the bar, the more serious that is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
I will clarify (not a complaint) that my specific answer for 11 was "Utility Land Rover", as I think the stuff from '48 onwards is all very good at what it's intended to do. It's the more "domesticated" LR products that are unacceptably shoddy (as opposed to acceptably/expectedly shoddy). The Locator posted:What in the hell made me answer Le'Car.. I have no idea where that came from. InitialDave fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jun 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
ssjonizuka posted:What are you doing with pictures of my wife!?!? 2) I have extreme suspicions as to the admissibility of Cat's bodily fluids for testing at any job that involves heavy equipment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
meatpimp posted:For the next sheep game there should be a question "Which car started out awesome, but got progressively worse throughout each iteration / generation."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I honestly had no idea how to answer that question, so my answer was from a 30 second deep research project involving Google and possibly a bit of alcohol and coin tossing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Thanks MrChips! Good fun as always!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
I took the question to be which vehicle I liked, rather than the thread or the work that's gone into it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 11:28
|
|