Nox
I'm trying to get some outside opinions on both of the cars. I have plenty of time to figure it out, but again, i just want to see what you guys had to say.
The WRX or a 2.0L Miata.
I know there are clear difference between the two as they are AWD and RWD cars, but i wanted to know what you guys think of their reliability, performance, and fun factor as a weekend/track car.
What turns me off about the WRX is that it's claimed to have a weak tranny such that even if you drive it well, the first few gears will eventually start to rumble. That being said im scared of the repair costs because i know that i would be using it for tracking and weekend mountain rides.
What turns me off about the miata is that its a two seater car with virtually no cargo room(it would also be my main car so space is not a huge deal, but it would prevent a lot i guess). It's basically the only low price RWD car that you can get thats almost brand new, besides a V6 mustang.
Whats your take on both of these cars? Ill award points =)
Answer
The fact is that you can save almost enough buying the Miata to afford a second car for those times you need to carry more.
My wife and I can pack enough in a Miata to go on a three day camping trip provided we make a short trip back into town to get a few groceries and tent.
Now if just top end thrills you, well go with the WRX. But if you are like me you want the lateral G's and thrill of mountain roads. The WRX is just no match for the Miata (see the "Consumers Reports" buyers edition or reviews of these two cars).
The full time full wheel drive is almost enough of a handy cap to make up for the performance difference. If you can be happy with just one car you can take the difference in cost of ownership and put it into a real nice supercharger. It will more then make up for the performance difference (0 to what ever).
So save your money, buy the MX-5 a used Mazda 3 and have the best of both.
If not think about a Mazda Speed 3 to start with.
The fact is that you can save almost enough buying the Miata to afford a second car for those times you need to carry more.
My wife and I can pack enough in a Miata to go on a three day camping trip provided we make a short trip back into town to get a few groceries and tent.
Now if just top end thrills you, well go with the WRX. But if you are like me you want the lateral G's and thrill of mountain roads. The WRX is just no match for the Miata (see the "Consumers Reports" buyers edition or reviews of these two cars).
The full time full wheel drive is almost enough of a handy cap to make up for the performance difference. If you can be happy with just one car you can take the difference in cost of ownership and put it into a real nice supercharger. It will more then make up for the performance difference (0 to what ever).
So save your money, buy the MX-5 a used Mazda 3 and have the best of both.
If not think about a Mazda Speed 3 to start with.
Why do Occupy Wall St. protesters feel they can infringe on rights of others?
autisticA
Camping out in parks meant for ALL the public to enjoy during the day, making noise at night, littering, obstructing day-to-day activity for everyone else, 99% or otherwise. These actions undermine their original message, because they are actually oppressing others. What do you think?
PLEASE KEEP YOUR ANSWERS RESPECTFUL, THANK YOU.
Answer
Simply, because they think they know best, and have the right to impose their will, by any means necessary, on the rest of the community.
Direct action of this sort is (like the possession of a weapon) a force multiplier. Given that there are a few hundred, perhaps thousands, of the demonstrators compared with millions of other citizens who do not share their views, on a vote they would have no chance. If, however, they make enough of a nuisance of themselves they might persuade the authorities into a few concessions to buy them off. If they are lucky, the police might shift them by force, in which case they can grumble about the brutality of it all. At worst, they have won publicity for their case on a scale they could hardly buy otherwise.
I mentioned 'their case' - but in truth they have no one case: they have many. Some of them are Greens, hoping for a reduction in economic activity to save the planet. Some are unionists, hoping for an increase in it to save jobs. Some are left-wingers, hoping for an end to the capitalist system, the free market and consumer choice: some are libertarians, protesting about the corruption of the market and the centralisation of economic power by government and large corporations, and hoping for the re-balancing of the system to maximise choice and hence competition. The protesters themselves, united by dislike of the way things are and enjoying the fun of vandalising someone else's living and working space, do not seem to have noticed these inconsistencies.
It is therefore impossible for any capitulation, however total, on the part of the authorities to satisfy them. Whatever is done, there will always be some still ready to protest.
One must just wait for the cold weather. These people do not like discomfort.
P.S.
Perhaps I was optimistic. It now turns out that some of the campers in London (and perhaps in NY and other cities also) have erected tents which they do not occupy at night. If an empty tent equals a protest, we can all join in, almost cost-free, and the fun can go on for years. Today's 'Times' reports that one man with a marketing job (anticapitalist marketing?) has put up two tents, but sleeps at home.
It would be quite funny if someone came along and squatted in his tent.
Simply, because they think they know best, and have the right to impose their will, by any means necessary, on the rest of the community.
Direct action of this sort is (like the possession of a weapon) a force multiplier. Given that there are a few hundred, perhaps thousands, of the demonstrators compared with millions of other citizens who do not share their views, on a vote they would have no chance. If, however, they make enough of a nuisance of themselves they might persuade the authorities into a few concessions to buy them off. If they are lucky, the police might shift them by force, in which case they can grumble about the brutality of it all. At worst, they have won publicity for their case on a scale they could hardly buy otherwise.
I mentioned 'their case' - but in truth they have no one case: they have many. Some of them are Greens, hoping for a reduction in economic activity to save the planet. Some are unionists, hoping for an increase in it to save jobs. Some are left-wingers, hoping for an end to the capitalist system, the free market and consumer choice: some are libertarians, protesting about the corruption of the market and the centralisation of economic power by government and large corporations, and hoping for the re-balancing of the system to maximise choice and hence competition. The protesters themselves, united by dislike of the way things are and enjoying the fun of vandalising someone else's living and working space, do not seem to have noticed these inconsistencies.
It is therefore impossible for any capitulation, however total, on the part of the authorities to satisfy them. Whatever is done, there will always be some still ready to protest.
One must just wait for the cold weather. These people do not like discomfort.
P.S.
Perhaps I was optimistic. It now turns out that some of the campers in London (and perhaps in NY and other cities also) have erected tents which they do not occupy at night. If an empty tent equals a protest, we can all join in, almost cost-free, and the fun can go on for years. Today's 'Times' reports that one man with a marketing job (anticapitalist marketing?) has put up two tents, but sleeps at home.
It would be quite funny if someone came along and squatted in his tent.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment