Quote:
Originally Posted by MPerformance211
Most sports cars do have poor visibility. A Camaro is not a sports car. What part of that don't you understand? A GT car is supposed to give you the comforts/utility that a sports car does not along with performance. Your Z4 is a sports car.
My CaymanS was quite easy to see out of. The Vette was a bit tougher. NONE of them was as remotely difficult to see out of as the rental Camaro SS I had in Florida. It was abysmal. That's just one of about 30 reasons why I'd never own one, however. Never another Gov't Motors vehicle for me.
|
My point is regardless of the designation of the car, if it has poor visibility you have declared it un-drivable. So a sports car is supposed to have poor visibility but worth driving and it must be "tolerated", while a sports coupe (i.e. Camaro) that has poor visibility is not worth driving and is intolerable to own? Poor visibility is poor visibility regardless of the type of car or who manufactures it. I could make an argument that I should have never bought my E90 if all I cared about was its visibility level. Compared to my E30 that I replaced with the E90, the E30 had the best visibility of any car I've owned, but there were other attributes of the E90 that compensated for the visibility (like it was new
).
Your trollish Gov't Motors comment indicates you really just want to bash GM rather than have any serious discussion about the subject. GM will sell hundreds of thousands of Camaros compared to BMW's 4-series, and by some Posters accounts of ATS sales for example, in that comparative sense, the BMW F3X 4-series is a piece of crap.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."