FR-S vs. BMW E92 335i

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

I'm fully aware of the intricacies of the english language.

Nope.

I know what you meant to say,

I said exactly what I meant to say.

however it is a double negative and if you're gonna be a literary snoot then you should avoid double negatives at all cost.

It's not a double-negative any more than saying "I don't disagree with you" would be a double-negative. Perfectly grammatically acceptable.

2/10ths is really nothing. Doesn't do it for me, if i'm to drive 2/10ths then i could do it in any car. For 2/10ths i would prefer a FWD car over rwd/awd, actually.

That was my point, you can (or *I* can, anyway) FEEL the differences between heavy and lightweight (and between fwd and rwd) even driving WAY below the limits.

If you aren't driving at 2/10ths for 90% of your street driving, you're driving like an idiot for no good reason.

I love driving at 9, 10, 11 tenths at the track. For practical reasons, you're going to be WAY below that pretty much all the time on the street. At those levels I still greatly prefer lightweight over heavier, and rwd over fwd.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's not a double-negative any more than saying "I don't disagree with you" would be a double-negative. Perfectly grammatically acceptable.

"i don't disagree with you" means "i agree with you", herp derp

which is not at all what you're trying.

"i could not disagree with you more" is generally accepted to mean "i disagree with you" but it's certainly a case of poor usage.

[SUB-FT86]

I think people for the most part drive up to 5/10ths on the road. 5/10ths still feels weak in a lightweight high revving 2l. But I love 5/10ths in a 335i/328i/350z because they still make respectable power without going past 4k rpm and they still handle nicely especially with the sport package that I tested on all of them.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

"i don't disagree with you" means "i agree with you", herp derp

Not exactly... It is a lot more subtle than that. It generally means "I agree with you *BUT*..."

which is not at all what you're trying.

It's another example of what you wrongly called a double-negative. It's not.

"i could not disagree with you more" is generally accepted to mean "i disagree with you" but it's certainly a case of poor usage.

No, it's not. It is a legitimate use of language to indicate the DEGREE to which I disagree with you.

Ask anyone who KNOWS the English language, it is not a double-negative.

[7thgear]

If you need a degree modifier then you could say: "I strongly disagree with you."


English is an SVO language. You can most certainly add an adverb after the object but that's just silly.

I don't know what English it is that you were taught, but i was taught to be clear and concise. You can take your snooty one-liners elsewhere.

[ZDan]

There are plenty of valid options for expressing oneself in the English language.
"I couldn't disagree more" is as valid as "I strongly disagree".

I never intended to be snooty, but you INcorrectly tried to correct my language where it was sound.

Check into it further. You will find that "I couldn't disagree more" is perfectly cromulent.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by ZDan

There are plenty of valid options for expressing oneself in the English language.
"I couldn't disagree more" is as valid as "I strongly disagree".

I never intended to be snooty, but you INcorrectly tried to correct my language where it was sound.

Check into it further. You will find that "I couldn't disagree more" is perfectly cromulent.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafav...ent_tense.html

you're oozing with it

[ZDan]

Pot kettle black?

[noob]

well, this thread got derailed.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Pot kettle black?

no idioms

[RiskyTrousers]

Originally Posted by noob

well, this thread got derailed.

I couldn't disagree with you more

[86'd]

It's sarcasm.

I can't agree less with the both of yous.

[duffman13]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I tested the same theory these guys feed others on this site and it's .

I drove my RSX with 155 hp to 100% of what it can do vs my co-workers G35 with 306 at 70%. I came away more excited with the G35's performance and was bored as hell in my RSX in contrast.

It's because of the A3. If you had a K20A2 or Z1 you'd be singing a different tune, those engines sing over 5k and the overall car (mine is bolt-ons with heavy suspension mods, LSD, and near-race rubber, so not a fair comparison to stock, I know) is great on the open racetrack.

I did a fairly good job of keeping up with the newer spec miata guys my last track day, though the faster guys are unreal for how little power they have.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by duffman13

It's because of the A3. If you had a K20A2 or Z1 you'd be singing a different tune, those engines sing over 5k and the overall car (mine is bolt-ons with heavy suspension mods, LSD, and near-race rubber, so not a fair comparison to stock, I know) is great on the open racetrack.

I did a fairly good job of keeping up with the newer spec miata guys my last track day, though the faster guys are unreal for how little power they have.

Oh trust me I know. The K20A3 is garbage but I wish I had the K24 from the new Si instead. It revs to 7k and still makes good torque in the mid range(170 lbft@4300 rpms). Every review praises this engine because of the increase torque over the K20 but they go on to say it sounds terrible. I can live with that.