I'm not a fan of today's AOTD

"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg) 12/02/2014 at 13:23 • Filed to: None

1

19

So now, I'm going to defend every vehicle on that list, one by one, using some of the anti-Jalop !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Range Rover: The article implies that the people who buy the Range Rover buy it because it's the most capable off-road vehicle in the world, and they want to be perceived as such. While the Rover is one of the best 4x4s money can buy, the people who buy it (at least the ones I know) generally don't give a damn. They're not trying to pretend to be explorers or mountaineers or anything like that. They bought the Range Rover because Americans like SUVs, and the Range Rover is also one of the most competent on-road SUVs you can buy. It's a superb luxury car, that's why people buy it. So unless we're prepared to call every SUV that never goes off-road a "poser" vehicle, leave the Range Rover alone. Futhermore, everyone knows nobody takes a 100k vehicle off road, so nobody buys a Range Rover planning to fool people.

BMW M4 Convertible: This article seems to make the assumption that everyone values the rigid, stiff handling advantage of a hardtop, and anyone who would prefer the open-air experience to a convertible at the expense of said rigidity must be wrong. That's just silly. Even among M4 owners, not everyone needs a hardcore track car. Some want a fast, sporty luxury car, but they also want a convertible because, get this, some people like convertibles. Not everyone has to value the same things in a car as you do.

Honda Pilot: Yeah, so a minivan is more practical, but there are many Americans, myself included, that don't want to drive a minivan. They're not pretending to be cool or rugged, they just don't want a van.

Fart Can Exhaust: These annoy me, but I guess some people like them. That's fine by me.

Ferrari California: What exactly is wrong with the Californa? No, it's not the fastest Ferrari, nor is it a track day thoroughbred. But it is an excellent GT car, and once again, being a convertible does not make it wrong. If anyone would care to explain how it isn't a real Ferrari, go ahead.

Hybrid Luxury SUV: They get better fuel economy than a non-hybrid. Given the choice between two identical vehicles, but one gets 25% better MPG, even some rich people will choose the better MPG version. Also, California HOV laws and other govt. hybrid advantages. Better an Escalade Hybrid than a regular one.

Mercedes G63. I like this SUV, but I can't argue a lot. I'd like to think other people buy it because they like it too, but yeah, most of them buy it to look cool.. Moving on.

Lamborghini Aventador: This argument could be applied to any super car. Every super car has an equal ratio of owners who cruise around fancy neighborhoods and those who love cars and enjoy driving.

Brodozer: Yeah, they're awful and obnoxious. Some owners of these vehicles, however, do love them as much as we love our cars, and do take them off-road, though not in the same sense we do. Some of them are just posing, however.

Bugatti Veyron: See Aventador.

To elaborate, here are my values I listed a while ago that makes me dislike this list:

I like the G63 AMG.

I think creature comforts and optional extras are often a good thing.

I do not object to the idea of using a luxury car/sports car/SUV as a commuter/DD. Don't listen to people who complain about "wasting a car's potential". Drive whatever makes you happy.

I don't mind crossovers.

Someone driving a lousy a certain car doesn't mean they have bad taste or aren't smart, it means cars aren't their thing.

Basically, my point is: Not everyone values the same thing in a car that we do, or uses them how we would use them. That does not make them a poser, or anything else. Maybe they are, but not just because they drive an XYZ. Many of the cars on this list are cars I, an enthusiast, would drive. I'm not asking you to agree with me, or to like/buy any of these cars. But I am asking for people to understand that people don't buy 4x4s just to drive up trials, and people don't buy sports cars just to do track days. Every car on that list made one of those two assumptions (apart from the fart cans). So please, think a little before you turn a stereotype a judgement of someone's character.

Brian Silvestro > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:28

0

The captions in that list were half-sarcastic/not meant to be taken that seriously.

HammerheadFistpunch > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:28

1

I am generally of the opinion that every car has its unique merit, and that not all drivers need the same things but I think the premise of the story is right. Some cars make you look like posers, whether you are or aren't; These are 10 cars that do. Also, don't complain about not getting all up ons for peoples values and then dismiss fart cans....its one or other.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:30

3

The FP's Top 10 lists are just getting stupid now. This one might take the cake though.

Funktheduck > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:30

3

You make good points. My answer got ignored because I get ignored on the FP which is why I stick to oppo for the most part.

I suggested the 2WD Wrangler. You want to have the looks without the performance. That's what makes a poseur to me.

Instead we got: this car is expensive and people don't drive them exactly how we think they should so they're poseurs. I drove a RR once and it was amazing. It was comfortable and the size made me feel invincible (I owned a corolla at the time so I was used to people in bigger cars treating me like shizen).

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Brian Silvestro 12/02/2014 at 13:30

0

I know that, but a) not everyone reading it does, and b) they were only half kidding, as you said.

cazzyodo > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:32

1

This list could have just been a gallery of "off-road vehicles that only see pavement."

That's my comment based on the overall feel of the answers. I wasn't very happy, either.

HammerheadFistpunch > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 12/02/2014 at 13:34

1

They are what they are, some are better than others but whateves, its free media based around cars. i mean 90% of oppo's is just silly but we love it.

sellphones2493 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:43

0

I haven't been impressed with the AOTD for a while now. Moreover, I'm more unimpressed with the QOTD for a while, until this one showed up.

I don't like them when they're debating pure facts (What's the Fastest Hydrogen Car). I like the ones that are more subjective, and quirky.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > HammerheadFistpunch 12/02/2014 at 13:44

0

The article is more of the tone that, "If you drive this car, you're a poser." Obviously is is somewhat sarcastic humor, but I felt I'd address it regardless.

As for my excluding fart cans, here are my reasons:

-I was trying to be funny.

-I find them exceptionally irritating, and couldn't think of a reason to defend them off the top of my head.

However, you are correct. Some people may legitimately like them, and I am completely okay with those people getting fart cans on their cars, as long as they don't wake me up.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Funktheduck 12/02/2014 at 13:45

0

^Exactly this^

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > sellphones2493 12/02/2014 at 13:46

0

I do agree with that. QOTD should not be a fact you can Google.

HammerheadFistpunch > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 13:46

0

im generally okay with most people's car choices, and I am...by nature...a peacemaker. But its totally fine to have an outrageous stance on something that doesn't really matter, IMO. By this I mean its totally cool to call something a poser car, as is it totally cool to be upset by it, but in the end it just doesn't matter. Its an opinion piece.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > HammerheadFistpunch 12/02/2014 at 13:50

0

I was kind of thinking about writing a piece with that general tone after our head football coach got fired on Sunday. People get very worked up and have very strong opinions about inconsequential things. That includes me, as much as I try not to. But yeah, if people want to look at a car and think the owner is a poser, correctly or not, that's their prerogative. And people like me will continue to be uptight and self-righteous about it, correctly or not ;)

Imirrelephant > HammerheadFistpunch 12/02/2014 at 13:54

0

As far as the front page goes, the only must read for me anymore is Torchinsky. Consistently funny and usually something I didn't know before. The rest of the guys are hit and miss.

HammerheadFistpunch > Imirrelephant 12/02/2014 at 13:57

0

Thats the beauty of the internet though isn't it? the hits are as cheap as the misses. No need to fret over which is which, since we as humans are perfectly capable of ignoring stuff we don't like.

Imirrelephant > HammerheadFistpunch 12/02/2014 at 13:59

0

Exactly! There's no need to get butthurt because someone doesn't like what you like, especially on the internet!

Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 14:03

0

what 5 were meant to be taken seriosly?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man 12/02/2014 at 14:10

0

No I meant the article, and more importantly, the comments. Not half of the cars.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 12/02/2014 at 15:07

1

I generally agree with your point, but it does really pain me to see such a fine sports car as an M3, especially considering the lengths they went to drop weight, anchored with an additional 400+ pounds with a folding hardtop. (I also dislike seeing Wrangler Rubicons lowered, etc. - any modification that detracts from the inherent goodness of a vehicle.)

But as an enthusiast, I welcome options, and the more the better I suppose. I'd much rather be the one in control of what equipment my car comes with (or comes without), not some accountant or marketer.