In message <057301c4dcea$60b4dbe0$d201a8c0@y2k>
          Russell McMahon <apptech@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> "Functional" design carried to its ludicrous conclusion.
> It's interesting that the smaller diesel makes more power and torque, and at
> lower revs (torque at MUCH lower revs).

1) It's damn ugly
2) It's far too big (IMO). My money's on people buying these things just to
   do the daily school run. Yuck. (yes, there are a lot of people round here
   that own 4x4s (or what I suppose Americans would call SUVs), nearly all of
   them are used by parents to take their kids to school, even though the
   local school is within walking distance).
   I've no objections to people owning 4x4s, as long as no other vehicle is
   suitable - I realise agricultural sites would have a legitimate use for
   a 4x4, but someone who just wants to take the kids to school... Ngh...
3) I guess that thing will probably do, what, 10mpg tops? Ugh. What a
   waste...
   
I expect to be heavily flamed so... asbestos suit ON...
   
Later.
-- 
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
philpem@philpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... A committee has 6 or more legs and no brain.
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist