The Cadillac Forums Lounge / Member IntroductionsOnly non-Cadillac discussion goes here. Cadillac discussions belong elsewhere. New members, please take a moment to introduce yourself.
My girlfriend's late aunt Esther's 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham was better than all of the aforementioned cars for any reason you can think of.
What the hell has this thread devolved into? How about we just change the title to:
"Who Can Piss the Farthest?"
What exactly is the point of comparing Mustangs to STSs... or Mark VIIIs.. or a Benz... or an F-body... AND then a Taurus SHO... where the hell did a SHO come from??? The bottom line is that all of this is ridiculous... for whatever reason, everyone is trying to throw everything plus the kitchen sink into some argument that doesn't really exist.
Wake me up when this thread gets back to its original subject... because I'm still interested to know how or why a 2+ ton car with an automatic that can post a sub-5 second sprint to 60, that also hasn't really gotten onto the streets yet is a "failure?" Especially if we could get some reasons outside of a run of the mill case of Moparphobia...
The Challenger is full of fail. That is the consensus of the owner of the '94 STS. The fact that it can and will be compared to a Mustang pretty much means that fail is just oozing from every orifice of the Challenger. Chrysler should have studied automobiles of the past to make a better Challenger. If they had, say a '94 STS to model the new Dodge Challenger after, it would have been full of WIN.
No shit, that STS is awesome. Perhaps the only car ever to better the '81 Cutlass.
Oh yeah, and the W140.
I know it goes without mentioning (for there is certainly no other reason for you to have not done so), but I must include the chariot of the gods themselves, the BMW e30.
__________________
Deeply Religious NonBeliever 'Enthusiasm is no substitute for rationality. If you're a wacko you can expect to remain on the fringes.' ~dkozloski, posting from Alaska
