.
|
No, everyone else is calling you stupid .
|
1990 on that graph is 20mpg. 2008 is 23mpg. This is a delta of 3mpg. This is not open to debate.
This contradicts your original statement of:
Originally Posted by You
The green line, Cars, gives us an increase of 1 MPG from 21 to 22 between 1990 and 2008.
|
.
|
This isn't equations. This is a simple line graph with no interpretation required. The closest thing to an equation that i'm asking you about is:
23 - 20 = 22 - 21 If you do in fact view this as a true statement/equation, then we have no further argument. If you don't, then your original statement is false and there's no argument possible. Your choice. |
Originally Posted by Art
(Post 1463878)
incoherent rambling
You can call them fancy ICE buzzwords or "excuses" all you want and cry about MPG remaining stagnant (which believe it or not, isn't the #1 priority for some people), but you're ignoring a vital part of the discussion. |
.
|
Dude...... what?
|
Originally Posted by Art
(Post 1463914)
It is interesting, (unrelated?) don't take it personally no offense, the Mustang (exc. Fox body with trunk and no trim or the OHC Ford 427/429) and the WRX are about the furthest away from my own driver/vehicle preference past and present. Compare that to the population pie chart on this forum for example. I don't think that being in the minority necessarily makes you wrong. The epitomic lightweight affordable sporty car Miata is always the answer, ok isn't that a marvel of engineering. But oversized underbuilt with too big of engines is allllll the way not my thing, you guys can defend it and have your Mustangs.
Did you go to a school where there were no grades? Did you get participation trophies all your life? Did your mommy always tell you that last place is just as good as first? |
|
ITT: Internet genius misses the point entirely.
I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:46 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands