lawl, i didn't want tww shrinking my shit. I can't afford the premium account!

5/8/2007 6:16:57 PM

its hard to see what you are talking about in the posts when all we see is a yellow frog =P

5/8/2007 6:22:14 PM

if that car is new from dealer. thats just lazy bums at the manuf. plant. haha

where did you get the car from? how many miles?

does that rear mirror have flex? like will it push back in to be flush with the other panels?

same with the headlight.. check that fender and make sure its OEM. lots of aftermarket fenders have minor gaps. specially where the headlight is.

and the fenders.... as long as they are even on both sides.. dont worry. that goes with the other gaps. if they both looks the same on each side, then its just what they did.

5/8/2007 6:46:23 PM

Brand new car, i think i said somewhere it has under 5k miles on it. You can see the odometer in that dark picture showing a bit over 4600. Definitely everything is OEM, hell the inside still smells like new. And i agree with you, that's just how it was built, there's no flex in that headlight at all by the way. Looking at member pics from the evo forums it looks like it's a common thing.

Mark, those images really aren't showing up? I uploaded them to my gallery then if they don't work and anyone wants a look see...



[Edited on May 8, 2007 at 7:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/8/2007 6:49:14 PM

I thought everyone knew mitsubishis were slapped together. Poor fit and finish is par for the course.

5/8/2007 7:04:27 PM

^^that was funny about tolerances. made me laugh i remember you complaining about that during our trip to dragon.

i love evos, inside/out. interior is nice as well, but then again im coming from an 11-year old car, so any new stuff looks good to me.

5/8/2007 7:17:40 PM

^^^imageshack doesn't let you hotlink.

by no means is the evo even mediocre as far as built quality and detail. Its still a nice looking car though. Shitsobishi isn't known for that kind of quality. Its a huge difference in any car i've owned (all Japanese except for one POS domestic) when i compare it to German quality. For example when you close the doors on a Mercedes you get a nice solid 'thud' vs a echoing sound in any Japanese car that just makes it 'feel' cheap. Along with the actual feeling of a solid car vs a car that rattles.

German > all IMO but i don't have a German car, nor can i afford the German cars of my choice that are on par with the Evo in performance so i'm happy with what i got.

I'm sure if the Evo was made by Audi or the likes it would cost upwards of 70k, but you'd also get 100x the interior and quality. (RS4 anyone? )

5/8/2007 10:16:59 PM

agreed.

5/8/2007 10:19:36 PM

who gives a fuck

5/8/2007 10:22:22 PM

we do apparently

5/8/2007 10:23:02 PM

what i thought, no one that matters

5/8/2007 10:42:35 PM

then why are you here?

5/8/2007 11:10:03 PM

Quote :

"It's funny how different people think differently. Your list of sports cars fit my list of "classic sports cars". I really enjoy the subtle differences that manufacturers often fit on their higher performance models. I adore the M3/M5 (all generations), while I think the base cars look too... soft. I also like the EVO in that hard edged sort of way, but I'm not man enough to own one and disregard it's image, same goes to the Corvettes. Great looking cars on paper, but their image kills it. Maybe some day I won't care as much what other people think... Until then I'll be out accelerating, braking, and cornering your S2k in my souped up ricer BMW, which unlike some "real" sports cars on your list, has 50/50 weight dist. and a great suspension layout. I kid, I kid. I like S2ks, and the Integra Hype-R (still the most fun I've had on track was in one). Ahmet"

I didn't mean to imply anything about performance anywhere in my comments, I was focusing on looks and I'm definitely a classic lover there. Also, I guess "purity" would be another way to describe it. Performance wise, the Evo is amazing (Anyone seen Killboy drive the Dragon when it's wet? Scary), and I'd love to drive one sometime. Everything I've read says they turn in like a dream, and feel a lot lighter to drive than they really are.

Performance wise, an open 2 seater (like most of my favorite sports cars) is NOT the ideal setup. Aerodynamics tend not to like them But I can't help but love them, both for looks and for the sheer joy of driving them.

5/9/2007 8:52:18 AM

just couldn't leave it alone... pasted from the other thread, in reference to the 997 vs GT3 RS and Lancer v Evo pix:

^^

"looks so much hotter" /= "looked good to begin with"
how many erroneous misinterpretations are you gonna make today?

this part is a side note, and unrelated to what follows.
Don't cheat. You know damn well that the lancer pic you've added is a later lancer-models-only facelift. The evo's mods are based on the earlier squarer car that it still looks a lot like, more accurately, the lancer as it was sold in Europe when the VII came out, not even the re-grilled lancer we got. What you've posted is equivalent to posting a pic of the just-replaced ('02-?) jellybean camry (literally in white in a dealer lot on a rainy day) and last generation ES300 coach edition in that flawless cranberry red.

analogy of the 997 is faulty. explanation:
Most people who just love the 997 GT3 probably don't hate the 997 to start with. But let's be clear. the 997 is not a ground-up shape, it's an evolution of the 996. And even that wasn't wholly original. The 996 was a "new" car, but heavily pinned down by what porsche and 911 fans have loved in a shape since Dr. Porsche was call-screening Nazis. If someone hates the 997 Carrera, it's because they think its a poor dressing of the general shape they love, some earlier 911, as though it were some options package they wouldn't have selected out of all 911s that have ever been. Such a viewer might be pointed out as AVOIDING boostgoggles. (defined below: they might actually be suffering from retrogoggles if they're overlooking the change in footprint and curb weight the 911 has sustained over time)


again, I'm not the one saying the lancer isn't attractive to someone. I'm just calling you out on your boostgoggles, which is based on your understandable dislike of the lancer, which I think I ought to define here:

Boost-goggles:
pronunciation: 'bü-st _ 'gä-g&lz
Boost goggles is a slang term for a phenomenon in which one's excess consumption of driving fast incapacitates the viewer by making a car's potential implied ability to be good to drive, through the appearance of go-fast add-ons, regardless of effectiveness, more physically attractive.

The effect is latent and goes unnoticed when the admirer thought the standard car was attractive to begin with (not unlike a guy ogling a woman sober he would have also been attracted to while drunk), but is there nonetheless if the car appears more attractive merely by the addition of visually identifiable go-fast parts, just as beergoggles hasn't done a man wrong if he goes home with someone he's actually somewhat attracted to in the first place.

It is important to realize that because tastes vary, boostgoggles is an effect that must be viewed on the viewers' pre-spoilered opinion of the shape.
i.e.- if the user hates dislikes econoboxes but the addition of expensive wheels and vents has the user changing his mind without the changes doing something to substantially alter the core objected-to shape, such as moving hardpoints or windshield angle or fender shape, he would be identifiable as suffering from boostgoggles to those who are aware of his opinion of the similar, unadorned car.

boostgoggles and its related conditions are only embarassing if the viewer in fact does dislike the unadorned car's appearance or denies that he actually has compromised his judgment by the pasted-on equipment

Boostgoggles has other parallel delusional spinoffs as:

retrogoggles -impairs objection to a car if its appearance is reminiscent of an earlier time/car, excusing some other inadequacy of the car- e.g. those who will buy a (LY) challenger regardless of its curb weight in the future but won't buy some other LX car today because it weighs too much and they would never drive such a heavy car, ever. Especially obvious to those who will not buy a new Camaro when it is available because they have the same curb weight objection to buying a now-departed GTO.

sortedgoggles - impairs ability to remember to affirm a long-held disapproval of a type of technology/ design choice is ignored when a car bearing the tech is attractive to the viewer or has performance in such great numbers as to blind the viewer to the flaw- e.g.- Corvette Z06 idolators who are violently opposed to leaf springs, overhead valves, low hp/L, shitty interiors; Fans of all mustangs who hate solid rear axles (exception: those who specifically have a thing for IRS Cobras)

OBVIOUSLY analagously related:
beer goggles
* Beer goggles is a slang term for a phenomenon in which one's consumption of alcohol makes physically unattractive people appear beautiful. The term is often associated with the awkward experience of waking up the following morning to discover that the person lying next to you is less attractive than you had previously believed (see also coyote ugly).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_goggles


More on the 911 (this is the first part where I'm actually stating my opinion of any specific car in this post):
The 997 is an easy car for a lot of people to say "looks pretty good" in general. It's not my cup of tea, but you gotta admit it's a pure shape. That's why it endures. It also meets a lot of the "looks that represent the machine" and minimum excess fender height and roofline criteria based on wheel height that I praised on the 350Z. The 911 looks like a car with its motor in its ass for a reason (and that reason isn't so it can be assembled quickly and for $pickle, like it might have been for an original beetle), regardless of whether that really makes any sense to the onlooker.

So, it is amusing to me, and REAFFIRMS my suspicions of your beergoggles if another car, especially one you and I seem to both agree is somewhat good looking car (the 911, although its even better if you really arent attracted to the base 997) has a package that allows an evo fan to be MORE attracted to a car of generally the same shape by adding wings and splitter and wheels and lowering the ride height... since they're visually identifiable go-fast parts. If you are attracted to the 911, then that's like the latent boostgoggles I was talking about above. Which in the note that followed, isn't embarassing.

I'll admit to some latent boostgoggles of my own.
I think Jeep GC Srt-8 looks pretty damn good, but I think the Grand Cherokee is not a half-bad looking truck to start with. My attraction to the srt-8 that might lead me so far as to walk up to one and walk around it, however, won't have me calling it hot while saying things like "oh, it's barely related at all to the base car." I also thought the Neon SRT4 was much more attractive than the other Neons... but that certainly isn't because I think it's wholly on one side of the attractive

added in edit from here down:
oops, posted before I finished that last sentence. I had just moved the lancer-facelift note to the top and forgot to go back.

the sentence should have read: "I also thought the Neon SRT4 was much more attractive than the other Neons... but that certainly isn't because I think the base neon wholly on one side of an unattractive|attractive scale and the SRT4 is on the other. They're both marginal boxes."

5/9/2007 12:21:16 PM

not pretty, but not really ugly either...

5/9/2007 12:23:58 PM

LOL...why don't u 'reference' that post in every thread on TWW?

5/9/2007 12:24:03 PM

I dare you to read anything today. Start small. There's a book called "Hop on pop" by Dr. Suess that I bet you can find in a building called a LI-BRA-RY

5/9/2007 12:28:34 PM

lol. sorry, i don't waste my time reading your posts. I have better things to read. and I can pretty much sum up everything you are QQing about in your first sentence.

5/9/2007 12:29:49 PM

pasted from other thread:

Quote :

"here's the thing. You can win this argument. Just admit you think the LANCER is a good looking car, and the the EVO is merely BETTER looking 'cuz if you were reading, that's the definition of the merely latent, and not embarassing form of boostgoggles "

edit: do you know how stupid that sounds? It's literally the equivalent of: "I don't have time for your sentences! Give me abbreviations because I have places to be, like jumping back and forth between threads to make sure I'm responding!"

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2007 12:31:33 PM

^

5/9/2007 12:38:03 PM

...yup, that's me and my family. what's your point?

5/9/2007 12:40:47 PM

omg plz to 'reference' here too.

5/9/2007 12:41:20 PM

hahahahahaha

5/9/2007 12:42:18 PM

^You know, I'm sure I pointed out somewhere that liking an evo and obvious boostgoggles is part of a parallel need to compensate for personal shortcomings. Considering anyone's appearance is not only totally unrelated and abandons the point at hand, but is a scramble to find something else to talk about.

Specifically indicating that my appearance is a point that brings you amusement must be some sort of personal indication that you think you could beat me up if you had to. Are you threatened by me, Golovko? I mean, confident knowledge of the ability to beat someone up usually doesn't result in that being a thought at the forefront of someone's mind. I'll illustrate. Nobody walks into a retirement home and thinks "Holy crap, I could fucking ninja-out on every one of these geezers." even though that's probably a fact for anyone with a skeleton with fewer than 30 years of wear and tear on it.

You are a boostgoggling, immature troll. I am sure that people you know by name say dirty things about you when you leave the room and it is only a matter of time before one of them, perhaps one who is even worse than you, subjects you to what you've been dishing. And I will laugh at your mangled remains.

5/9/2007 12:53:06 PM

ok, at first i was just making fun by asking you if you were mentally retarded. Now that its obviously true, i retract that statement. I'm not one to make fun of less fortunate people. It wasn't your choice to be this way.

5/9/2007 12:59:03 PM

i had posted this in the other thread, guys.

Quote :

"you know what this page needs? more evo love... "

5/9/2007 1:02:57 PM

we got a salisbury boy of garage

5/9/2007 1:48:30 PM

How do you figure? Salisburyboy posts conspiracy stories about Zionists and mexican plots to take over America.

5/9/2007 3:14:01 PM

its ok, they are just idiots.

5/9/2007 3:43:30 PM

lol. I didn't know who salisbury boy was since I never go in the soap box. I kinda see it. I'll give it a break for a while.

[Edited on May 11, 2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason : holy fucking typos 2day]

5/11/2007 11:48:45 AM