View Single Post
      12-18-2007, 08:59 PM   #141
gbb357
Captain
68
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Get real you little pest. Your reputation here sucks. Common sense, reasonable estimates as well as skepticism are my calling cards here. What do you have to stand on? You just finished saying "you where[sic] WRONG" about the IS-F. How the he## can you conclude I am wrong in my statement that a mild under-rating of the IS-F is possible if you do not take the dyno results you posted as 100% accurate and 100% certain (as well that requires a 100% accurate and certain knowledge of the cars drivetrain loss, which of course I know you have ...). You can't have it both ways and if you read my arguments/opinions/conclusions you will see I am not trying to have it both ways either. However, since you typically don't/can't read it does not surprise me that you can not pick up the details of my conculsions and statements, which are important. The devil is in the details as they rightly say. I did not really comment much about the IS-F dyno results then because it was close enough given the uncertainty in the drivetrain loss that is was not particulary strong evidence EITHER WAY for an honest or under-rated hp spec. You clearly believed in that thread that this dyno "fact" sealed the deal that you were right, the car is not under-rated and I was wrong. You are so confused, you can not even follow your own twisted logic. But that is what happens when your logic and arguments stink; it is like lying - it get very hard to keep track of them all in any consistent fashion.
Wow! Little pest, man you're getting ballsy. First of all, i don't have any reputation here at all nor do i care. Your calling card on the other hand is you're always right and everyone else is wrong, there happy now. So you did'nt think that the ISF dyno was a strong evidence yet you think that the GTR's dyno is a strong one? And yes i believed the dyno test by Automobilemag base on their performance test as well that where pretty close compare to the C&D performance test. You want to talk about common sense, how can you possibly make any sense that your simulation of the ISF that you adamantly defend was so accurate at the time of 0-60 of 5.1 when the regular IS does the same. Yeah that's Swamp's common sense. Go to your corner and take a time out.
Appreciate 0