|
|
#1 |
|
|
2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, couldn't fint it. TIA Dan |
|
|
#2 |
|
|
news:c2aupr$1rmup1$1@ID-209897.news.uni-berlin.de: > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, etc.) > for a 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, > couldn't fint it. 0-60 times for a car like the Avalon are uncouth. The Avalon is a rich old-fart's car. In it you don't do anything as plebeian as "accelerate", you "waft" majestically down the road as though you were going to meet the Queen of England, or perhaps more appropriately, the Empress of Japan. It's sort of how Rolls-Royce for decades refused to quote horsepower figures, simply giving it as "adequate". -- TeGGeR® |
|
|
#3 |
|
|
Consumer guide quoted the 0-60 for a 2003 Avalon as 8.3 secs. Although, in general Consumer guide has one of the slowest performance numbers as compared to other magazines(Car and driver, motor trend) since they are more inclined towards rating the car on quality, refinement reliability and so on who have professional drivers test the car to the ground and use mind boggling techniques such as "clutch burning" ( very dangerous for the clutch) technique to launch the car with extra thrust forward. > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, etc.) for a > 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, couldn't fint > it. > > TIA > > Dan |
|
|
#4 |
|
|
"Dan" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c2aupr$1rmup1$1@ID-209897.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Consumer guide quoted the 0-60 for a 2003 Avalon as 8.3 secs. Although, in general Consumer guide has one of the slowest performance numbers as compared to other magazines(Car and driver, motor trend) since they are more inclined towards rating the car on quality, refinement reliability and so on who have professional drivers test the car to the ground and use mind boggling techniques such as "clutch burning" ( very dangerous for the clutch) technique to launch the car with extra thrust forward. > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, etc.) for a > 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, couldn't fint > it. > > TIA > > Dan |
|
|
#5 |
|
|
I thought the Avalon was only available with an automatic.
![]() mike hunt FaisalCorollaTypeS wrote: > > "Dan" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c2aupr$1rmup1$1@ID-209897.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > Consumer guide quoted the 0-60 for a 2003 Avalon as 8.3 secs. > Although, in general Consumer guide has one of the slowest performance > numbers as compared to other magazines(Car and driver, motor trend) > since they are more inclined towards rating the car on quality, > refinement reliability and so on who have professional drivers test > the car to the ground and use mind boggling techniques such as "clutch > burning" ( very dangerous for the clutch) technique to launch the car > with extra thrust forward. > > > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, etc.) for a > > 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, couldn't fint > > it. > > > > TIA > > > > Dan |
|
|
#6 |
|
|
But he is Faisal, the man who can shift an automatic like a manual to get a
vroom-vroom sound! Clutches are *nothing* to Faisal <dismissive wave of hand>. --TeGGeR® MajorDomo@mailcity.com spake unto the m***es in news:404A2701.D14D6C0B@mailcity.com: > I thought the Avalon was only available with an automatic. ![]() > > > mike hunt > > FaisalCorollaTypeS wrote: >> >> "Dan" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:<c2aupr$1rmup1$1@ID-209897.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> >> Consumer guide quoted the 0-60 for a 2003 Avalon as 8.3 secs. >> Although, in general Consumer guide has one of the slowest >> performance numbers as compared to other magazines(Car and driver, >> motor trend) since they are more inclined towards rating the car on >> quality, refinement reliability and so on who have professional >> drivers test the car to the ground and use mind boggling techniques >> such as "clutch burning" ( very dangerous for the clutch) technique >> to launch the car with extra thrust forward. >> >> > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, >> > etc.) for a 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web >> > sites, couldn't fint it. |
|
|
#7 |
|
|
You're an ***hole.
"Tegger®" <teggeratistopdotcom@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns94A3CE6E6C63Cteggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. . > "Dan" <none@hotmail.com> spake unto the m***es in > news:c2aupr$1rmup1$1@ID-209897.news.uni-berlin.de: > > > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, etc.) > > for a 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, > > couldn't fint it. > > > 0-60 times for a car like the Avalon are uncouth. > > The Avalon is a rich old-fart's car. In it you don't do anything as > plebeian as "accelerate", you "waft" majestically down the road as though > you were going to meet the Queen of England, or perhaps more appropriately, > the Empress of Japan. > > It's sort of how Rolls-Royce for decades refused to quote horsepower > figures, simply giving it as "adequate". > > > -- > TeGGeR® |
|
|
#8 |
|
|
Thanks for the reply, Faisal, sounds about right.
Dan "FaisalCorollaTypeS" <faisal_ajmal62@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8b0f8233.0403060008.4346a3ec@posting.google.c om... > "Dan" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c2aupr$1rmup1$1@ID-209897.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > Consumer guide quoted the 0-60 for a 2003 Avalon as 8.3 secs. > Although, in general Consumer guide has one of the slowest performance > numbers as compared to other magazines(Car and driver, motor trend) > since they are more inclined towards rating the car on quality, > refinement reliability and so on who have professional drivers test > the car to the ground and use mind boggling techniques such as "clutch > burning" ( very dangerous for the clutch) technique to launch the car > with extra thrust forward. > > > > > Can anyone quote me published 0-60 times (from a Car & driver, etc.) for a > > 2003 & 2004 Avalon? Looked on the mag's various web sites, couldn't fint > > it. > > > > TIA > > > > Dan |