Printable View
Oh no. The Suburban is a Cheverolet that has been around for nearly 80 years. It is truely big, and gets bigger every year. It is large than the Explorer and Expedition, but not as large as the Excursion. All three of these Fords are relatively new SUVs. The Suburban was an SUV before any used the term SUV.Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
That thing is a beast! looks suspiciously like an Explorer (the front does anyway). Do they share the platform?
Well companies do share platforms sometimes. Ford share Peugeot/Citroen diesel engines and Ford share cars with Mazda.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
NO!!!!!!!!! One's Ford and mine's a Chevy.
I've seen some Nascar races on TV. Pretty tedious as you say. Indy looks okay, similar spec cars to F1. Except indy use Ovals.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Would've been great to watch that. Wish we got real racing (WRC, GT, GT-R) in America. All we have is NASCAR, CART, IRL, and NHRA. NASCAR is not racing, it is just turning left. NHRA really isn't much fun. And while I respect CART and Indy, I just can't get into open-wheeled cars.
How come you guys seem to only have ovals?
Ford owns Mazda (and Volvo and Jaguar). Lincoln and Mercury are division of Ford.Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Well companies do share platforms sometimes. Ford share Peugeot/Citroen diesel engines and Ford share cars with Mazda.
Cheverolet is a GM company. They share with GMC, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and some others. Chevy has a deep partnership with Toyota. They do share platforms.
The third American automaker is Chrysler. They own Dailmer-Benz. Dodge, Jeep, Eagle, and Plymouth are all divisions of Chrysler. The Dodge Viper is sold overseas as the Plymouth Viper. They have partnered with Mitsubishi and Peugot.
There are other alliances I'm sure.
It's got quite a large rear overhang.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
The Suburban is a Cheverolet that has been around for nearly 80 years
GM also own some european makes - Opel and Vauxhall mainly. Also, the Dodge is sold as a chrysler here, infact I've never even heard of plymouth. I know they're planning to kill off the Oldsmobile name, has that happened yet?Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Ford owns Mazda (and Volvo and Jaguar). Lincoln and Mercury are division of Ford.
Cheverolet is a GM company. They share with GMC, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and some others. Chevy has a deep partnership with Toyota. They do share platforms.
The third American automaker is Chrysler. They own Dailmer-Benz. Dodge, Jeep, Eagle, and Plymouth are all divisions of Chrysler. The Dodge Viper is sold overseas as the Plymouth Viper. They have partnered with Mitsubishi and Peugot.
There are other alliances I'm sure.
Ah. I could be wrong about the Plymouth thing. Course, that may be Plymouth in some areas and Chrysler in others. I know Plymouth is in Canada. SD, do you guys have Chryslers and Dodges, too?
Anyway, we get all three. So the Chrysler Town and Country is also the Dodge Caravan and the Plymouth Voyager. The Chrysler version is more luxury, the Dodge is more functionality, the Plymouth is more affordable.
Olds will be discontinued, but not yet. I was expecting it next year, but I don't know.
GM owning Opel explains why there is a lot of Opel influence in the Cadillac Catera. GM also owns Saturn. The new line of Saturns was designed by some German company. It may have been Volkswagon, I don't remember.
we only get the chrysler version of the voyager. Although that has gone down like a lead-balloon because it scored so badly in the EURO/NCAP crash tests. Although you'll be pleased to know the Prime Minister has 2 I believe.Probably, they are fairly massive. The own Seat, Skoda and Audi. Also vying for a share of BMW but unless the Quants sell out their not likely to get it.Quote:
It may have been Volkswagon
Where is Skoda? I've run across that name in WRC events, I forget which class. I didn't know they were owned by VW. I knew VW owned Audi (it is obvious in America) but I heard they owned Porsche. Do they?
Actually yeah they do own porsche (I knew I was missing someone).
Skoda were a Chezh company that got bought by VW a while ago. The do enter the WRC and do quite well as well. Seat also compete.
Skoda! LOL :)
Hey! Don't diss Skoda. They do well in the rallies. I'd never buy one because of the name/past reputation but now they belong to VW they are basically VW cars but a damn sight cheaper.
What about Daewoo? I understand they have Mercedes power plants, but they are southeast Asian?
As I understand it, they are closing up shop in America. They haven't been here for very long.
I rarely watch rally so I wouldn't know
Daewoo are south korean yeah. They actually design all their cars about 10 miles away from here. The parent company went bust a few moths back so they probably are pulling out of the US. They have a contract with a major branch of car repairers (Halfords) to sell their car so they are still around here at the moment. I don't know if they are Merc engines. I would have thought they were more likely to be old mitsubishi ones (like the ones Proton use).Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
What about Daewoo? I understand they have Mercedes power plants, but they are southeast Asian?
As I understand it, they are closing up shop in America. They haven't been here for very long.
Wooo. Thats fighting talk around here.Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
That thing is a beast! looks suspiciously like an Explorer (the front does anyway). Do they share the platform?
Not for me though, I don't give a sh*t:)
But there's alot of red-necks in these parts who won't buy anything but Ford and another bunch who won't buy anything but GMC.
Very very sad people if you ask me.
When I said in the pub that I couldn't decided between a Suburban (GMC) and an Expedition (Ford) some guy starts shouting at me in the pub and saying how could I even consider buy a GMC. I recount this strange experience to a friend of mine, and she starts getting angry 'cause the guy liked Ford, and according to her they're a piece of sh*t.
Very very weird locals up here.
Red-Necks, you gotta hate them. :) Do we have any red-necks on the site?
SD
Sorry, server went down for a bit so that last message is a bit late:)
SD
Ah, see, here in the States it is Ford versus Chevy. No one calls it GMC (they are the same company). The Suburban is very specificly and Chevy here. Silly Canucks. :)
The Ford/Chevy thing is very big especially with NASCAR. They are two of only four companies that submit entries. Pontiac and Dodge are the others, and I think Pontiac is also a GM line.
Proton. I think I've seen them in WRC. They are from Malaysia? Very brutishly powerful car as I remember, but not in the same class as the Impreza?
Yeah :) We're kinda in the twighlight zone up here. We have Chevy Blazers and GMC Jimmy's, but aside from the name difference they are exactly the same car. They even have the same colours/options. My dad has a GMC Jimmy (nice wee car) and wanted to get the number plate 'CU Jimmy' but some-one had already beaten him to it. (Probably only Brits and even then maybe only Scots will get that reference:))Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Ah, see, here in the States it is Ford versus Chevy. No one calls it GMC (they are the same company). The Suburban is very specificly and Chevy here. Silly Canucks. :)
SD
Yes, the Chevy Blazer (now the TrailBlazer) is the GMC Jimmy and the Oldsmobile Bravada. It has also been reffered to as the S-15.
PS It is also the Envoy.
I'd love to see the design teams yearly appraisal's.
"Oh we designed 5 cars this year.", not mentioning that they are all the same friggin' car with a different name.
Actually the Expedition is just an F-150 with the crewcab extended back into the hatchback. And the Excursion is the same except based on the F-250. I suppose it makes sense from their point of view and it makes it easy for me to find spare parts.
SD
All this car talk is too confusing, for my tiny mind.
In VBScript, that gives you an error. I would fix that. If you don't immediately see why it gives you an error, then you would want it fixed, too.Code:dim myArray()
myArray = Split(myText, myDelim)
I just accidentally did the following, too...
And it didn't complain.Code:Option Explicit
for i = 0 to someInt
for j = 0 to someOtherInt
next 'j
next 'i
dim i, j
CiberTHug????
How can you accidently write someting like that:D!
Isn't that a bit like writing a completely bollox but syntactically correct program and complaining that it's the compilers fault that it doesn't work?:D
SD
Oh, but wait, it did work, that's what I'm complaining about. I declared i and j after they were used, and it didn't care!
What is the point behind option explicit if you are going to let me type something so late, its already out of scope?
:rolleyes: I think it's whats being called idiot-proof :D
Why would you want to do something like that. The variable is in scope for that procedure anyway.
Dim i,j is syntactically correct to allow for people converting from other languages, but it defines them as Variants. It's down to the difference between poor coding and good coding. I'm not accusing you of being a poor coder as I am sure you are doing this to illustrate a point, but normally, what would possess you to write VB like that?
And saying "well thats how it's done in C++" is not a good argument, because thats a completely different language.
SD
Okay, I don't think you are understanding my complaint, so I will try to illustrate it better.
This is VBScript code that I passed through my IIS ASP parser. This code works, but it shouldn't. Option Explicit should force you to declare all variables before you use them. That is something I would change about VB, because here, it didn't care that I hadn't declared them, yet.Code:Option Explicit
for i = 0 to IndexI
for j = 0 to IndexJ
DoWork i, j
next 'j
next 'i
dim i, j
Personally, I feel the language should let you do the following
Just to let you know how I accidentally put the declaration after the for loop... I had written it as follows...Code:for dim i = 0 to IndexI
DoWork i
next 'i
'Here i should be undefined because its scope should be limited
'to the for structure. If I call i here, I should get an error
'under Option Explicit
Then I moved the loop to another part of the code, but didn't move the declaration. It didn't complain, so I didn't think about it. I then added the j loop into the i loop, and thought that I had dim j in this code. I didn't, and it complained. When I went to add j to the dim i statement, I found the dim i statement after the i loop. I added j and it worked!!! It isn't supposed to do that!Code:dim i
for i = 0 to IndexI
DoWork i
next 'i
Sorry, I didn't realise you were refering to VB-Script.
I like you're syntax idea
but what if you required to use i further down the code. If necessary there might be an undim or release command to specify that you didn't need the variable again, but all this could get very confusing. I prefer to stick to modules of code and define the variables at the top of the module and then discard them at then end.Code:for dim i = 0 to IndexI
DoWork i
next 'i
'Here i should be undefined because its scope should be limited
'to the for structure. If I call i here, I should get an error
'under Option Explicit
As an aside fortran used to automatically define lumps of variables to integers etc. So if you saw i,j or k in a loop you knew that it was a temporary integer used for looping and nothing more. This was pretty handy.
I have been tempted (but have resisited) on occasions to define i,j and k globaly as integers in apps that use a lot of little loops.
SD
Yeah, I should get out of the habit of using i. I should use currX. Perl is nice cause it subtly keeps you from using i.
Mind you, my Perl is a touch rusty, so I may have that wrong. But if I remember correctly, if I use the strict pragma then I can declare $a in the foreach statement. Kind of like JavaScript's for loops.Code:foreach $a (@a)
dowork($a);
Hmmm... how many languages can I write a for loop in? How many languages do I need!!!Code:for (var i = 0; i < IndexI; i++){
doWork(i)
}
The world should use Perl;.
I've never used perl, I thought it was a scripting language?
Whats it like?
SD
Well, honestly, there is always the right tool for the right job. Perl shouldn't be used for everything. It is more than a scripting language, but it is probably the best scripting language. Perl is poetry. It is very powerful, very simple, and very elegant. It can be a bit confusing becuase several operators are overloaded, there are only three types of variables: scalar ($), array(@), and associative arrays (aka hash tables, %), and while regex is powerful, it can be somewhat confusing to look at.
$a = s/\\/\//;
The above expression will take a string and replace all backslashes with forward slashes (I think). If you have assigned a numerical value to $a, it won't care. It will treat it like a string and leave it intacted.
You can do this...
$a += 13;
If $a has been assigned a numerical value, then it will add thirteen. If $a has been assigned a string, then it will do a rot-13 (rotate each character by 13. a becomes c under a rot-2). And $a += "13"; is a subtly different statement.
Hash tables are so awesome. They are like 2-D arrays with their own search built in. Other languages have them, I'm sure.
Perl supports pointers and anonymous variables. I wish I could remember how to assign an anon var. It is very sweet.
Question...Code:myStrA = mid(myStr, myStart)
myStrB = right(myStr, myStart)
If myStrA is equal to myStrB, why do we have both functions?
myStrA isn't always equal to myStrB.
What if myStr is "12345" and myStart is 2?
They'd be different.
yeah... I seem to have made a mistake. Good thing I never used Right().
Geez... it took you guys over 26 hours to catch that.
Anyway... anything you can do with Right() and Left() you can do with Mid(). So I never use Left() and Right().
OrCode:myStrRight = Right(myStr, myLen)
myStrLeft = Left(myStr, myLen)
I think that works. If not, you see where I'm going with it.Code:myStrRight = Mid(myStr, Len(myStr) - myLen)
myStrLeft = Mid(myStr, 1, myLen)
Gotta agree with Tygur here.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Question...Code:myStrA = mid(myStr, myStart)
myStrB = right(myStr, myStart)
If myStrA is equal to myStrB, why do we have both functions?
If myStr ="abcdefgh" and myStart=2 then
myStrA would equal "bcdefgh"
and
myStrB would equal "gh"
SD
Doh! seconds too late.
Yeah, thanks for paying attention yesterday, SD.
:rolleyes: Sorry, I'll try to be more observant in future :D
Eh.. not a biggie. Anyway... I still don't see the need to Right() and Left(). I think they are crutches for the weak. :)