first date
- Thread starter wiseguy
- Start date
shawna said:
I think not.
Here's a TT Roadster available for buttons and that was on the 1st search I made. There were others cheaper than that with over 100k miles.
http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/audi/tt-mk1-99-06/cheapest-audi-tt-convertible-on-the-net-2005/906837
You have to compare similar age and mileage otherwise any comparison is a load of nonsense. Are you comparing new vs new or old vs old? Surely new vs new the pricing is very similar because they are competing against one another. Using a September Autocar mag as a reference, the cheapest TT is £24,075 versus £29,485 for the Z4. So what does that prove? Nothing, just that Audi have a lower priced entry level model as a tactical measure.
original guvnor said:
I think you dont really know your cars well?
Look at the car, thats the facelift 2011 model with very low miles, S Line, as I said, the sister of the one in the pic.
Who likes VAG cars knows the things that give it away but the biggest one is the front LED DRL's.
But really the BIGGEST thing that gives it away is that the one you showed us is a totally different car. This is the new model.
Let me show you a close up shall I?
This is the cluster taken last week: (mileage)
So yes we are talking 25k.
The discussion revolved around girls and cars, nothing to do with your Z4 or the Audi vs BMW,
This is a modern diesel car, a daily 50MPG car with fast credentials and looks, and it has nothing to do with a Z4/Z4M.
The chick pulling power of it does.
If youd like to trade yours in for one like it, LIKE FOR LIKE (as you described) I think you have to add around 12K to yours.
pvr said:
No I made a statement - the new Audi TT has a lot of pulling power.
The important word here is NEW.
The new one is 25K
This discussion transcends the models I showed the new Audi TT.
Thats todays modern world, 2012. New cars new tastes.
Comparing like for like, his comparison is of an OLD Audi TT 04. Surely he mixed up the models?
Bradders75
Senior member
I was rather enjoying the first date discussion - trust a car forum full of stat geeks to drag it back down to cars! :wink:
Bradders75
Senior member
theblues said:..I'm 6ft 5 weighing about 22 stone the brother said to me after Erica and I got married when I saw the size of him I wasn't going to argue
I don't blame him. It would be just my luck to accidentally knock your pint over on a night out!
Bringing it back to the conversation of the thread...
I think this is fairly simple. Like it or not, we are driven by very simple evolutionary animalistic 'requirements'. Social requirements are a further layer merely applied by humans as we have developed society around us. Not everyone will agree with my thoughts on this, but just look at how animals behave and we are really quite identical - we just make things complicated because we talk and confuse each other.
Him - evolutionary purpose is to find females to mate with who will produce the 'best quality' young. In base terms, he is attracted to females who show signs that they are capable of having healthy young - open to 'mating', child bearing hips, glossy hair, bright eyes, full breasts etc. Men are programmed to seek a partner based on looks. Social attraction has added other layers to this - makeup to simulate good blood flow/flushing to lips/cheeks, eye make up to draw attention to eyes, dressing in a way to enhance those features etc. We are a 'higher' species though, so most guys also take into account social activity - ie personality. But, many guys misinterpret their programming - she looks 'sexy' or is available for sex, therefore she is a good quality mate - CLEARLY not always true.
Her - evolutionary purpose is to seek a male with social value, a leader among men who will guide, protect her and the offspring. A man of value who acts and behaves like a man, not a man-child who she has to look after. Many women misinterpret their programing - he is 'wealthy', or 'beautiful', or acts like the boss, therefore he is a good mate - CLEARLY not always true.
Looks matter LESS to women. No, it's true. APPEARANCE, however is essential for guys. The way a man presents himself, the way he dresses, the way he smells, how he conducts himself around other males, is key. Too many guys confuse being the 'alpha male' with being a show-off d1ckhead. Throwing money around, being violent, being rude, does not make you an alpha male. Being charasmatic, being someone who brings people together, a guy who is comfortable in his own body, who respects himself - a person that people are drawn too - that's an alpha male.
And there we are full circle to the original question...
...have a nice car, take it on your first date. But don't be a dick and show off - show that you're a person who values people and the work they do to achieve their possessions. Good things happen to good people because they ALLOW them to - if you perceive YOUR life as great, and love who you are and what you do, acting, doing and leading like the man you should be, SHE will be pulled into that world and be attracted to you.
8)
Si
(retired dating coach, though a bit rusty)
I think this is fairly simple. Like it or not, we are driven by very simple evolutionary animalistic 'requirements'. Social requirements are a further layer merely applied by humans as we have developed society around us. Not everyone will agree with my thoughts on this, but just look at how animals behave and we are really quite identical - we just make things complicated because we talk and confuse each other.
Him - evolutionary purpose is to find females to mate with who will produce the 'best quality' young. In base terms, he is attracted to females who show signs that they are capable of having healthy young - open to 'mating', child bearing hips, glossy hair, bright eyes, full breasts etc. Men are programmed to seek a partner based on looks. Social attraction has added other layers to this - makeup to simulate good blood flow/flushing to lips/cheeks, eye make up to draw attention to eyes, dressing in a way to enhance those features etc. We are a 'higher' species though, so most guys also take into account social activity - ie personality. But, many guys misinterpret their programming - she looks 'sexy' or is available for sex, therefore she is a good quality mate - CLEARLY not always true.
Her - evolutionary purpose is to seek a male with social value, a leader among men who will guide, protect her and the offspring. A man of value who acts and behaves like a man, not a man-child who she has to look after. Many women misinterpret their programing - he is 'wealthy', or 'beautiful', or acts like the boss, therefore he is a good mate - CLEARLY not always true.
Looks matter LESS to women. No, it's true. APPEARANCE, however is essential for guys. The way a man presents himself, the way he dresses, the way he smells, how he conducts himself around other males, is key. Too many guys confuse being the 'alpha male' with being a show-off d1ckhead. Throwing money around, being violent, being rude, does not make you an alpha male. Being charasmatic, being someone who brings people together, a guy who is comfortable in his own body, who respects himself - a person that people are drawn too - that's an alpha male.
And there we are full circle to the original question...
...have a nice car, take it on your first date. But don't be a dick and show off - show that you're a person who values people and the work they do to achieve their possessions. Good things happen to good people because they ALLOW them to - if you perceive YOUR life as great, and love who you are and what you do, acting, doing and leading like the man you should be, SHE will be pulled into that world and be attracted to you.
8)
Si
(retired dating coach, though a bit rusty)
Bradders75
Senior member
Psy said:
None of this should be new to any man over the age of 30 but it is beautifully written.
shawna said:
I hope I'm not being impolite but let me explain this very simply.
You compared a 2011 Audi TT with an E86 and E85 Z4. So in other words you compared the current (most recent, newest) TT with the older discontinued Z4 (in the case of the Z4M ceased manufacturing in 2008 I think) and then said you can buy a Z4 cheaper than an Audi. Well well done, Einstein!! With those powers of insight you'll go far!
I pointed out this isn't correct because if you are comparing a TT to a Z4 to make a judgement on value you have to compare the same model year (i.e 2004 versus 2004 or whatever). In other words compare the current TT you so kindly provided a picture of, with an E89 2011 model.
The TT is a nice car, the Z4 is a nice car. Let's just leave it at that and get back to talking about first dates please.
Bradders75
Senior member
Bing said:
Usa
original guvnor said:shawna said:
I hope I'm not being impolite but let me explain this very simply.
You compared a 2011 Audi TT with an E86 and E85 Z4. So in other words you compared the current (most recent, newest) TT with the older discontinued Z4 (in the case of the Z4M ceased manufacturing in 2008 I think) and then said you can buy a Z4 cheaper than an Audi. Well well done, Einstein!! With those powers of insight you'll go far!
I pointed out this isn't correct because if you are comparing a TT to a Z4 to make a judgement on value you have to compare the same model year (i.e 2004 versus 2004 or whatever). In other words compare the current TT you so kindly provided a picture of, with an E89 2011 model.
The TT is a nice car, the Z4 is a nice car. Let's just leave it at that and get back to talking about first dates please.
I hope I'm not being impolite but let me explain this very simply.
I NEVER COMPARED the Audi TT to a Z4.
I said on a first date, the AUDI TT is the car to impress the ladies.
Please get your fact right or learn how to read well.
Bradders75
Senior member
Unlike that TT v Z4 tedium, this is much more like it lads. My faith in the forum is restored. 
*EDIT then I saw the above
*EDIT then I saw the above