| Sorry, I don't get what you mean? Yes, you were off by one in the model name, writing "MX-2" in stead of "MX-3", but both I and a sibling comment corrected for that, disussing the actually existing MX-3 in stead of the non-existent "MX-2". So what's the "noise" here, in your opinion? It was your actual point that was disproved. Yes, there is no such thing as a "Mazda MX-2", and never was. I went directly to Wikipedia last time, but that has pretty much every other car model that ever existed, so I saw no reason to believe a "Mazda MX-2" ever existed. And now that I've googled for your exact term, here are most of the top hits: Speculation from 2009 about a coming new model (possibly for 2013) -- which was sparsely reported even at the time, and apparently never materialised (since no actual specifications, prices, tests, or reviews show up in at least the first five pages of Google results): https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mazda/32905/mazda-mx-2-reveale... https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1033621_mazda-working-on... https://www.drive.com.au/news/2013-mazda-mx-2-rendered-specu... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/cgi-2013-mazda-mx-2-8195.... https://www.burlappcar.com/2009/06/mazda-mx2-coming-up.html https://www.tv2.no/a/12383893/ (in Norwegian) A few auto trading sites that purport to have pages related to it (my guess: from mistyped searches), but which turn out to contain other models (mostly MX-5's, with the odd Mazda 2 sprinkled in): https://www.gumtree.com/cars/uk/mazda/mazda+mx+2 https://www.newsnow.co.uk/classifieds/cars-vans-for-sale/maz... https://cars.trovit.co.uk/used-cars/mazda-mx-2 https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-autos/mazda-mx-2/k0c216 (in German) And that's it. So, to sum up: 1) There is no "Mazda MX-2", there never was. 2) The only "noise" here was your typo; if you were talking about actually existing cars, you must obviously have meant the MX-3. You were after all talking about model names clashing with the M 3. 3) This was corrected for in the discussion; what was discussed was your actual point, not the "noise" (your typo). 4) If for some incomprehensible reason you actually meant the non-existent "Mazda MX-2", our point against it stands even firmer than with the MX-3: The BMW M3 would have predated the "MX-2", had it materialised in 2013, by 27 years in stead of merely five. If anyone had been able to sue anyone, it would still have been BMW, not Mazda. So no, your point doesn't stand. And I'm utterly baffled: Where are you -- still! -- claiming to have "looked up MX-2" from??? |