Leaderboard

@ykX For the money, none of the 3 cars would be on my radar in real life. That said, if I HAD to choose one of the 3, I'd go with a new 2019 Miata. The power bump really saves. Beyond that, it looks great and has a handling balance/sweetness and tactility that neither of the other 2 could ever dream of matching. 35K is C6 Grandsport money, and even higher mileage Z06 if you look hard enough, any reason to go base? Aside from that, I'd pass straight over all of these and find the nicest manual RWD 997 Coupe I could get.

14K original mile, always garaged, unrestored '59 Eldorado Biarritz up for sale. A/C, leather, super rare bucket seats (I think around 100 cars). Asking $295K.

Nailed it. I like the classic Mercedes multi-slat grille, that is how a Mercedes should look. It looks like a crossover and mid-size crossovers are what sell in the market. Odd-ball looking cars like the i3 and Leaf don't sell, the Jaguar iPace looks a mess, etc. People will like the looks inside and out, and they will like the 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. I hope this starts around $70,000, if so I think they can sell a lot of them.

Looks very normal, no EV 'otherness' to the design, which will be a good thing for mainstreaming EVs.

This will probably lead to all Toyota and Lexus hybrids being recalled for this and similar issues.

Amazing as to the how narrow / closed minded you are. There is no need for a loud diesel belching toxic smoke driving truck in the inner cities for delivery's. Even in the suburbs many auto's can be replaced by a 100 mile range delivery auto. Perfect example of where we are reducing green house gas by replacing traditional ICE with CNG/LNG or electric auto's is our postal service. https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2018/NL-AR-18-003.pdf Latest report shows how much is being saved for a vehicle that drives on average of only 50 miles per day. The latest reports for urban delivery and freight mobility also proves out this less than 100 miles once the freight has come to the city. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop18020/index.htm The proof is all over in how little these trucks actually drive in the city and with Electric, they are using no energy when making a delivery or picking up a load. The engines sit there unlike the waste of diesel as the trucks are left idling.

Not arguing with that, but I hear constantly people at gas station put either full tank or $20 worth of gas regardless of car or truck they are driving,

I get that but that $20 goes vastly different ranges if it is a Cruze or if it is a Duramax 3500. I know that is an extreme difference but a compact car vs a mid size CUV get very different fuel economy.

I think for general public it is much easier to understand charging in terms of range than kWh, 99.9% of people have no idea what is kilo or watt or kwh. Approximate range is what people understand. Same thing with gas cars, most people look at how far they can get on a tank of gas, or $20 worth of gas,

I totally agree with you as it would be better to say all 80kWh batteries charge to full in 10 min. 90kWh batteries charge to full in 11 min and 100 kWh batteries in 12 min. Totally agree with you that that is better, but Tesla started this and everyone else is using their yardstick to measure their own EV by.

First mover advantage...Tesla has set the bar and set the standards for the terminology, so followers are conforming. Standards bodies/organizations are behind the curve...

Absolutely and that would double or triple the range by being able to charge while not skipping a beat throughout the day. That 110 mile range could turn into driving 200 miles in a day and none of that is spent waiting at a pump and driving out of their way to the pump. Productivity up, costs down. Sounds like a win-win if they do it right.

"Classic Mercedes"

Could hit the DC charger while having lunch and recharge half the miles in 30 min.

There really was in this case no valid reason for VW to downsize the base engine. Now perhaps an entry trim, but to move down to the 1.4 vs the 1.8 is totally a reactionary move to regulations.

CAFE has been the wrong approach to fuel efficiency since it was first made law back in 1975. Better to let customers buy what they want/need and let them deal with the consequences of their purchase, especially if gas/diesel prices spike again.

The Golf does not have a CAFE problem. The real issue is that VW and Audi are selling a lot of crossovers that use turbo 4cyl engines (and a few V6es too). Remember that CAFE is based on what cars you sell and how many. Hence why Honda can sell CAFE credits to FCA because of their respective product mixes and sales of those product mixes.

Anecdotal statement. No backup with facts.

These miniscule ranges for the price of these trucks makes me laugh. It NEEDS to be used on a very tight route with NO unplanned events or they're SCREWED. Same old story, blah blah blah.