Leaderboard

Because... #1 Fossil Fuel has not run out, is not about to run out and the USA has just become the largest producer of coal, oil and gas. #2 I have no problems with alternative energies. I do have a problem with the fraudulent claims of androgenic climate change and in subsidizing renewable alternatives that are unaffordable and which has no chance of replacing mankind's energy demands today much less in the future. At some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently expensive that alternatives will make economic sense. That point is not today or in the forseeable decades ahead. There is no need to subsidize or accelerate that process while rejecting cheap and plentiful energy which we currently have access to! #3 I have always said that Hybrid cars like the Prius do not make economic sense. They do not make economic sense because the premium of the hybrid drive train (~$4,500) will take about 13.5 years to recoup via the fuel savings over a comparably sized, equipped and performing ICE powered car. This is longer than the expected life of the battery, hence not one penny will be saved. If driving one makes you feel better or more popular with "green" friends, all the power to you and you should get one. But I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize your purchase. #4 I have always said that Battery Electric is the ultimately the future for ground transportation (we'll still burn hydrocarbon combustibles in aviation, be it drilled or farmed). I defer from the tree huggers in that I see Nuclear Power as the future of electric generation, not solar, not wind and certainly not farmed Ethanol. However, I am also pointing out that TODAY the cost of the battery is equivalent to the fuel cost of a 30 mpg car over 125,000 miles; not counting the cost of electricity. I see no imperative to accelerate the adoption of battery-electric transportation, because I am not a subscriber to the Global Warming nonsense and I see no economic advantages to doing so.

Welcome back @dwightlooi

That is unfair. If the battery is $12,000 and the vehicle is $40,000. The battery is 30% the bill of materials cost. A 24% reduction in battery costs represents a 7% reduction in vehicle costs. But, no, you won't even see that because ALL the legacy automaker's EVs from the Bolt to the Leaf to the i3 to the eGolf are being sold at a loss. Hence, the manufacturers are simply glad they are not losing as much.

I disagree. The problem with the Electric Car -- apart from the inconvenience from the inability to be recharged in a the few minutes it takes to refuel a conventionally power car -- is that the cost of the battery (about $12,000 for a 60kWh Li-Ion pack) -- exceeds the fuel cost of an equivalent gasoline powered car over 125,000 miles or the lifetime of the battery. This is not counting the cost of electricity it costs to recharge the battery pack. That is why electric cars need subsidies to attract normal buyers who are not worshipers of the Global Warming fraud.. The Golden Age of Industrialization is over in the USA because -- over the last seven decades -- we allowed foreign produced goods (including cars) to be imported into the USA will minimal or no tariffs, even from countries which charge significant tariffs for our exports -- China has a 25% tariff on cars, EU has 10%, whereas the USA has tariffs at 0~2.5%. This is not called Free Trade. It is called Stupid Trade. It's called an unequal treaty. This is the kind of agreement which countries sign when enemy tanks are on the capitol lawn! Except of course our politicians galdly sign it because the were never negotiating in the best interest of the American people or the USA nation. They were acting in the best interest of multinational corporations which cannot careless about the rise and fall of nations as long as they get to make their profits somewhere in the world. This is not to mention the fact that Free Trade itself is suicide and fundamentally incompatible with social policies like a minimum wage, safety nets, environmental standards and labor laws. You can have a high living standards for your workers or you can have Free Trade. You cannot have both! Else, all the $h! hole countries will build everything, you will buy everything, the outflow of wealth from your country will continue until you are poor and they are rich. It's not rocket science.

#3 is the only one I have to call U out on.. All of the aforementioned stuff aside.. how can U, even as an obvious conservative justify staying that we really shouldn't already be embracing and mass producing alternative transportation modes, moving from a 100+ year fossil fuel addiction that will eventually run out? Gas/diesel is dirty.. its inefficient.. its hot. EV is clean.. cool... and very efficient.. The efficiency is even clearly evident in the fact that its power and torque is ready from 1 RPM.. vs having to turn the engine to the 1000s to really see true power

Really? Have you actually looked at the issue or are you accepting the "everybody says its true, hence it must be true" fallacy? #1 The Earth is not warmer than it has ever been. The Earth was warmer many times before in the history of the planet, including several times in the last 10,000 years. This includes the medieval era when there was little to no polar ice cap, and Norse settlements were established on Greenland, while CO2 levels are half today’s level. #2 The Earth has been cooler than it is today many times before. During some of these periods, CO2 levels far exceed today’s level. For example, during the late Ordovician, the Earth turned into a great snowball with ice all the way to the equator while CO2 levels were 10x today’s level. In fact, if you look at ice core samples (length of winters) you'll see that temperatures has NEVER tracked CO2 concentrations in the air in a statistically discernible manner over the planet's history. #3 If you cannot establish that today's temperatures are outside of historic interglacial fluctuations. And, you cannot establish that global temperatures track CO2 levels in the air, how can you justify economic suicide in rejecting the most reliable, most (currently) available energy sources for dubiously green and exorbitant energy?

Lush is usually used to describe luxury products like bath towels or face cream, and not typically used for vehicles. However, lush is exactly the word I would use I would use to describe the new 2020 Lincoln Aviator. Instead of trying to be an all-out sports crossover like most of the European competition, Lincoln keeps true to its Quiet Luxury promise with a coddling and yes lush interior. While there are hints of the lushness of Lincoln interiors in the Continental, Lincoln really dialed up the luxury lushness for the Navigator and repeated that act on the Aviator. The seats are supple and highly adjustable. The controls look classy, modern, and retro all at the same time. The grille of the Black Label editions has extra depth and a new signature blue lighting surrounding the now proud Lincoln emblem. An air ride system called Air Glide promises to smooth out bumps before the vehicle even hits them. Lush is another way to describe what the powertrains must feel like. The standard 3.0-liter twin-turbo feels deep and effortless in Lincoln's Continental, but in the Aviator now backed by a 10-speed automatic, it will feel even more effortless. The plug-in hybrid variant with its 600 lb-ft of torque, most of which will be available at a very low RPM, will be even more so. It wasn't so long ago that people were expecting an obituary for Lincoln while Genesis was the newest up-and-coming brand in the luxury segment. With this new Aviator, I think Lincoln has raised the bar on the entire segment and now not only Genesis, but Cadillac, BMW, and even Mercedes Benz should sit up and take notice. Effortless, Quiet, Comforting, Luxurious.... Lush. That's my opinion of the new 2020 Lincoln Aviator. Related: 2020 Lincoln Aviator Returns After A 13-Year Absence View full article

OK>.. finally I can agree to some degree.. THERE NEVER WAS A JUSTIFICATION for Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, AND VOLT, a Malibu and an Impala.. AND SS. Some one should have proposed 7 years ago that the drawing board should show a Sonic (replacement for the sub-compact Aveo) should be the book end of the car spectrum.. no Spark.. with the TRAX as a Sonic CUV. The CRUZE should have been a Cruze and a Cruze PHEV. The Malibu was fine.. and the Impala and SS should have been a singular car for all intents a Pontiac G8 CLONE (all available HP levels of the Pontiac) on Alpha-L starting in 2014 with the debut of the CTS or on Ep2Premium (XTS-LaX) with available AWD like those two models.. while for the SS model have the LGX detuned for the sake of argument to 380HP. Size cost money due to perception and maximizing profits. In truth.. the Impala, LaX, and XTS are profitable.. but not as profitable without the XTS.

Far as I have heard its pretty sporty.. Strong V6 engine with over 305HP and maxing out at 4200lbs. The platform is known to be a great handler.. and even against the GC 360hp V8, which comes in at 800lbs more.. the Blazer should be able to run well against it.

It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth. Yes.. we have a little time base don current world population.. but what happens if population explodes again.. or there is a massive war? Why are we considering or even talking about neglecting a move into alternative propulsion systems? Furthermore.. where's the harm unless U are a lobbyist or employee of Exxon-Mobil and the like? If still If GM is the only company that breaks away from oil based cars.. which I still don't see happening for more than 20% of their line-up.. for at least another 10-15 years based on their current rate of movement.. then so be it.. U still have many other companies that will gladly continue building liquid fuel consuming ICEs. I am no tree hugger by any means.. and wouldn't consider a f@#kin Prius if my life depended on it.. I'm a known car guy.. and high horsepower gas drinkers are my goto.. with 2 S/C V8 cars, and 2 NA V8s in my stable..

The problem for Toyota is that the Civic does appliance just as well but in a more interesting way. The Mazda 3 does appliance well but in a much more luxurious way. And the Cruze... well.... nevermind about that.

Blazer is by far the best looking of the above vehicles.

FREE TRADE = SUICIDE -- Countries can make things or buy them from other countries. A country like the USA – with a lot of land, resources, technology and people – can make everything that we need and want. However, for many things it is cheaper to buy from other countries than to make it ourselves. This is because American workers get paid more, and because we have costly social and environmental standards. Let’s get one thing straight… it will always cost less for the USA buy rather than to make most things as long as there are countries in the world where workers make peanuts, while our social and environmental concerns are laughed at. -- When we buy more from other countries than sell to them, it is called a TRADE DEFICIT – an outflow of wealth from our country to others. Right now that stands at about $800 billion every year – eight hundred thousand million dollars with eleven zeroes – a figure greater than we spend on defense, education and infrastructure combined. What that means is that $800 billion worth of stuff are not being made in the USA, tens of millions of workers in other countries are employed to make this stuff and tens of millions of workers in the USA are not. If we keep having a massive trade deficit, sooner or later we’ll run out of money to pay other countries for our favorite stuff. -- With Free Trade we will continue to have massive deficits and lose the ability to make most of the things we enjoy in life. It will NEVER END until wage, social and environmental differences in the world are equalized. With Free Trade we’ll enrich developing nations and transfer to them the wealth past generations had built up in affluent nations. There is no country in existence today, or throughout the annals of history, with consistently high deficits that isn't in decline, and there isn't a country with consistent surpluses that isn't in ascension. That is why FREE TRADE IS SUICIDE! -- Let's set aside subjective opinions on the style and methods of the Trump Administration for a minute. The fact is that it is a good thing that we renegotiated NAFTA to include the most important thing -- an elimination of low wage motivation to move production to Mexico in form of the tax free nature of automotive and auto parts imports being conditional on a $16/hr wage floor in the factories that make them. This stops the bleeding of US industry to Mexico. It is also good that we say no to China which taxes our exports 25~40% whereas we tax theirs at 2.5%, not to mention the state sponsored dumping to kill off major US industries and the exploitation of easily pirated intellectual property. The EU is next and you cannot convince me that the current agreements with the USA taxing German automobiles at 2.8% while the EU taxes ours at 10% is a reasonable deal. -- I am not a believer in Free Trade -- not for affluent, developed, countries anyway. I am a believer in Mercantilism where the objective is not to maximize trade volume or minimize consumer goods prices, but rather to generate a trade surplus or at least achieve a net balanced in trade flow. I believe that tariffs should be high with countries with whom we have a deficit and zero with countries with whom we do not.

I totally believe that is what is killing the compact car class..they price them smash near mid size and CUV .Why spend 23k on a Cruze when for 25k you could have a Malibu or Equinox? Easy choice there. Now if they were still 15-17k? Different story there....

Brings up an interesting point. Despite the really high levels of scoot in some EVs (and I will offer the same statement some folk do WRT 3/4- and 1-tons trucks; 'Most people won't even use it')- electric power is devoid of so much of the visceral characteristics of IC that perhaps, indeed, it's true calling is that of the 'appliance vehicle'. Seems to make sense; lower the range of Kw, decrease the cost of the vehicle markedly, and suddenly it's that much more obtainable/appealing to the masses. In hindsight, it seems the push to stuff 10,000 cells into a car so it has scary-quick acceleration (which brings up another common statement; 'Most drivers can't handle it anyway') in order to make it 'cool' when it should have been targeted at the mainstream sector to realize economies of scale years quicker.

There is, but I think it's not published yet. I saw all the pictures come through earlier. It seems like Gallery images often appear before articles, I guess it's part of the publishing process. Or maybe I thought I saw them...I have been reading articles on Jalopnik and Autoblog today, they all run together after a while. Spoke too soon..it's there now.

After just 4 years, Mercedes-Benz has refreshed the AMG GT for the 2020 model year. A new programmable coil over setup allows for more agile handling depending on track conditions. As in professional motorsport, the driver is not only able to set the spring preload length mechanically, but can now also adjust the compression and rebound of the dampers. Both axels get adjustable torsion bars with carbon fiber up front and hollow-tube steel in back. The engines options are: Model Year 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT Mercedes-AMG GTC Mercedes-AMG GTR/ Mercedes-AMG GTRPRO Displacement 3982 cc 3982 cc 3982 cc Output 469 hp at 6000 rpm 550 hp at 5,750- 6,750 rpm 577 hp at 6,250 rpm Peak torque 465 lb-ft @ 1,700 – 5,000 rpm 502 lb-ft @ 1,900 – 5,750 rpm 516 lb-ft at 1,900 - 5,500 rpm Acceleration 3.9 s 3.6 s 3.5 s Top speed 189 mph 196 mph 198 mph Says Mercedes-Benz of the GT Pro, We can't wait to try one. View full article

I'm not opposed to any of those things for the sake of self gain.. but only a fool will argue that there is no negative aspects to continuing a reliance on fossil fuels. It could easily be argued tho that U are certainly more in league with such conservative organizations than I with any liberal ones. Like, for instance, I own plenty of firearms , and support the 2nd... but I don't need to go around announcing on a car forum that "I'm the NRA." Back to the negative aspects of oil.. drilling for one.. Continuous drilling leads to other problems. Its been seriously discussed by leading scientists that continuous drilling, fracking etc.. are part of the reason why we may be speeding up plate shifts in the Earths outer crust

They were saying that 50 years ago. The fact is that the math doesn't add up. US production has doubled from 1.8 billion barrels a year to 3.6 billion a year. Yet, US oil reserves had more than DOUBLED in the last decade from 20 billion barrels to 45 billion barrels meaning that they are finding a lot more oil than they are pumping despite the doubling of production rates during the same period. Oil will never just run out one day. That is not how it works. The way it works is that the easily to drill for reserves will be gradually depleted and more and more of the production will come from hard to get to reserves which progressively increases the price of oil and gas. This will in part be offset by advancement in technologies like hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and deep sea drilling. 500 years from now there will still be oil available, it'll just be stuff that is really deep in the oceans or small pockets under hills and mountains and the like. And, it'll still be drilled for for applications for in some quantity or another. The point is that there is no need to force fuel economy or electrification on the public. If and when oil gets to and stays at about $200 a barrel or more, the alternatives will start to make sense. If there is demand for 60 mpg cars at a $20,000 premium, manufacturers will make them within one or two product cycles. If batteries are cheap enough and/or the price of gas is high enough, people will naturally adopt electric vehicles and put up with the inability to refuel in 5 minutes. Turning your argument back on you, unless you are a beneficiary of Global Warming scams like carbon exchanges and lobbyists for corporate welfare concerns like Solar Manufacturers or Wind Turbine vendors, why will you be opposed to the natural and market driven evolution of energy sources?

Chief Pontiac crowning a spire on that Pontiac dealership on Long Island is very cool. I'll take their old logo or their new logo. When I was a kid, one of my friend's parents had a full size Bonneville convertible. Commanding presence and over 400 cubic inches guzzling fuel under the hood. The last American car in their family was an Oldsmobile Aurora. Now, all the cars in their driveway are Japanese. As for that dealership in Hot Springs, AR, that has become a destination for retirees and/or people looking to stretch their equity dollars. A friend knows a retired municipal employee from California who moved there and got herself a custom built home amidst the pines.

They made one LOOK sporty. They didn't actually make a sporty SUV. Absolutely but it should be compared to vehicles like the Grand Cherokee, Edge, 4Runner, and Murano.

Cause U are and have always been a hater.. But.. regardless.. its like rationale and reality completely go over your head... cargo space is measured not only lengthwise but width and HEIGHT. WTF!!! would this Blazer, sleek as a mofo in the rear (because we enthusiasts asked Chevy to make a SPORTY SUV and they did) not have a lil less room than say the upcoming Passport which is about as sporty looking as a Subaru Forester.. a possible donor to the whole design of the Honda. The Equinox also has a less Sporty (than Blazer) cargo area design.

Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too. Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts.

Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out.

I really like the blue cabrio...sharp interior. Looks like a great car for a relaxed winding road road trip..

I like this. But I also really like the "basic" AMG GT. I just think it's a great looking car with AMG V8 noises.

I think the H3T had a similar size bed, no 6ft option.

We'll where to begin....... ? Simply, science has proven Global Warming or climate change is Real, no Fraud here. But I get it some like to ignore the facts of science and climate change. Correct, battery charging is no where near gas refueling, but like the start of the ICE auto's, EVs are reducing the recharge time all the time and there is the total REAL convenience factor of just plugging in at home overnight and not having to run to the gas station, smell, dirtiness, etc. We have Level 1 (110V), level 2 (220V), and level 3 (440V) 3 phase. Level 4 is coming 800V as most of the OEMs have agreed to support this XFC or extreme fast charging design that will recharge a 400 mile battery pack in 15 min or less. So just like the start of the auto age with weak motors, poor mpg and slow refueling with manual gas pumps, they improved to what it is today over 100 years. We have already reduced charging times greatly and will do so even more in the next few years. Cost of charging be it public infrastructure or at home will reduce costs for end users compared to the craziness of gas. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/latest-bull-case-for-electric-cars-the-cheapest-batteries-ever Correct you are on the price of the 60 kWh battery pack, to be specific it is as of the end of 2017 $12, 540 per battery pack. Yet that price is a 24% drop from the year before and LG who supplies the 60kWh battery pack for the BOLT has already stated they have the cost even lower in 2018. This is just about a 5th of what it was in 2010 and the goal which the auto industry has stated they should achieve is below $100 per kWh by 2025. I TOTALLY AGREE with you about the trade, we have not had free equal trade in generations, politicians have always looked out for their own self interest, not that of this country or the citizens. If they did this, we would have proper control over the craziness of gun ownership and idiots that use them to hurt innocent civilians. To correct this we need level heads with negotiation skills, not bankruptcy manipulation skills of the current leadership. In regards to your last paragraph, I will say that we agree to disagree on some points, I still believe you can have a free trade system that also is balanced with a fair minimum wage to get kids some work experience, not this crap living wage of San Francisco. I believe you can have a decent living standard for workers with Free Trade. Our Democracy is way better than socialism, fascism, dictatorship, etc. that has failed and pretty much bankrupted Europe. Yet our own idiots in DC spending and borrowing against everything for their own self interest are about to bankrupt this country too. Remember, republicans approved borrowing against Social Security and Democrats approved taxing SS this is not an entitlement of the government but a benefit of those paid into it which both parties have then used to give away to court votes. The politicians should be held like the president to term limits, but then I like you have waded into the political arena and Drew killed that forum and asked us to behave the stay away from politics and talk cars. Back to Auto's, Trade needs to be better negotiated than the crap DC has done from current to past administrations, I agree on. Electric auto's are where ICE Auto's were 100 + years ago but are going to surpass the ICE industry as technology will allow better and faster change than what we had in the past. Costs will come down and the jobs will be in alternative energy, EVs, etc. This is NOT a LOSS of Jobs, but a CHANGE of Jobs that will require new skill sets. Dementia / Alzheimer's research has proven that when humans stop learning, stop working out, stop pushing themselves we start to shut down and decay. One must ALWAYS accept change and grow and learn. This way we continue to improve just as we did from Leaded gas to unleaded gas to electric / hydrogen etc. We should ALWAYS find better ways to improve the life we live on this planet and into space as we also find ways to improve how we live on this planet in a healthier cleaner way. Change is inevitable. Those that fight against change will be left behind by those that embrace it and look to the future.

There are three flaws to this logic... #1 There is no significant R&D to recover on electric drive trains. Neither motors nor inverters are anything "new". #2 The main costs in the electric drive train is the battery. You cannot have a $20,000 car with a $12,000 battery. And, the reason the battery is $12,000 is the physical cost of the cells in the battery. And, that, is again not an emerging technology with a lot of cost reduction pending either due to improvements or economies of scale. Those same cells have been used in Laptops and all manners of personal electronics for decades. That $40 battery you stick in the Camera or $80 battery for your laptop? Imagine that you need 200~400 of them and with liquid cooling. #3 There is still the fundamental problem of energy densities. Gasoline is at 46 MJ/kg vs Lithium-Ion Batteries at 0.30 MK/kg.

oh.. CAUSE ITS rwd? This makes zero sense in a world of adaptive AWD.. especially the advanced systems that are employed today. The Trav/Encl are excellent vehicles.. and I venture to say that it would be a waste to spend time arguing about track times of any of the three. Silly as a mofo in fact. What makes it worse is that if "whichwheel drive" is your thing what does it matter when the systems are able to go 100% to the rear. WTF are people gonna cry when they realize that the new C8 Corvette is most likely just this system ?.. It can be tuned to be sporty if necessary and I predict that if Cadillac simply goes into the treasure box of engines it will be fully capable of making this Lincoln also ran within no time. The Escalade will do the same with the Navigator Whats' the actual passenger space situation versus each other tho? That would seem to me to be a true reason to have a longer wheel base... not to mention handling and road going smoothness. I can't believe that an SUV fashioned to be sporty has a main function of Suburbanesq cargo space

Yeah it doesn't really make sense to me. I understand the looks and everything attracting people but the interior volume just seems off.

I would have to agree...have to say it caught my attention pretty quick...simple-yet clean.....

Workage.

C'mon; the evidence is NOT on your side on this point.

^ So has IC vehicles, but the ATP overall continues to rise. Don't expect EV cars to drop appreciably in cost. Once they are in solid enough demand that they are finally turning a profit, the OEMs are not going to push to reduce revenue by appreciably lowering price and potentially dip back into the red. It's not the way commerce works.

Yet Diesels have been around long enough to have reduced their cost and yet have not. As such, I do expect as the EVs take off prices will come down across the whole spectrum of autos from entry level to Luxury.

But to clarify- this isn't a pickup, it's a Wrangler with a bed. Problem as I see it is, Jeep is rumored to be charging nearly $20,000 for that bed. Not sure who this is aimed at other than existing Jeep buyers.

The EXACT same POV can be expressed towards EVs- very high buy-in threshold & hard for 'normal' people to justify. Hence the sales figures.

The majority of segments are dominated by 3-4 players. Full size pickup you have the Detroit 3, mid-size pickup, Toyota, Nissan, GM, minivan Toyota, Honda, FCA, luxury car is Lexus and the Germans, etc. If you aren’t one of the top players in a segment it is hard for an automaker to justify staying there. That is why GM and Ford don’t make minivans, FCA has very few sedans, Ford will have no sedans, etc. Mid size sedan, small and mid-size crossover has enough volume that 8-10 brands can play in that sandbox, but in other segments you better win or you won’t last. That is why Ford made cuts, GM is making these cuts and someday GM will realize that they don’t need 3 luxury SUV brands when Buick and Cadillac quit making sedans and one of those brands will get cut.

What @riviera74 and @Robert Hall said. The Aviator is Lincoln's rival to the upcoming XT6. And yeah.. Cadillac better come correct with their entry. Crazy thing is that they have all of the tools to counter it.

Aviator seems like it targets where an XT6 or XT7 would be. They already have the MKC (Corsair) and MKX (Nautilus) to target the XT4 and XT5.

So... U proved me right?? Even more to the point was that the Blazer was created to give the Chevy brand a more Sporty and upscale CUV. Thus far..at least in looks.. the vehicle accomplishes that in spades. Incremental size variations are what they are. Interesting. The Trax/Equinox/Blazer/Traverse essentially are supplanting the Sonic/Cruze/Malibu/Impala dynamic.

honestly, RWD platform, 400hp v6, nice styling inside and out, this is an unexpected big win for Lincoln and Ford. And it will fund the next cop car/SUV chassis. My op of Ford is down the last few years but they did good with this one. May make the Cadillac XT67 look like crap possibly if it is lacking 400hp or a good dynamic chassis or LAVISH interior.

That's relatively attractive.

How is there not a post reporting on the new Lincoln Aviator??? 400hp/ 400tq plus a plug-in version promising at least 30 miles of range(which gets you 450hp and 600tq).

Why buy any compact FWD Audi or Mercedes when you can get this? as well yeah maybe not turbo engine but at least it’ll still be a good $10,000 cheaper when fully loaded against the A3 or CLA models that are non AMG or non S