oldshurst442

Sure. But there will come a time when Tesla will figure it out. Perhaps never...but if they never figure it out, that will spell the end of their existence. If the Model 3 never comes out of production hell, then Tesla goes will cease to exist ending their bid for semi-trucks in the process as well...and Pepsi and Wallmart could kiss their deposits good-bye...because I have a feeling, Tesla will NOT refund those. Those deposits that were made for the trucks were to line Tesla's coffers so they could continue to burn through billions of dollars... Thor...whose to say that they wont see production hell as well? Thor is based in California? Silicon Valley? Yeah...as if Silicon Valley idiots know about mass production of goods. They shun Detroit because they see Detroit as dinosaurs and the electronic toys they do create, well, their facilities to produce are in China....slave labour... So...I dont have much faith in Thor either.

Function over form and I fully understand that...but I find both Tesla and Thor trucks very ugly. So...Im not a fan for either truck regarding looks. Im not a trucker, so I dont know what is more better, comfortable, useful for them. Side by side seating versus center seat central with 2 rear seats after that. Ill go with function over form with that as well and listen to a trucker or two for their input as to what they prefer on that issue. Regarding the performance specs. Ill just wait and see when indeed the real trucks come out and are tested in reality to form an opinion on that. And on that bombshell...Ill answer the question that was asked. Which company will produce and be ready to deliver first? Thor is a brand new company? Another start up? At least Tesla HAS mass produced some models so far even though the Model 3 is still stuck in hell. I think Im gonna sit this one out coach...I have no answer. The odds...could go either way...

The logo... Looks like a pissed off version of Tesla's logo. A Tesla logo that uses the Dark side of the force.

Yikes... That generation of Bimmers has GOT to be the nicest...its when they had their A-game in style and in mojo. I dont wanna know what generation of Bimmers you find nice as I probably would want to puke as soon as you reveal to me what those are. I could handle a couple of 1980s Bimmers. There are plenty from the 1990s that I like. But Bimmers from the 1970s and Bimmers from 2000s-2017....NO THANK-YOU!!! (M6 Grand Sport has got to be the sole exemption) (maybe another model that Im certainly forgetting...ah yes...the 1M of a couple of years back and the M2 that followed it)

I literally can do anything...Im GOD! Bitterness is sweet!

I want Camaro to continue being what it is. A V8 muscle (pony) car. Yeah yeah...a Camaro is nowhere near being the classic muscle car it once was as now its a world class 2+2 sports car handling twisties and accelerating like mad and being basically a world class performer. Its still a big V8 brute though... With that being said, how the Camaro evolved into this new persona since its resurrection is how it should re-define itself moving forward into the future by also being a Tesla roadster fighter...with both convertible and coupe EV offerings. Eventually the V8 will be gone... Im not saying this transformation (pun intended: Bumblebee robot transformer and electrical transformer...) Im not saying this transformation should be done tomorrow...but sometime in the next decade. In the meantime, hybridization should be introduced shortly.

One of the few Bimmers I love. I really really love this car!!! But...under the hood of a Chevy SS lies an LS engine. One of my favorites of V8 engines during these modern times....No need to do an LS swap on it as it already adorns one... Unlike what these poor bastards did to their E39 Bimmers... Plus I get magnetic shocks and stuff with a very nice luxurious interior worthy of a high end Bimmer anyway with the Chevy SS... So...If Im to choose, Id choose the Chevy SS. Or...maybe Id do a Pontiac G8 Firehawk instead.

I just realized I did the same thing... X...J220 If a Camaro does indeed get an inline 6 sometime in the future... IF is all Im saying.... What a strange turn of events it would be... I think there is more of a chance it get the Bolt battery technology and powetrain, but that would be for another conversation elsewhere in this website...

Whoa! The ATS is EXACTLY what enthusiasts were asking for from a performance "entry level" luxury compact car. It would be the first of its kind to actually give a BMW 3 Series run for its money. Mercedes all through the 1980s, all through the 1990s, all through the 2000s tried and failed BIG TIME and decided to quit on that formula. Cadillac FINALLY got it right! Problem is: 1. That type of car is no longer in vogue. CUVs from lux brands are what is in vogue. 2. That type of car was needed for Cadillac in the 1990s. After 2010, many wanting to return to Cadillac seem to want Cadillac to go back to their own true roots. Cadillac seems to not only miss the boat in 1990 in ignoring that segment and half-assing it, but they seem to be ignoring the cry from their own Cadillac following from the 2010s that to be relevant going forward, Cadillac needs to be Cadillac... So...although its a sales flop, the ATS is....its NOT because its a bad car. Its just the wrong car for the brand!

Very low volume. 224 built. Even a Buick Grand National GNX had more production numbers than that of an XJ220. Handbuilt...could it be a moot point as AMG engines are handbuilt? Either way, your point will always be valid. The inline 6 from Mercedes is intended to be mass produced and to be used in a plethora of vehicles. The inline 6 from Mercedes would be akin to the 3.8 liter V6 from Buick or the ecoboosted 3.5 from Ford. Designed to be mass produced to be used in all sorts of cars, but a special few would be made into something special and put into special halo cars...

ZJ220. As in Jaguar ZJ220. Production from 1992-1994. The concept car and promise was for it to be a 12 cylinder. Many deposits for it. When Jaguar decided for it to be a Twin Turbo V6, many of those deposits were canceled. Pretty little thing. From the front.... Not so pretty from the back. In my opinion.

If you guys dont know, I have 70 DIECAST model cars in scale 1:18. I used to have over 100. I since have downsized the collection to 70 and only recently have I displayed them. I got rid of the doubles and the redundant models. It makes for a more tighter and focused collection. I decided to stop at 70. Problem is....I dont have the Alpines (new and old) in my collection and I would LOVE to have them. Problem is...they wouldnt fit as I dont have any other room in my display cases (I could make room of I wanted to...but it be too crowded messin' up the perfect view points I have know)) and they wouldnt fit my display themes either.

Robocop...if it aint the Taurus we are talking about...then its the one and only 6000 SUX. An American Tradition getting a shytty 8.2 m.p.g. It even comes with a Blaupunkt radio... Based on a 1977 Olds Cutlass Supreme. http://robocop.wikia.com/wiki/6000_SUX About the Robocop 5 reference though. Could it be satire?

Call it the opposite of a Corvette. If the Corvette packs a huge V8 in a front mid-engine configuration powering the rear wheels, the Alpine has a diminutive 4 cylinder in a rear mi-engine layout powering the rear wheels. (For it to be 100% the opposite, it have to be powering the front wheels...) One thing for sure is that both Alpines (new and old) are awesome little race cars. I want me one. The new one. I could park it next to my Fiat 124 Abarth. (the new one as well.)

Would that be anybody that I have communicated with? Just curious and a yes or no answer would be suffice if privacy may be an issue if names are not to be divulged.

I too, hope the GMC version is nicer. It usually is. At least that is how it was for the last couple of generations.

Sure...why the hell not???!!! Shyte...Id be a George W. Bush Jr. constituent had the F Series pick-up been as attractive as it was back in the day... Its sad though...that the most macho-est truck out there with the most intimidating motorvation ever is a decade old and never coming back... These new Chevys and Fords though...

Why is Ford and Chevy creating these ugly trucks? Its bad enough that Nissan's and Toyota's full sized offerings are ugly as sin. (with Toyota's mid-sized offering being uglier than that still...) There is no need for Ford and Chevy to over style these. There is no need to go overboard with the machismo.

The 2 generations of the 1960s A-Body from GM (1964-1967 & 1968-1972) and the last generation of GM's G-Body (1978-1987,1988) have got to be one of my favorite muscle car stylings of all time. And that would be across all the brands that used these platforms. It dont matter if it be Chevy or Pontiac or Oldsmobile or Buick. Awesome stuff!

Take this quote: And rebuttal that quote this way: which is a fair and decent way to counter. But...dont be a-cryin' when jobs in your country are that much less and the "real" jobs are leaving to go to to "foreign" lands. Dont be a-complainin' about your Presidential leaders not doin' enough to create "new" jobs and dont be a-fussin' and yellin' that the country needs more education in schools...and that your country needs to bring back manufacturin' jobs...

@Sal Collaziano I dont do numbers anymore. I dont argue about them either. When someone INSISTS on one car being faster than another and then proceeds to tell me that that car is better than the other JUST BECAUSE of said numbers I just ignore. I am NOT saying that is what you did here. Nor am I accusing you of anything, I am just telling you how I am and how I deal with numbers. I know that numbers change from day to day and from track to track and all kinds of factors are involved. Factors like the test drivers for instance. Skill also plays a role with numbers. Just to let you know, I was not offended by any of your comments, nor did I judge you negatively in any way. I just wanted sound discourse and I want us to continue with sound discourse in the future, you and I. I did not mean anything by my posts to you. I just wanted you to understand why I and CCAP questioned the "under 12 seconds" remark. I just wanted to point out and correct the discrepancy. Nothing more, nothing less. You should post in here more often as I enjoy reading your posts!!!

I never said that you did. I just mentioned that because you mentioned that before any discussions were made. Im just reassuring you that he and I were not annoyed with the Stinger's numbers and all we want is sound discourse.

12.79 seconds is totally NOT under 12 seconds. That is .79 seconds and that is a whole lot. That does not mean that 12.79 seconds in the quarter mile is not fast, because it is. But...saying the Stinger does the 1/4 mile in under 12 seconds means that the Stinger is an 11 second car. But these guys did the 1/4 mile in 12.79 seconds....that is quite a big gap for the Stinger to be an 11 second car. In fact, its a high 12 second car. Meaning, the way you presented the Stinger, you made it seem like it belonged in the 11 sec bracket. Its a 12 second car. Just to give you an idea, (forget about prepped tracks and slicks and barometric pressures and the like because all that plays into the times...just use the numbers for chit chatting and learning a lesson) Just to give you an idea... Car and Driver https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-dodge-charger-srt-392-first-drive-review An Dodge Charger SRT 392 6.4 liter V8 weighing 4400 lbs producing about 485 Horsepower and 475 ft. Lbs of torque does the 1/4 mile in 12.4 seconds At the same publication....Car and Driver https://www.caranddriver.com/kia/stinger got the Stinger weighing 4100 lbs to do the 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds @108 mph. The Stinger has got 365 horsepower and 375 ft.lbs of torque (like I said...just use the numbers as a guide line...different day, different track...etc...) In other words...120 horses less and 100 ft.lbs less resulting in 1 full second less in the 1/4 mile... The Dodge Charger Hellcat again from Car and Driver https://www.caranddriver.com/dodge/charger-srt-srt-hellcat ...at 4550 lbs with a 6.2 liter supercharged V8 producing 707 horsepower and 650 ft. lbs of torque does the 1/4 mile with standard tires but prepped track in 11.4 seconds @ 128 mph. Taking the two Chargers...same car with different powertrains...it took 222 horses and 175 ft.lbs of torque to gain 1 full second in the 1/4 mile... Meaning...the Stinger needs a whole lot of horsepower and torque than what it has to achieve under 12 second runs... Car and Driver got 13.2 seconds. The Aussie guys got 12.79 seconds...its believable...the Stinger might have had slicks or it was a prepped track or the weather heavily favored that run...but to say the Stringer is an under 12 second car....well....for that to happen...at 4100 lbs...it probably needs close to Hellcat horsepower and torque...in other words....at least 600 horsepower... Just to show you further... From Car and Driver 2000 December (keeping it stable and constant with the test resource) https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/slp-trans-am-10th-anniversary-firehawk-road-test-review A 10th Anniversary SLP Trans Am producing 335 hoprsepower and 350 ft./bs of torque from a 5.7 liter V8 weighing 3576 lbs (very close to Stinger numbers albeit weighing considerably less) did the 1/4 mile that particular day in 13.6 seconds @106 mph... As a guide line... aprox. 300-350 horsepower and 300-360 ft.lbs of torque on cars weighing 3500-4000 lbs will produce high 12 second to low 13 second 1/4 mile cars... (I remember quite well that a 4rth generation LS1 Camaro ...same as that Trans Am...did constant 1/4 mile runs in the high 12 seconds...) Like I said...Just numbers....to be used as a guideline...and that is why @ccap41 questioned you... And no, I dont think he is annoyed about the Stinger numbers....I aint either. Its pretty cool actually that KIA offers us a car like this!!!