Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

ccap41

New Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,768

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    87

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ccap41

  1. ccap41
    Yup, pretty spot on.
  2. ccap41
    At full MSRP that's a significant difference but I've seen new 2.3 Mustangs for as low as 21-22k.
  3. ccap41
    Are you drinking that Chevy Kool-Aid or something? The Mustang's isn't good but it definitely isn't as small of an opening as the Camaro's. Yes, the Challenger clearly has the advantage in any competition that involves more space to the user.
  4. ccap41
    I think the interior was a major improvement over the 5th gen. At least looks-wise. It was too long ago to really remember what anything felt or sounded like.
  5. ccap41
    Also the trunk opening that can barely fit a bag of marshmallows through it. The Mustang trunk opening isn't massive by any means but my god they've made the Camaro hardly livable for anybody who wants to daily it.
  6. ccap41
    I saw a '19 Denali last week at my local dealer and it MSRP'd for 67k. Pretty truck though. It's amazing how much better the Sierra looks than the Silverado.
  7. ccap41
    The new Camaro looks so fckn ugly that nothing will help the refreshed one sell. They done screwed the refresh up.
  8. ccap41
    Good lookin' car but it's disappointing it has the same n/a 4 pot.
  9. ccap41
    No, it's the blatant lie calling the interior a "1990's dated mess". You just have it out for the German companies for some reason. The only thing that looks better to me is where the infotainment screen is located. Everything else looks better or equally good looking. The seats and instrument cluster look way nicer in the BMW.
  10. ccap41
    At first look I think it looks gnarly and awesome but the more I look at it I don't like something about the front and I think it's the grille. I'm all for a black grille but something about it they made it look really crappy. It's still gnarly but not exactly how I would want it to look.
  11. ccap41
    I would LOVE for my bus to be as quiet as an EV bus.
  12. ccap41
    Weird they would replace the 1.8T with this with almost identical numbers. 1.8T: 170hp @ 6200RPM - 184tq @1500RPM Rated: 25/38mpg 2.0T: 174hp @ 5000RPM - 184tq @ 1500RPM Rated: 25/36mpg
  13. ccap41
    I understand the people on the streets and in the homes want the quietness/cleanliness but they're not paying for the trucks to deliver so what's that really matter? I'm definitely not opposed to the whole EV work truck thing, I'm just saying at that short of daily driving it would take beyond the truck's useful life to pay itself off.
  14. ccap41
    It's a little tough to believe they really only drive 50-60 miles a day. It would take forever to pay off the EV premium therefore it wouldn't even be worth it. They would also only need to fill up a diesel tank once a week with that kind of mileage.
  15. ccap41
    I thought this had the 1.8T and 3.6 V6..? Is the 2.0T new to the Passat? A buddy of mine bought a 2017 SE with the lighting package as a dealer used for $18,500 with only 7600 miles on it. Heck of a price.
  16. ccap41
    What kind of products are they delivering that they need that kind of payload capacity yet they are only driving 50-60 miles a day?
  17. ccap41
    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.
  18. ccap41
    Well yeah, anybody whose route is the maximum distance the vehicle could travel, wouldn't be ideal. That 110 mile range would be dropping to 70-80 miles in the winter so this is more of a warm weather solution unless their trips really are that short.
  19. ccap41
    That's just stupid to me. X does something stupid so A, B, C, and D all follow along...
  20. ccap41
    Why are they referring to charging time in miles? Shouldn't they be saying they will charge a 100kW(example) battery in X minutes? That range will depend on the vehicle and it might take 20kW for a CUV but only 15kW for a car to travel 100 miles which would be two different charging rates. It is also nice everybody is looking to overtake Tesla's Supercharger system but how long until those are widespread like Tesla's already is? I mean they've got to be 5-10 years behind Tesla in that regard even though their charging rates will be much quicker. This is 3 years of development away plus they have to actually implement it.
  21. ccap41
    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.
  22. ccap41
    It sounds very promising as long as they place the chargers near the loading docks so they can charge and load at the same time so when they're parked for an hour loading/unloading at the HQ they can recharge some and go back on their way. That would be ideal.
  23. ccap41
    "Classic Mercedes"
  24. ccap41
    "If it was not for their CUVs, this company would be hurting big time." Insert any automaker. ?
  25. ccap41
    You're right, I doubt anybody can tell the difference between the CLA and S Class. Aren't you a Cadillac fan? And you're okay with them doing the same thing from ATS to CT6? Every automaker has come to this. MB is no exception, it's the norm.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search