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
    I know you commented first, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about I make a post and don't just comment back or respond like a civilized man, you respond with attitude. Agreeing 100% of the time blows. But finding something to disagree with 100% of the time is just annoying to deal with. Yeah, you went back on topic after you went of topic and made the topic me.
  2. ccap41
    So I'm not sure what your issue is with me but you might as well get over it. Since I've been back you've done nothing but follow me around and start arguments, like the above quote.. The two things I did first when I came back was read a few threads, "liked" something you said, and then made a post. Not sure where the issue is but I don't get it. It doesn't matter what I say or what my opinion is, yours seems to find the opposite ground.
  3. ccap41
    @Drew Dowdell ?
  4. ccap41
    It does when hes knocking the larger, roomier one saying the Bolt is much better.
  5. ccap41
    He's EV biased as much as smk is BMW/Merc biased and there's LESS room in a Bolt than in a Murano. I agree. I didn't bring up the Bolt. It's very spacious for its exterior dimensions.
  6. ccap41
    That is correct. But, a Murano(which is what was brought up here) is larger in every interior measurement minus a 0.1 inch rear head room advantage for the Bolt. So in this case, it is just ironic that one would praise the Bolt for its space over these larger raked CUVs.
  7. ccap41
    "these "raked" SUVs are too small" *in love with the Bolt*
  8. ccap41
    Well you only like the largest of SUVs and they have to be BOF. Aren't you all about EV and their efficiency? Now who cares about mpg? But you require the largest SUV in order to not talk trash about SUVs?
  9. ccap41
    Absolutely. I mean I hear its packaging is done well but if it was for sheer space you'd see more base model larger SUVs rather than Titaniums and Premiers.
  10. ccap41
    #utility #space
  11. ccap41
    HOLY BUCKETS THATS A LOT OF EXTRA SPACE! Ugliest vehicle on the market next to the X4, X6, and GLC Coupe.
  12. ccap41
    This is the only place that you lose interior volume with a raked or jelly bean style SUV. While yes it's volume that has nothing to do with putting a set of golf clubs in there. If it's too short or not wide enough then you're looking st the wrong size vehicle but that little squares off part I marked won't gain or lose you a set of clubs.
  13. ccap41
    And that's why there is a Tahoe/Expedition for you. A set of golf clubs has nothing to do with that raked look. That wouldn't change with a raked ceiling or a boxy ceiling. They either lay flat or they don't. Thanks, I thought so.
  14. ccap41
    Funny enough the Edge has more space behind the third row than a Grand Cherokee, with its raked rear end. The Durango isn't mid sized.. it's a three row-er. Isn't the Durango more of an Explorer/Traverse competitor? In which I was right, a mid size isn't what the buyer is looking for i they need that extra space.
  15. ccap41
    Yup, then the mid-size SUV isn't your jam anyway.
  16. ccap41
    There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.
  17. ccap41
    That'd be way cool!
  18. ccap41
    You think this ugly Nissan will steal 200-250k reservations from Tesla? I'd enjoy some of that Kool-Aid because it's gettin you high as F. People don't jsut buy Tesla because it's EV. Tesla is a status symbol now. Ask any human on the ace of the earth if they'd prefer a Tesla or a Nissan.
  19. ccap41
    I still don't see somebody buying a truck that much smaller than a Ranger over just a small CUV that has the same amount of space in the hatch(with the seats down probably more) as those do in their beds. There can't be too much need otherwise there would have been one out by now or some time in the last 5 years since the Ranger has been gone or the first gen Colorado.
  20. ccap41
    I hate that with engine downsizing they felt the need to move away from that naming scheme. "small number = bad". There's nothing wrong with a GLC200 and a GLC300 then needing to be 300 and 400 for no real reason..
  21. ccap41
    It just seems too small for even that task. Why would somebody buy that over a small cuv with more capability and not british reliability? The current max payload for a Mini Cooper is 895lbs - 200lbs for a driver - 150lbs passenger and/or other miscellaneous stuff and we're talking 550lbs of available payload.. Yeah, that'd work for the housewife who's into gardening and just needs to grab a bag or two of potting soil or mulch and thinks Minis are cute but that's a pretty narrow market right there. I'm not opposed to a true small truck like the previous Ranger by any means but i think something this small is useless. I think there is room in the market for a small truck but not this small. This can't be marketed to small towns or cities as a cheap, efficient, work truck like a small Ranger/S10 could.
  22. ccap41
    Damn, I didn't realize it was that long ago.. I know the "350" Mercedes of not too long ago were still 3.5's. That's only because I had one but I wouldn't doubt if they were slowly moving away from that during that period though. In all honestly, displacement and output are basically the same thing when it comes to a badge. Higher number, more power.. I just don't like it for no good reason, really.
  23. ccap41
    This... is stupid... I don't like numbers matching output. I'd prefer it match the displacement, like Benz and BMW once did.
  24. ccap41
    Payload you ask? They're less than 50lbs apart(1548lbs vs 1499lbs). It's a wider, longer, and deeper bed as well. They're three tenths of an inch different in ride height but it's largest downfall is towing capability. 7000lbs vs 5000lbs (Duramax ups it to like 7600lbs). Yes, it's AWD system isn't going to be as good off road as a the 4wd system in the GMs but it will do 95% of what the Canyonado will do overall with a more livable interior and "regular" driving dynamics. Why would anybody buy that though? You can't even fit a bicycle in the "bed" with the front wheel off.
  25. ccap41
    You're right, it does 95% of the work a Colorado/Canyon can with a much superior ride and driving dynamics(because that's what trucks do 95% of the time..driving unloaded, commuting)
×
×
  • 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