ccap41

Tiguan and e-Golf are the two lone bright aspects.. Then again I think those are the only two cars in their US lineup that don't have the diesel option. Oh, I guess the GTI also, as they list it separate for some reason. I'm so curious as to what their fix will be for the diesels and when they will make another proposal.

Wow, my condolences to both families here... Rough couple of days.

Keep up the progress. 'Merica.

Wow, the new Malibu appears to have taken off very well! Seeing it slightly more often and the previous Malibu often enough, the new one looks pretty dang good in comparison. I didn't like it initially but it's growing on me. The brand growth thing kind of confuses me when I see a negative from this year to last year for the Chevrolet name.

Are you sure you're not looking at figures for a 2WD/4WD though? Fueleconomy.gov shows the 2WD version dropped 1mpg highway and the 4WD version dropped 1mpg city and highway from 2015 to 2016 2015 2WD: 16/23 2016 2WD: 16/22 2015 4WD: 16/22 2016 4WD: 15/21

It is fairly new. It isn't innovative, but I still don't like it. It waters all of the names down. F Sport, M Sport, VSport, and now this AMG thing. Is this ffering more performance than the previous C450 of last year? Or did they just rename it?

I like it. Looks good. I just don't understand using the AMG name/badge on it. I feel they're going to slowly water down the brand. I actually don't think the 2016 Toyotas are bland anymore. The new front ends they've thrown on in the last few years with all the hard angles take the bland away. I don't think they look great or anything but no longer bland looking. My bland award would go to Nissan. Not only are Nissans bland but they don't make anything even worth considering. At the very least Toyota has the Corolla, Camry, and Tacoma with all very good reputations. Nissan has..the Altima..?

While that is a super long time if you're traveling and stop at a hotel at night and sleep for 8hrs, wake up, eat and leave in another hour... 9-10hrs of charge isn't all that bad. Plus, it isn't like you got there at 0%. I assume that would be a good 10% to 85% charge? I'm just thinking of the mid-travel type of situation because other than that 700 miles of range will cover anything else.

Fear mongering in this thread made it into a range anxiety thing...even a reliability thing...FAP TURBO has got the right idea... But..when humanity has no knowledge of something, humanity fears it, ridicules it and is biased against it. And yes SMK...when people are pressed for time, and in today's society, it seems that they are always pressed for time...people hardly drive long distances anymore, the take the airplane... And if they must drive for whatever reason, people actually rent cars...in other words, people hardly ever use their personal vehicles for long distance traveling anymore...but...it makes for a more interesting thread to whine and complain... This is the latest whine fest at Cheers and Gears....be sure to turn in tomorrow...as these are the days of our lives at Cheers and Gears. That is how the world turns, at Cheers and Gears. So you're saying I should spend something like a minimum of $80k on a Model S, but if I want to go on a road trip of any distance, I should spend more money to rent a gas powered car SO I CAN TRAVEL AT MY OWN WHIM? Very sound reasoning there. Holds the Tesla up as an $80k toy that has to be put away when shit gets real. No whining here. O get a real auto like a Suburban, convert it to Eletrical and put in the proper battery packs that give you a 600 to 700 mile range. Enjoy your road trip and charge at the hotel that night. How long would it take to charge massive battery packs like that from a 110 outlet?!?!?

You're right but if they're trying to appeal to everybody, which I think that is the long term goal because they're making a sub 40k car, there will be people who will actually made that drive. And honestly the 4.5 hour trip to drive is about the time it would take to drive to the airport, park, get to airport early for check in and crap, fly, get bags, and pick up a rental car. Or drive on your own and not deal with any of that crap and you're on your own schedule.

The current Sprint cup series cars make 725 hp, they lowered it from around 850. I read one of the Waltrips said that 204 mph is the about the max speed for a stock car to stay on the ground with the air flaps they have on them. Elliot's all time record speed is 228 mph, but today's cars are slower. I think they can still hit 200 mph with 450 hp because a lot of that is based off the draft, in a group you don't have as much air so the cars use that draft to add speed and maintain it. Plus gearing comes into play, on Talladega or Daytona they are mostly running a constant speed or in the 175-200 mph window. A Corvette can hit 180 mph or so with 450 hp and it isn't made for a race track. An AMG GT has a top speed of 190 mph with 500 hp. So with racing in mind and the drafting I think 200 mph is doable on 450 hp. The acceleration is lessened, but they don't need acceleration at Daytona. A Veyron has a 268 mph top speed though, in a straight line it would destroy any race car, F1, Indy, LeMans, NASCAR doesn't matter. The Veyron isn't good in corners, but on a track like Talledega or Daytona where corning ability is not really needed, I think the Veyron could compete with a Nascar. Not an Indy cary though as they would hold their speed in the turns better. What we need is someone to lap a Veyron around Indy speedway, Daytona or Talledega so see how fast it is. 190mph in the corners isn't exactly slowing down much for the Sprint Cup cars at Daytona and Talladega. There is no way a Veyron could take those turns at that speed. Actually, it probably couldn't go through the tri-ovals without letting off. Indy would be a no-contest for a Sprint Cup car. Those are real corners which the Veyron would look stupid. Full horsepower and real turns. I actually don't know i it would destroy an F1 car to 100, 150 mph. An F1 car can do 0-100-0 in under 5 seconds. "The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp/t (0.93 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (60 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h (60 mph). After about 130 km/h (80 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence continuing to accelerate the car at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed] 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds 0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds" "Britain's Autocar magazine recently gathered a formidable roster of supercars (and one of the greatest sportbikes ever produced) for its annual 0-100-0 showdown. The winner of the gathering was the Bugatti Veyron, which continues to walk the walk like no supercar before it. Consider the breakdown of the Veyron's performance: 0-60: 2.8 seconds (!) 0-100: 5.5 seconds (double-!) By the time the car came to a stop, 9.9 seconds had elapsed." The bottom line. The Veyron is not a race car. It will not beat true race cars at what they are designed to do, race. Hahaha There are always the enthusiasts who get their hands on anything they want.. In this case, Teslas.

The article was written in 2004. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/rusty-runs-unrestricted-car-news You had me second guessing my reading there! lol

There would definitely be range anxiety for me still. Check the maps above for how close I am to stations. Yes, it would be VERY seldom that I'm driving more than 200 miles in one day but outside of the STL area, it gets pretty sparse... I could travel to Chicago from where I'm at though!

This is my issue and why they aren't viable for a lot of people yet. This is just where I am in reference to the nearest charging stations. This one is roughly my trip from IL to IA to visit my sister. She doesn't live in Des Moines but about an hour east of there. As you can see.. past SLT it gets sparce to say the least. And the way we travel is up through MO along the IL/MO border. To drive to Columbia to charge me car is out of the question, almost 2 hours out of the way.

There may be plenty of them, but not across the whole US. Those ones out west don't help me at all nor help me decide whether I will consider buying an EV or not.

I thought it would have been 4WD but I read this, "The full-time 40/60-split all-wheel drive is basically unchanged (a rear-drive model comes later)". Granted that was a Denali review I was reading..but still.. Personally, I think the Tahoe of that generation looks better than the Yukon but if you want a little more luxury to your BOF SUV then get the GMC. Was yours a 5.3 as well? It looks like they offered a handful of engines back then.

^ LOL that's the only part about it I like. I've never really been a fan of anyting BMW outside of their bread and butter 3/4 and 5 series, and their M variants. Nothing else grabs my attention and the only reason those do. Maybe their design language just doesn't work on bigger vehicles for me. 110% agree. Looks like they tried to make a little GTE Z4 out of a barge.

I like it. I like they are starting small and seeing how the program does or does not take of before going too deep into it. It would be nice if the gains were a little better but for 500 bucks its a bargain, imo.

The Yukon starts $17,000 more than the Acadia and with the 2k price drop it will be 19k difference. That's pretty significant to most people, probably all buying the Acadia. So while it is only a step away it is an un-affordable jump for most. So size per dollar is why people are upset about it. Personally, I like it because I like the Edge and Grand Cherokee size vehicles. Larger, 2 row SUVs. I got cha... but if U read my post.. I did include the ENCLAVE in those "steps away.." You're right. I guess I just assumed staying with the GMC family because GMC's and Buick's styling is very different. Hey kind of random, kind of not, my sister and her husband are buying a used '09 Yukon SLT. gimme the down low on it. Ups and downs to it? I don't really know much about it yet as that's about all they told me so I'm assuming the 5.3 and 4wd. Back then was their 4wd a form of an AWD system but 'stronger'?

GM's all come with a tow truck on speed dial as well. OnStar. They've had it for decades at this point. Does that mean they aren't reliable vehicles or does it say they offer great customer support? In defense to the infrastructure, which I COMPLETELY agree that it needs to expand before I will consider an EV, you can "fill" your vehicle up at home, at night, while you're sleeping, any time you want, and never step foot into a gas station for weeks or months unless you plan a trip anywhere making fill-up stations useless to most. Now for the smaller 80-100 mile range Focus/Golf/Leaf..they need the stations more than Teslas do with their smallest batter yielding 240 miles of range.

Those were also back in the times when they were running COMPLETELY different cars where the aero, tires, chassis, weight and everything aren't as finely tuned as they are now(meaning it took more raw power to achieve those peak speeds). Back then they also weren't 900hp cars probably more in the 750-800 range. I don't know if any ever made claims of quite 900hp. (edit before I even post - some are making the claims of touching 900hp but this was pre '16 where it appears there is an 850hp limit now) So I'm trying my damnedest to look up about how much power they were making back in 2004 but it's quite difficult to get anything before 2007 when they went to the COT crap. Anyway, in 2013 they were making around 850hp. Elliot's run was not just a flat out 0 to as-fast-as-it-can-go. He was coming off of a turn and had to slow back down to another turn. He said with tuning and tweaking they could probably hit 235mph with that same car and track(Talladega). So the modern cars can keep them wound up more in the corners with the aero and tire packages.

155 mile range.. They're slowly getting there. The're slowly becoming more and more practical.

I don't think the concept 8 looks good at all. If they ditched the GTE race car fender flares and front fascia it would look better. The area right around the headlights looks terrible and like they put a wide body kit over the OEM headlights. It genuinely looks bad to me. Not just bad in comparison to the S-Class coupe and El Miraj but just not a good looking front end and "fender flares". The cabin shape looks super sharp and like it has A LOT of potential though. I genuinely think the S-Class Coupe looks slightly better than the El Miraj and the thing I like most about it(and most other MB siblings) is the body lines through the doors and onto the rear 1/3 behind the doors but in front of the wheel. Don't get me wrong, I love the look of the El Miraj, I just think the S-Class Coupe is one of the cleanest, sexiest cars to have been produced. It's large enough that they got to scuplt it as they wanted so it's got some curves and because it's large it has a presence to it. I just love it. The El Miraj has just a tad more "gnarly" to it that takes away just a bit for me. It's super cool but the lines instead of curves don't work as well on THIS TYPE of car. CTS-V and E63 AMG... the lines look MUCH better than the curves of the AMG.

I think it will take a long time to get down to the dirt racing. Very intriguing stuff though.

No way does BMW have the ability to make a car look as good as an S-Class Coupe. It's elegant and powerful looking, gorgeous car. Good luck BMW.