Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by surreal1272

  1. While the get the “paying homage” in the design, I would sincerely hope that Hyundai was not channeling that legendary POS Excel in that. My old guitarist had one in the 90’s and under that hood was the most Mickey Mouse clusterf*** of bad wiring I have ever seen in my life. Hyundai has come a long way since then but playing homage to that car is like Chevy paying homage to the craptastic Chevette. Otherwise, this a nice looking car (sorry, but I don’t see the CUV part in this currently). 

    • Upvote 2
  2. 1 hour ago, ykX said:

    Of course this is the best. 

    I am asking a particular question of Envision vs RDX.  Chinese manufacturing jobs and US corporate profit vs American manufacturing and Japan's corporate profit.

    Anyone else would like to share an opinion? @balthazar  @Drew Dowdell @ocnblu @A Horse With No Name @Robert Hall @ccap41 @surreal1272 @daves87rs anyone else?

    Honestly, I think Drew covered it best as just narrowing down to the choices you’ve given is too simplistic although I get what you were going for here. It is a very complicated situation in that regard. 

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 1
  3. 1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

    These things suck for their price tag. I had a loaner that was a pretty loaded up SEL and it stickered for like 28-29k. There was no way that thing drove or felt worthy of a near 30k price tag. 

    Same problem I have with the Trailblazer. Nice looking enough but around $30K, reasonably equipped with only 3 cylinders under the hood. Just a hard pass for that kind of coin. Way better slightly used choices to be had for that kind of money.

    • Upvote 2
  4. 27 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    Surreal:  It was David, as ever, who dragged EV into this thread.

    Cry me a river. You still contributed to it and made the above remark about EV fans before David said his piece. You really need to pay better attention instead of trying to backpedal your way out of it and ignore your part in this. And you conveniently left out the question you asked, that led to his response. 

    And what, pray tell, would you suggest

    • Confused 1
    • Upvote 1
  5. 35 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Right; there was discrimination, then there were lawsuits / anti-discrimination laws, not the other way around.

    Currently, there is no age-related onerous testing of a certain portion of approved/licensed drivers. 

    I'm merely prognosticating on the litigious nature of people and the current times we live in. I see all sorts of outcry if a '75-yr old and older regular driving skills test' is implemented.

    Totally disagree WRT a national testing standard. Unworkable. Now you're talking -say- having southern FL drivers in some sort of winter-environment test facility and the like. States have all sorts of different traffic laws & standards; you'd have to nationalize traffic laws, too.

    Last thing we need in the guise of improvement is the federal gov't's grubby hands in the matter.

    BIIIIG difference between the lawsuits regarding discrimination in employment and ones that you propose could happen regarding driving privileges. Employment affects one person at a time. Driving affects that one person plus everyone else who has to share the road with them. And there does not have to be age related testing per say. Just test every so many years (5-7 perhaps) across the board. Sorry but given that the older you get, the slower your reflexes get, I don’t see how this is really even a debatable topic.

    • Like 1
  6. If Nissan wanted to actually take a step forward with the Rogue (or Rogue Sport) they would find a way to put the 9-speed, from the upcoming Pathfinder (which finally ditches the CVT), in it. Oh and about 19 more horses on the larger Rogue. 200HP plus a nicely tuned 9-speed would do wonders for it.

    • Like 1
  7. 8 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Privilege/right is immaterial. Employment isn't a guaranteed right, but you can’t have different age-related treatments of employees. 
    I don’t disagree about ability degradation, but how that’s addressed is the question. And again I point to 16-17 yr old drivers, the worst of all age groups and fresh out of edumacation; what’s the suggestion there to address tje carnage- test them every 6 months until they’re 20?

    Except there laws regarding employment practices. The same does not exist for driving privileges. 

    • Thanks 1
  8. On 2/18/2021 at 3:38 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

    Ocnblu said: Reactions are hilarious considering they come from a crew of ppl who find EV redeemable in any way, shape or form.

    While you downvoted my post above about this being of your own making, you obviously ignored the facts. Your first response to everyone on this thread (which must have been deleted because I had to pull this from a reply to you) you tried to immediately make it personal by attacking the responses of others who did not care for the Rogue Sport and you even brought EVs into the discussion. Those pesky facts though.

  9. 9 hours ago, balthazar said:

    The potential legal problem isn't in testing drivers at a certain age, it's testing ONLY drivers of a certain age (vs. testing them all). Within the realm of licensed driving, that's an age-based 'discrimination'. Potentially.

    Well, unless the owners are dead and don't need their car repaired.

    Again, a privilege, not a right. Testing should happen after a certain age. If there is such a thing as too young to drive, there damn sure is such a thing as too old. Reflexes dull over time and that is a fact, for starters. 

    • Upvote 1
  10. 20 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    What's hilarious to me is this:  it was not too many munts ago, I was pointing out that gm considers the Bolt a crossover.  I was heckled up one side and down the other over it.  I even provided screen shots of gm's online order guide, showing it grouped with Chevy trucks on that gm site.  "IT'S A TALL HATCHBACK!!!" I heard it over and over again.


    NOW, what do you know... when the agenda calls for it, somehow the Bolt is a NATURAL COMPETITOR to the Rogue, Trax, and Kona.  Something stinks in Norway.  And Quebec.

    What’s hilarious is you ignoring the “EUV” and “FWD” part of most of those comparisons (on this thread) but by all means, keep crying about it. Also ignored is YOUR INITIAL comment about EV transmissions that started this in the first place. Furthermore, only Olds is making this claim here so now you are attempting to conflate that with what happened months ago. I, personally, do not agree with Olds assessment that the standard Bolt can be compared to CUVs and my initial comparison here was about the transmission and transmission alone so stop conflating the two. The EUV Bolt is another matter entirely though, for obvious reasons. Again, just more crying on your part because no one agreed with your Nissan humping act here.


    You also ignored empirical evidence to the contrary back then (like how not ONE sales sticker called it a CUV but in fact, a “wagon” and was never not once marketed to customers as a “CUV”) but hey, your “agenda” is the only one that matters here right?

  11. 4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

    LoL...as an aside, been watching a bunch of Jeff Bridges films recently...  watched 'Against All Odds', 'Jagged Edge', 'Blown Away', 'Arlington Road', 'RIPD', and 'Hell or High Water'... great actor, been a fan since the 80s..

    Funny. I was just watching The Big Lebowski the other night. Love Bridges in that!

    • Upvote 1
  12. 6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    Incorrect.  There would be no upvote from me on any politically charged post.

    But no downvote either thus proving the point here. Again, just step all the way off with the inflammatory non-sense after saying some of the stuff you have said here.

    • Upvote 1
  13. 2 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

    The reactionary down votes on here are both perplexing and interesting.

    I'm not advocating extended dialogue on this venue, but if people are going to disagree with you, both parties should have at least 10 to 15 minutes worth of relevant, detailed, and factual back up at hand.

    Reactionary people don't seem to grasp that. That's why they resort to being reactionary.

    Seems like at least one person here proved you right but hey no explanation needed right?

    1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

    It was not necessary to even post that video, let alone with the commentary attached.  Flat out.

    This video was accompanied by a snide, non-factual commentary that was unnecessary and inflammatory.  It is the reason downvotes exist.

    Now, if I smoked, I would light one up about now.

    Yet if it was a video of a Clinton or Obama tower, you’d be upvoting it until your fingers bled thus proving the point about knee jerk reactions. Everyone else thought it was funny as hell btw so maybe the problem here is not the video, not the commentary, and not the person who shared it. 

    There is also a certain irony here. The same person who replied with "speak Engrish" to someone whom he knows has a wife of Asian descent, complaining about "inflammatory" remarks. Step all the way off with that non-sense.

    Those are the facts here. 

    • Upvote 4

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...