surreal1272
-
Posts
6,613 -
Joined
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Garage
Gallery
Events
Store
Collections
Everything posted by surreal1272
-
Review: 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross SEL S-AWC
surreal1272 replied to William Maley's topic in Reviews
Helping sales or not, I’ve seen a few around town and cannot look around that hideous Asztek rear end. Just horrible. The presence of a CVT does not help its cause but I think all CVTs should be burned with dragon fire.- 7 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- 2018
- eclipse cross
- (and 2 more)
-
The EPAs own website (and a side by side comparison with the EV SUV Tesla Model X). Notice the size classifications
-
Not disagreeing with your assessment. It’s more about how it was being marketed and sold. One mention in a order guide that most people don’t use doesn’t change the fact that it was never marketed as a CUV. GM flubbed the marketing completely, whether it be because of the design (which is a valid complaint for most folks), the price, or any other number of reasons. None of this changes what I have brought up to the resident anti-EV troll. When looking for a crossover or SUV on Chevrolet.com, here are your options. Funny how there is no Bolt on there.
-
I don’t think you understand the definition of the word “troll”. Also, I don’t give a damn what the order guide says. Most customers don’t go there and don’t even know about them unless they deal with fleet sales. When you go to Chevrolet.com to build one (or just research it), you will find not ONE mention of it as being a CUV. No salesman has ever sold the Bolt as a CUV and no one has ever confused as a CUV especially with just one glance at the window sticker on the lot that says “wagon”. You are trying to use a weak argument of semantics because you have nothing else. Fact is that if the Bolt tech had gone into an Equinox (for example), sales would have been higher. Everyone else but you sees that. Maybe it’s just denial or your simple hate of everything EV but it doesn’t change those facts. And you have the nerve to call anyone else here a “troll”. LMAO!
-
Most people drive precisely because of “consermerism” whether they realize it or not.
-
Ford Invests $500M in Rivian to Gain Platform Access
surreal1272 replied to Drew Dowdell's topic in Rivian
The crickets are his only friends since that’s all he seems to hear lol. Why else bother with yet more trolling remarks? -
Quoting wiki now? Yeah, that’s reliable. Talk about a simple statement lol. Your desperation is starting to show. Now about that CT5, the one GM says is a “3 series and C Class competitor” despite the near ten inches more in length (see where this is going yet ocnblu?), will this really mean that there will not be a smaller model underneath it, i.e. a CT4? There still seems to be some confusion about that.
-
Now, I’m done with this @ocnblu because it has gotten sidetracked here. Go on believing that you aren’t doing anything else here other than trolling and crying about EVs but this is about the CT5 and I think it needs to get back to that. That’s all you got? Point proven.
-
Settle down there junior. You clearly had time for it or you wouldn’t be here. Here’s some more evidence. Now you will the first two images saying everything but CUV. The third is for the Trax CUV, from Chevys own page. The first paragraph states that it is an “SUV”, much how the Bolts own page states that is a “car”. Understand the difference yet?
-
Again, provide a link. It’s that simple. Edit:Nevermind. I found it. One reference guide, even one from GM does not change the fact that the Bolts own page (Chevrolet.com) is under only “electric vehicles” and not “SUVs” and going here makes no mention of what it is other than “car”. Call it that all you want but no one in their right minds here would call that a CUV
-
Site your source there. Here’s mine. https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev-electric-car oh and if you are still not convinced here, please come to Sands Chevrolet in Glendale, AZ (where I used to work) and tell them it’s CUV. That’ll be a good laugh. It can’t even be considered a CUV when it is FWD only. That makes it a tall wagon.
-
I want you pay special close attention to the first paragraph describing the Bolt on CHEVY’s own page. Nowhere does it say CUV but it sure does mention the word “car” a lot. And no one is crying but you because you’re the only one here who gets their underwear in a knot over any positive attention directed at EVs. We get it. You hate them so maybe staying out of the conversation and not trolling at every EV turn would be better here.
-
None of those startups had the backing and a few of those got swallowed by the big boys before anything could even hit the market. Like I said, the technology had roadblocks that went beyond the limits of the tech itself. It is clear that those hurdles and obstructionists of the past have been sent to the sidelines. Tesla opened the door and others are slowly getting the hint and making the investment like what Ford is doing with Rivian. Not “poppycock”. Fact. If it was put into a CUV, the sales would be much higher and that is not even a debatable point. Whether you choose to accept it or not is 100% irrelevant. It sure as hell isn’t like you’ve had any real time in one so your opinion on this is taken with a grain of salt.
-
I agree with you on the Bolt. I get the gripe about it’s looks but it is a solid and surprisingly quick little car (thank you endless torque). I drove one across town (when I was working at a Chevy dealership last year) and I actually liked the way it drove but the outside is a bit “odd” and yes it should have been a true CUV to better fit in to current buying trends.
-
Fair point but you are forgetting that it was the old guard who held EVs back more than the “new tech” level of it. See GMs EV debacle of the 90s as the most recent example. Competing industries and corrupt politicians (bought and sold by the lobbyists of said industries) held the tech back. It is only in the last 15 years or so that the tech has been allowed to finally catch up to the real world, i.e. more range between charges. My point about the reluctance of some people to accept simple progress and changes in technology stands. The arguments against EVs are getting weaker and weaker every year. Just my opinion though.
-
And you want them to stay stuck in the past. You should have been born in the late 1800s so that you tell folks like Henry Ford and their ilk how no one wants gas powered cars when we already have a abundance of horses available. ?
-
Sorry the late reply but this is a reflection of a similar criticism you made on the Vette article. Let me just say this again. Please stop comparing larger cars (The Stinger) to smaller cars (3 Series and C Class). It simply isn’t even close to a comparable situation. And given that. C Class is smaller in every department in terms of front seat room, I’m guessing it feels really cramped since you seem to think a Stinger is cramped.
-
So Cadillac is saying that the CT5, despite the fact that it 5 Series size, is a 3 Series competitor? How does that work and how does that affect the past statements of there being a CT4 (which was supposed to be the ATS replacement)? What is real and what is not? Also, I agree about the presence factor. The CT6 ( and the current CTS) both have it while this one a mixed bag.
-
Just a matter of opinion from my end. Just not as enamored with it as you clearly.
-
Getting in or out? Maybe if your name is Stretch Armstrong. Otherwise, they are in a horrible spot for such a thing.
-
On top of some rather anemic HP numbers for a midsize car. The rest of it is pretty sharp though.
-
Not real crazy about that front end (like oddly placed and large fog light housing) but it’s a nice package for a smaller CUV with more practicality than its sibling Kona. The interior seems to invoke some Volvo cues but that’s a good thing, in this case because it has a cleaner look than some other CUVs.
-
True but they were less prominent by flowing with the console as opposed to sticking at an angle Iike they do now, much like the first Cayennes. Bear with me. I’m just very OCD when it comes to details like that and these details are functionally useless.
-
What is with the useless handles on the center console, clearly borrowed from the first generation Porsche Cayennes? Seems purely aesthetic with no real reason for being there other than for taller people to hit their legs against them.
