surreal1272
-
Posts
6,654 -
Joined
-
Days Won
51
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Garage
Gallery
Events
Store
Collections
Everything posted by surreal1272
-
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.
-
Yeah, not feeling that at all but then again, it’s just another CUV to me. Even the interior is a let down after the Navigator and Aviator reveals.
-
So more of the same with no real changes. That seems to be the Toyota way with some of their cars.
- 16 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- debut
- highlander
- (and 3 more)
-
The Audi is indeed nothing special and the CT5 already matches up quite well against it. Of course, you should consider the source of the pic posted lol. Never said anything about price, only the size. It’s obvious that will cost less than the 5 series because all German cars are overpriced to begin with.
-
I like profile but the front end resembles the Tesla Model 3.
-
The CT5 is larger than a 3 series. It is a 5 series competitor.
-
Hey, a VW I would actually consider! It's a better take of the Ridgeline while combining it the flexibility of the Avalanche (which I also liked). For urban dwellers or folks who just don't need a "full on" pickup, this is a nice option IMO. And I'm with you @Frisky Dingo. Get it out there and lets see if it floats (sales wise of course).
-
Very true and that is the one thing Cadillac should take notice of. Variety within certain models is always welcome.
-
Look at the center of the steering wheel and you'll see, very clearly, why he probably thinks the MB is better lol. I absolutely hate the slab of screen there, combining the gauges with the infotainment section. That is just awful IMO. Quite a bit of "shiny" plastic in the center console., if you ask me. Not to dismiss it as it does look decent overall (save for the slab tablet mentioned earlier) but it has more than enough plastic in it as well, which should dismiss complaints about Cadillac using it (not saying you are complaining btw).
-
Let me just say this. While I am still not a fan of the profile (especially the rear quarter of it), kudos to Cadillac on the improved interior. Love the two tone option and the overall design (outside of the floating tablet nonsense that I don’t like fro anyone these days). Maybe the exterior will show better in person. Here’s hoping for some sales success that defied the current CTS (which I am a general fan off overall).
