surreal1272

Isn't the Fiesta made in China? It is, but not for US consumption. Spain, Germany, Mexico, China, India, Brazil... and more. The U.S. bound ones are made in Mexico. I thought so but I wasn't sure. I knew they were built all over the planet but I wasn't sure which ones were sold where.

Isn't the Fiesta made in China?

But the thing is, the old guard doesn't repeat the same mistakes. Any recalls the old guard have to issue have to do with execution of something g they already know how to do-they're cheap instead of ignorant, in other words. Tesla is riding a brutally steep learning curve, not merely because of their propulsion system, but because they truly don't know how to build cars all that well. Perhaps they will eventually if the money and customer goodwill doesn't run out. But as you yourself mentioned, your partner regards the car as a status symbol or appliance moreso than a car. In such a situation it is even more critical for a manufacturer to build something that even a non-gearhead can operate safely. They don't? I could have sworn I have seen old guard companies like Ford issues multiple recalls over a period of almost twenty years regarding cruise control problems because they can't seem to get it right. Mistakes after mistakes have been repeated by GM and FCA as well, hence the bankruptcies and huge recall problems. Sorry man, but you are off base here when you ignore all the other facts.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually. Remember "Ask Dr. Z" But he is just the Daimler CEO. Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree. Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics. And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed. Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar? Jurgen Schrempp was Chairman and CEO from 1995-2005, sort of the dark days of Mercedes. He had an engineering background too, but he wasn't a very good CEO. Dr. Z is a really good CEO. Chrysler was pretty much beyond saving, and they did give Chrysler the Crossfire and the LX platform, and the Grand Cherokee is still based on a derived ML-class platform. Notice Chryslers only decent cars are derived from mid 2000s Mercedes. Perhaps the problem with that merger is Chrysler was still developing their own engines, transmissions and cars, the Crossfire was the only Chrysler with a Mercedes engine/transmission and chassis. IT was a failed merger, but if Chrysler didn't have Mercedes or Fiat platforms, they wouldn't have anything to sell except Ram trucks and a minivan. Stop with the excuses. He was CEO of th Chrysler division during those crap years and he led the nickle and dime charge on Chryslers entire lineup. I drive proof of that and have for almost eight years. Who care about one motor or tranny? The Crossfire is proof of how Daimler screwed Chrysler. When the new SLK came out, Mr. Z saw fit to give "bless" the Crossfire with the previous gen leftovers of the SLK. Sorry but your engineer took cheap to another level and no excuse you can give changes that. History proves it. You most certainly cannot be foolish enough to think those were Chryslers best years either. I love my car but I know its shortcomings along with everything else that Daimler tried to pass off as better. If it was so much better, then they would not have needed a desperate sale to Cerebus followed by bankruptcy. That was all Daimlers doing and it is well documented for anyone who is not an overzealous Mercedes fanboy.

"Rookies building cars" would be valid if these types of things didn't also happen to the old guard as well, which they do obviously. What's their excuse? I see what you are saying about the rest of the situation though and just to be clear, I am not attacking your friend in any way. I just know that we are all happen. Even sponges dry up from time to time and stop absorbing.

Plus there was a snow storm right....so there must have been snow and ice collected on the calipers and the discs...so by the time the computer reacted to stop regen braking and switch to conventional braking and by the time the friction gotthe snow and ice off, 4 seconds or so elapsed....and 4 seconds in ANY situation is a long time when you need to stop now...dont forget....although in the snow storm we had, the conditions were not that slippery, you are still braking in snow... I believe there are 3 levels of regen braking. Normal, Low and Off. But yeah...they should make a software program where the car detects this and switches automatically.... Regardless if its in the manual....who reads those anyway? I do...most dont...like CCAP said...we live in Canada...Tesla is supposed to be UNLIKE regualr dealerships in where the sales staff KNOWS the product...they should have VERBALLY mentioned it!!! This does NOT take away from me loving the car....its just strengthening my position in thinking that NO COMPANY truly gives a rat's ass about the customer....it will ALWAYS be the bottom line BEFORE the customer. Long gone are the days where the reverse was true... And thanx for your concerns. Yeah...we are both laughing at the situation now....Im disappointed in this little mis-communication, he even less...but he did have a scare. Sorry Olds but when one doesn't bother to read a manual on a car as new and unique as the Tesla S, then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. You also don't know that they did not mention it to him and he just forgot. It has happened to me more times than I can count. Not calling your friends a liar by any means but we are all human and sometimes we forget things.

I am willing to bet that option is in the manual though so there is that. There is a reason why they are there and I would definitely read one front to back where an all electric car is concerned.

Coming from the computer Industry, being a well educated Engineer does not make the company infallible to piss poor management. Anyone remember Digital Computer Corporation? Engineered some of the best storage, computers and other technology that much of the industry has been based on especially the AMD CPU's with their memory management and superior throughput for that time. This was all done by people who had PHD in Engineering and thought if they built superior products they would last forever as a company. Bought by Compaq who was then bought by HP. Engineers alone do not make a great company. In the long run they will die without much needed assistance from sales, marketing, etc. This does not mean they cannnot hire and get the right people in place but even then one must never take their eye off the end prize. MB has done great but is not the best company out there, no one is and eventually they will drop the ball and fall from grace as you perceive as the best luxury auto maker. History has proven that over and over again. And that is exactly my point by bringing up his terrible handling of Chrysler. Being an engineer doesn't mean squat in relation to how to run a business. When you are at the top like Dr. Z, then you are no longer an engineer.

I also recall being him being President/CEO of Chrysler Group from middle of 2000 to December 31, 2005. How'd that engineering knowledge work out for Chrysler btw? As an owner of his E class platform derived 2006 Magnum, I'm curious to know.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. Dieter Zetsche is an engineer, he has a PhD in engineering actually. Remember "Ask Dr. Z" But he is just the Daimler CEO. Probably the person what would have more influence on Mercedes cars would be Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber, and oh wait, he has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Tobias Moers, CEO of AMG, also has an engineering degree. Head of Daimler trucks Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, masters in engineering, masters in business, PhD in economics. And Mercedes, Freightliner, and Western Star make the best trucks. We'll see if Cadillacs marketing guys can beat Daimler's engineers, around 2020 all will be revealed. Sorry but I remember how those "engineers" treated Chrysler and then left them for dead with their "hand me down" platforms and tech. They have as much crap on their hands as the old guard at GM. They being engineers make it worse if you ask me because they did not act like engineers where Chrysler was concerned. They acted like bean counters with slick PR. Sound familiar?

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling. Dr. Z is an engineer. Fair enough. Did not see that fact when I read about him. Doesn't change the fact that he is more known for his contributions outside of engineering.

CT6, XT5, etc aren't even on sale yet and Johan has been on the job a year or two now. Even if they trademarked CT1 through CT100 he could have still pushed for word names if he wanted. I think he likes alpha-numerics because it he is a marketing guru and marketing gurus like to look smart when they design naming conventions. I think the type of executive does matter somewhat. Rick Wagoner was a finance guy, and look at how GM produced the lowest cost products possible under his tenure. He was about cutting product cost to feed the UAW labor cost and "managing the downward spiral." If you put an engineer at the top they are going to focus on engineering and product. Does Mercedes have an engineer running things? If not then does an engineer EVER get final say on a product in ANY company? I only ask this because last time I checked, Dieter Zetsche was not an engineer. And again, he did not come up with number scheme so why bother even mentioning it? You have been wrong on so many things here SMK, it is just baffling that you keep beating the same dead horse here. From being incorrect about platform origins to nitpicking naming schemes in Cadillacs, it is just baffling.

It is an urban pod for those who don't like to drive. In markets where it is a family car it does what a family car does anywhere: delivers people and their stuff from point to point in a competent fashion. I'd like to see an RS but it doesn't appear to have been a priority. I'm an adherent to that old-skool philosophy... it is fun to drive a slow car fast. You clearly have never driven an '81 Chevette lol! I HAVE!!!!! we had an 81 chevette. 4 speed manual, rear drive! Had an earlier Scooter model as well, 2 seat, rear drive, MT! That is exactly what I had as my first car. It was a pile of dog dung that couldn't get out of it's own way and had no AC with vinyl seats in humid a** North Carolina! Somehow, I still managed to get a speeding ticket in it though. Still not sure, to this day, how that happened!

To achieve the advertised horsepower figures, 93 octane is required per the Ford website. No doubt high test is needed to achieve something close to the advertised fuel mileage as well. And no alloy wheels with the Ecoboost? Way to kill the party. It is an urban pod for those who don't like to drive. In markets where it is a family car it does what a family car does anywhere: delivers people and their stuff from point to point in a competent fashion. I'd like to see an RS but it doesn't appear to have been a priority. I'm an adherent to that old-skool philosophy... it is fun to drive a slow car fast. You clearly have never driven an '81 Chevette lol!

Neither of which are engineers. Which is why Cadillac is supposedly getting a an XT7 based on the new Enclave/Acadia/Traverse, an XT3 based off the new Equinox (which is moving down size since Chevy is getting a 4th crossover) and an XT2 GLA competitor, I guess that would be the Cadillac Traxx. Although if Johan and Uwe can use their marketing skills to sell a Cadillac face on a Chevy platform, more power to them. In their quest to make Cadillac stand alone, it seems as if Chevy will have 4 crossovers and Tahoe, Cadillac will have 4 crossovers and Escalade all sharing platforms. It works for Lexus, doesn't work for Lincoln or Acura though. The key word in your post is "supposedly". The XT7 will be using the Omega platform share ONLY with the CT6 because that was the first car using it. The XT3 is going to Alpha based, of which no CUV in GM's stable is based off. Those two alone kill your little "Cadillac face on a Chevy platform". Research goes a long way.

Only if you have a turbo strapped to your butt and make sure your gas is premium octane or otherwise you may not get full boost. Oh, and NO to this and any unicycle derivative of it from anyone.

Yep. I liked the interior too. But I still think is there plenty of room to improve. The tech is great though. But it's not a revelation like the Challenger. Proof: the challenger has the best interior in its class. For me to get an LX 4-door car to do that, you have to step up to the 300. The 300C and Platinum just take it to another level. The Challenger has the same interior (for the most part as there are some subtle differences) as the Charger. They use the same materials as well, just in slightly different places due to subtle design differences. Charger, Challenger,

Big bummer. He was killed by death, I believe. That's the only way to kill a Lemmy. He was impervious to all other methods. RIP Lemmy.

Big bummer.

Diesel is cheaper than premium octane gas here so that is not an accurate statement at all.

It doesn't really matter, the spread between regular and premium usually is consistent. Around me it's typically 20 to 25 cents a gallon between the two no matter what the regular price is, any change in the dollar position only changes the cost per mile by extremely minor amounts as long as the spread between premium and regular is the same. The GM 6.2 is cheaper to run per mile on regular than the Ford 3.5 EB on premium which are both much cheaper to run than the Ford 3.5 EB on regular. To be clear, we're only talking about a penny per mile difference here... but over 50,000 miles, that's an extra $500 to run the Ecoboost on premium and $1000 to run it on regular, and these calculations are using highway miles. If you get fuel economy like Car and Driver did in that comparison test (both the Chevy and Ford got 16mpg), the cost per mile difference increases to about 2 cents per mile, or $1000 over 50,000 miles. But that is not the same everywhere Drew. Here in the Phoenix area, there can be a 40 to 50 cent difference between 87 and 91 octane. In the mountains here, there's an even bigger gap. Although my post was meant as tongue in cheek, there is something to be said when you are looking at gas prices today that it is easier to stomach the difference in price now, but for year ago you could not say that (most people couldn't anyway) and again they will go back up and that difference in price, where octanes are concerned, will be a much bigger deal for some folks.

Gas is always going to be cheap right?

.

.

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up. The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS. The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight. All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs. I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers. Yeah, I tried sitting in the back seat of the ATS, and gave up. Several times. It is pathetic. Guess what, the CTS does not change matters much, as my size 11 boot does not fit the tiny well behind the drivers seat. So if that is the resolve needed to obtain 'lightest weight trophies' then you can keep them. Of course, I am not the only one saying this, based on their sales. Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up. The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS. The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight. All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs. I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers. And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro. Base SS and base GT V8 are within 35lbs of each other, and one is smaller than the other? So not exactly revolutionary reductions. Yet one is substantially better than the other, due in no small part to its weight loss over the previous gen. it replaces while the other pretty much lateralled from the previous gen to the current (speaking of the GT only here before you get snipe happy again).