surreal1272

I am speaking of the quickness at which everything went up. COVID affected that 100%.

Um, unprecedented inflation will do that. It’s also $46K and don’t forget it now qualifies for the $7500 EV credit as part of the IRA bill passed this week.

While it's a much needed addition for Dodge in a much needed to compete in market, I have a major issue with this. Now, take this with a grain of salt and understand this is just my lowly opinion, but all the people who gave GM and Ford absolute hell for badge engineering in the past, better lay it on heavy here because, if it did not say Dodge on it and not have the Dart like headlight/grill treatment, I'd never guess this was anything other than a crappy Alfa. Just a big ole' "meh" from me lol.

LMAO! Doesn't change my core point at all, but okay there SMK.

And there are those famous last words whenever they are not, in fact, there already as the "best or nothing".

You don’t really care yet spent two pages trying to convince everyone here that you, in fact, did. mmmkay.

It's not that difficult at all but some folks lol.

And again @smk4565, it is simply baffling how you keep focusing on just HP and weight like there aren’t at least a dozen other factors there that you have willfully ignored up to this point.

So which is it? Model 3 or Model S Plaid? And who, other than you, would EVER compare a four door ANYTHING to a mid-engine coupe? Your argument is literally all over the place.

It proves nothing unless you want to remember that your average ICE (even from the Germans) is $h! on that track without all the adjustments mentioned for the Tesla (suspension, tires, etc). Just pure faulty logic there.

Again, ignoring important and relevant facts in order to save face and move that bar once more.

So freakin what? The error is on MT then since it was their words. You, on the other hand, were still wrong as only stated M5 while the above is an M5 CS. Details matter I’m afraid.

I know you don’t want to admit that you are wrong and want to insist on us observing your new set of track standards but here are your exact words from your second post here. “An M5 or E63 is still lighter than a Model S, and would beat a Model S on a race track.” And then David showed where you were wrong. Furthermore (per MT last year) ”While there's a long list of internal combustion engine performance cars faster than the Model S Plaid around the 'Ring, only two four-door vehicles are quicker than the Model S—the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 (7:23.164 in a Jaguar-conducted test), and the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 S 4Matic+ 4-Door (7:23.009 in a Mercedes-conducted but independently timed test” End of discussion.

Except it's not, especially when your initial comparison was regarding two other cars that were NOT the AMG GT you referenced later. After David showed where the Plaid S beat the two cars (that you first mentioned), you moved that bar in order to bring up the AMG GT. Point being, you were wrong on two fronts (EV's not having anything more than straight line speed and that the BMW and Benz you mentioned were BOTH slower than said EV around the track in question). No need to back pedal and make excuses because you were proven wrong.

Looks to me like the design department at Mini has been dabbling in the Electric lettuce for a bit too long.

And he just showed you where the Plaid S ran faster than both of the above. You bringing up the pricer AMG GT was pointless and yet again, bar moving nonsense.

It is insane that a near 10K lb. beast can move like that.

And none of what you just said there changes the fact that you were wrong before and no amount of bar moving by you changes that.

Yet you spoke the complete opposite earlier in the thread when it came to Chevy. You questioned why Chevy didn't have a hybrid option, knowing good and well what that reason was. Nice backpedal though.

2026 is the target year for the EV Colorado/Canyon twins, which puts just two years behind the Silverado. Maybe a year long on that but it solids what I was getting at earlier regarding GM and their lack of hybrid options in favor of full on EV plans. Barra told everyone it would eventually be EV and nothing else. Nothing about that says that hybrid powertrains were in their long term or even short term plans. Would have made no sense, financially speaking. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07/chevy-colorado-ev-gmc-canyon-ev-to-appear-in-2026-says-report/

I knew there were other options out but it kind of proves my point about CVTs. It takes overcomplicating it with double units or as an assist to a primary running transmission. One of the original points of the CVT was it's supposed simplicity and fewer moving parts to break (cheaper) yet the only way to make it livable is to modify it from its simplicity. On the flip side, they are far ahead the hybrid front so it makes double sense to port one over tot eh Tacoma, especially given the addition of one to the Tundra. Chevy does not necessarily need a hybrid when their full size brother no longer offer one and the EV version of it is coming in a year or so. There just isn't a good business case for a hybrid IMO.

Maybe. Define "best". Here is a list of CVT autos I have driven (may be missing one or two from my dealership days in AZ). 2009 & 2016 Nissan Altima-The 2016 is clearly less of a rubber band driven pain than the '09 but that is not saying a whole lot. 2017 Nissan Pathfinder-A nice CUV that is ruined by the power sapping action of the CVT. 2016 Jeep Compass (a 2200 miles drive back from NC to AZ in 2017 so I have far more "experience" with this than any other CVT). The absolute worst of the worst. Garbage in every way. The only way I could pass on the interstate, without getting run over in the passing lane, was to resume cruise control at a preset higher speed. That it is the only time it had anything resembling spirted acceleration. Just one the worst cars I have ever experienced and that is coming from someone who was tortured with an '81 Chevette, 4 speed stick with no A/C and vinyl in the south, for three years as his first car in high school. 2021 Kia Soul. Having driven a 2015 and '16 model of the 2.0 with six speed automatic, I am very familiar with these as well. The CVT is the technical best of the bunch, but again that is not saying much because the 6 speed auto was far superior for acceleration and overall driving satisfaction. 1.Kia 2. Pathfinder 3.Altima (both years) 1,023,124,819,01...(you get the picture). Compass This is all just my very humble opinion, of course, but there it is. Just no to CVTs when there are far better options out there.

True but even the best CVT is worse than your average four speed automatic IMO lol. Just don’t care for them at all.

Exactly the point I made to SMK. There is no longer an existing hybrid set up for GM to even use at this point and with EVs right around the corner, it doesn’t make sense to put money into it. The “CVT” part as well as the fact that this is a RWD truck whereas the Maverick is FWD with mates up better with a CVT. The Colorado better never go the CVT route.

There’s a very important part you are missing in that comparison. That hybrid is considerably more expansive than that 2.7L Chevy (about $10K more last I checked). That 5 MPG does not make up the huge price difference. Another part you’re not getting is the huge gulf between the volume of full size vs mid size trucks. Ford could justify a hybrid with their huge sales numbers. There is no case for a hybrid for Chevy and the Colorado, knowing that simple fact. Again, with an electric Silverado coming in a year or so, that is clearly NOT their plan. Not sure what you are not understanding here.