ykX

It looks ok, However, how is that going to be better than lets say Acadia Denali that tops out under the price of XT6?

Yes, Mazda's bright blood red is boring but dark brown or green is not. Makes sense .....

Willys CJ-2A Volkswagen Beetle

First Diesel Car - Mercedes-Benz 260 D

First affordable mass-produced car - Ford Model T

First production car with modern controls arrangement - Cadillac Type 53

First working ICE car 1885 Benz Patent-Motorwagen Firs electric vehicle 1981 Gustave Trouvé's tricycle Saab GT750 - first car with standard seat belts

CX-3.5 Actually they probably should have called CX-3 as CX-2 since it is based on Mazda 2 and this would be perfect to be called CX-3 since it is based on Mazda 3

I am not crazy about exterior design, seems all over the place. But LED looks cool and the interior looks very nice. At least they are still going to make a sedan.

I think their red is one of the best red color in the industry. Personally love it and all their cars look great in that red. Sorry, but they will not look good in brown for example. Usually, the manufacturers put their new car in the color they look best. Most new Cadillacs are always in black for example.

All these hyper and super cars from Geneva Auto show that are in multi millions don't even excite me anymore. Yes, they are hyper, super cars that can do incredible things at the incredible prices and will be bought by a few hyper rich that will never drive them in anger. Most people will not see them even on the street. At least cars like Corvettes and Porsches while expensive are not that expensive that most people will not be able to buy them, maybe as a second or third owner. But these Hyper cars will never be accessible to pretty much anyone.

People bought last year FIVE times more CX-5s than Mazda 6. Companies just adjust to the market

Usually if I use a mechanic I bring my own parts because usually I buy either OEM parts or high quality aftermarket parts. Most small shops use cheap aftermarket parts because most people just want problem to get fixed as cheaply as possibly. You can ask your mechanic what parts he will be using for the fix, if it is a good quality parts than might as well get them through the mechanic, otherwise you better buying them online.

Apple phones last longer, usually, but they are not without issues. I had way more issues with apps I am using not working properly when I had iPhone than when I have my Android phones. Anyway, Apple vs Android debate is a lot like Ford vs Chevy. Guys who like one brand unlikely to get another brand

My Motorola Droid lasted over 3 years just fine. Than I went through couple LGs which swore me from buying LG ever again, iPhone 6s, and than Moto X4. Motorola is a great basic phone, doesn't have extra crap Samsung puts on its phones and gets updates right after Pixel. It is just camera is not even close to Apple/Samsung/Pixel level. So after I was frustrated time and time again taking pictures of my kids I decided to upgrade. Just recently ordered new Pixel. Hopefully will last me long time.

Another vote for Costco. I will not get phone cheaper than through your carrier, they go by the same promotions. However, they will give you $30 gift card to compensate "activation fee" big carriers charge. So that's something.

No serious injuries at 112mph? LOL I don't think too many people survive crashes even at 80mph.

True, but since you getting a phone with a hope to keep it for some time, I would get something that has good combination of features that will last you and good value (camera, enough memory, decent screen). I would go for iPhone 8 or XR with at least 64GB memory minimum, preferably 128GB. Since you can't upgrade memory in iPhone that is important too since your pictures and videos will add up fast.

So I used both as well. I am a long time Android user but a year and half ago when upgrading phones for my wife and myself to make it easier decided to switch to iPhone to have same phones with my wife and son. Long story short I hated it because of super limitations Apple puts on everything and because iPhone works well only with Apple stuff, way less good with Google stuff and I use Google apps way more. Also I DESPISE iTunes. So I gave my Apple to my dad and got Motorola and actually just ordered Pixel for myself because I wanted a good camera. Having said that, I would recommend @balthazar getting iPhone, and I would not recommend getting iPhone 6 but to go for at least 7 or 8. Reasons to go for iPhone are they last longer (as much as I hate to admit on average iPhones last way longer than most Androids), they are somewhat easier to use for first time users, and since your family is already on iPhones it will be easier as well. Reason to go with at least iPhone 7 or 8 - first of all 7 is the first phone Apple did that was waterproof. You would hate to loose your phone if you accidentally spilled water or drink on it. Plus, the camera is better, and one of the biggest advantages having a smartphone is having a good camera. You will really appreciate when you have it. Word of the warning: once you start using smartphone, you will not be go back

The tax will be charged on any other car as well. Of course taxes on $25k car will be smaller than on $35k. I think with some decent options it still will be a $40k car. Would I pay right now $35-40k for Tesla? No, there are many other options at the moment that better suitable for my needs for the money. However, the point is in another 5 years or so the car market will start looking differently.

So lets see out of curiosity if bare bones Model 3 makes financial sense. (Specially for you @balthazar ) Model 3 has converted fuel economy of 128 mpg city/ 117 mpg highway (supposedly equivalent kWh to mpg) Lets take bare bones Honda Accord, it will be about $10-12k cheaper than Tesla and it has fuel economy of 30 mpg city/ 38 mpg highway Tesla of course is RWD and much faster than Accord but lets say for the average consumer it doesn't matter Lets take average for Tesla 120 mpg and average for Honda 35 mpg. At average of $3 per gallon driving 12000 miles a year will cost $300 in Tesla and $1029 in Accord. So the difference is $729 per year and it will take almost 14 years to make up the price difference. Considering Tesla requires less maintenance (no oil changes, transmission, less brake wear out) it might go down to 10 years optimistically. So on paper it doesn't make financial sense compared to base common sedan. Personally though, I think I would rather drive base Model 3 than Accord.

We have been in Siesta Key couple years ago. Really liked it.

1986 Corvette 1996 Acura NSX 2006 Aston Martin Vantage 2016 Mustang GT350 2026 - ??????

Way to cherry pick facts. 1. Sonic is not the same size as Bolt. How about Cruze Hatch or something bigger? It similar in size but can't come close in acceleration to Bolt. 2. The Bolt's fuel economy will be at least 3 times better than Cruze. 3. Yes, Bolt still $18k more expensive than Cruze. I agree at the moment EVs do not make a better financial buy. On the other hand the comparison was for the higher end performance cars were the prices are more in line. However, as soon as prices come down (and slowly started to come down, Leaf starts at $30k) they will smoke ICEs financially. In regards to battery. Couple of guys at my work bought old Priuses cheap and got their batteries replaced. It was couple grand, not the end of the world. Again, everything comes down to battery technology and pricing. If there will be a significant advance in battery technology, it is game over. At the moment, I agree, EVs are not better financially at the bottom line, or I probably would be driving one.

He compared it with comparably priced car with comparable performance. Not matter what you compare (Bolt vs Cruze for example) EV will be more efficient and much cheaper to run. Electricity is just more efficient, period. The only problem with EVs are batteries, their capacity and how long it takes to charge them.