balthazar

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people". Every new market car started at less than one percent. Perspective. You obviously skimmed over my post above RE the 'new market' Mustang.

Expressed as percentages : 400,000 Tesla Model 3 orders (which no one believes will be filled in 12 months), is 1% of the current U.S. marketshare. Much more likely scenario is that Tesla builds 100K Model 3s in it's first full model year, or 0.25% of the market. Not that I believe Tesla should be gunning for mass volume above all else (IE; quality & reliability), but that's what Tesla has stated. The first full model year the Mustang sold 559,451 units, which was 6.3% of the 8.8 millions units sold that year. Not "on par" at all. - - - - - I realize the EV is getting mad hype, and that every brand is thinking or introducing one. Many many brands have convertibles, too, but they're still only about 1.5% of the market. Does most brands having a convertible equate to 'mass acceptance', or is it legitimately determined via meaningful market penetration instead?

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people".

Studebaker GT Hawk :

QFT

BMW no longer has a clue what it wants to be, with the slight exception it wants to be; 'In a perfect world, there'd be a Mercedes BMW in every driveway'. Oh, and the obvious : mercedes. Hey, I see what I did there.

Some might argue that it was sedans that killed the wagon.

My opinion of the general event (the swing towards EVs & hybrids) is immaterial to the event itself. I'm not against it, I like more choice. EV should work well for a large swath of consumers. Of course, they're not going to be appealing or practical for all, and talk of banning IC vehicles state-wide is ridiculous, and that I reserve the right to speak against. But I'm not going to jump on the hyperbole train WRT EVs and the Great Changing of the Automotive World, no matter how many colorful memes are posted. I wait to see actual results (H/EV sales) before I pick up the vuvuzela and do a rhythmic dance. Right now, to date, H/EV sales have been disastrously poor. Growing, yes, but still disastrously poor. {insert 'deal with it' meme of your choice here}

1991 is still 25 years ago, not 10. For the record; the Suburban is 81 years old and the Wagoneer is 50.

2050 - 2016 = 34. This is a most likely the best manner to achieve the 'goal', outlaw existing product. Not that I would advocate that, I hate force applied "for my own good". And mostly because these 'greater goods' are never applied to those imposing them. Yea; I'm suddenly convinced. - - - - - LOTS and LOTS of talk and grand ideas. Good, I have no problem with discussion & ideas, but inevitably they must go thru 'practicality & reailty filters'. Or, just enforce it by law/fines and practicality & reality can go take a dirt nap.

They should have 1 model named 'Pop'.

No, not really. In 1985 you could count the number of mid-size SUV/Crossovers on one hand, today, you'd need an excel spreadsheet just for the ones that are no longer in production. 1985 is…. 30 years ago. For the record; I stated "a minimum of 30 years for H/EVs to hit 51% of the market. I got what you posted DD, but I just don't see a massive huge swell pushing H/EVs over 50% of the U.S. market in a mere 10 years. There is a considerable list of obstacles to overcome. Even Tesla's 400,000 pre-orders --if condensed into a single year-- is only 1 percent of the market by itself, and 400,000 is 8 times Tesla's output last year. In order to 'make it' in 10 years, H/EVS would have to increase marketshare 50%/yr : '15 : .6% '16 : .9% '17 : 1.4% '18 : 2.1% '19 : 3.2% '20 : 4.7% '21 : 7.1% '22 : 10.6% '23 : 16.0% '24 : 24% '25 : 36% '26 : 54%

They don't, but certainly usually are in this industry.

Look at it this way. Technology/advancment in hybrids/EVs is all well & good, but you still have to get people to BUY THEM. Hybrids have been here for 15 years now, and while everyone is jumping to offer 1 or more EVs, last year hybrids/electrics only grabbed .6 of the market. Stated again :: 15 years = 0.6% of the market. So 10-20 years to reach 51% is just about completely out of the realm of possibility. My guess is a minimum of 30 years.

While I agree with the first statement above, unless manufacturers POINTEDLY install OBVIOUS obsolescence tech, the fact that the vehicle is powered electrically should not incite mass 'this is outdated, gotta get a new one' mentality in the market. Phones incorporate a LOT of fleeting tech & apps which yes, are subject to superficial judgement, but these types of features in vehicles are pretty much independent of the power plant propelling such. Phonesa re also a HELLUVA lot more affordable than cars- most people don't shoulder a loan to own one. Even subsequent generations of EVs that have improved range still should not see mass incentive to upgrade… this is in the same vein as IC vehicles' MPG improvement in subsequent gens. It's not usually enough to cause a trade- the costs are too steep for most consumers. I think what you miss is that EV is only at the start of the learning and investment curve where IC is at the end. With a EV we could be just months with major improvments with technology investments or we could be years it all matters on how it progresses and that remains the great unknown. . Based on other electronics I suspect that will see much greater changes in the EV auto than we have seen year to year in a IC car. Also electronic today fail after so long with age. or they just get old and incompatible. I think I misinterpreted your 9:26 post. Agreed that as EVs age, they will be of very little value. Even basic battery-powered low-tech items, like cordless drills, are cost-prohibitive to keep running, batteries are discontinued/harder to get, and the performance drops off. Meanwhile a corded 25 yr old drill just keeps spinning for decades on end. Is the EV akin to the cordless drill? Probably. The problem there is, along with the supposed influx of autonomous driving vehicles, it will continue to sap all the emotion out of automobiles, making them more & more disposable.

I am certainly intrigued by the possibility someone would use a vintage car & simply disconnect the speedometer cable for long periods, thus ducking mileage tax.

While I agree with the first statement above, unless manufacturers POINTEDLY install OBVIOUS obsolescence tech, the fact that the vehicle is powered electrically should not incite mass 'this is outdated, gotta get a new one' mentality in the market. Phones incorporate a LOT of fleeting tech & apps which yes, are subject to superficial judgement, but these types of features in vehicles are pretty much independent of the power plant propelling such. Phonesa re also a HELLUVA lot more affordable than cars- most people don't shoulder a loan to own one. Even subsequent generations of EVs that have improved range still should not see mass incentive to upgrade… this is in the same vein as IC vehicles' MPG improvement in subsequent gens. It's not usually enough to cause a trade- the costs are too steep for most consumers.

Sure they do, in fact they want a $42,000 Cruze !

This, and 3-D printed houses on Mars are in a neck-&-neck race.

Stated before but; the engineering mistake with the Model X is that the falcon doors weren't on the FRONT doors. 3/4ths of the time no one is in the back seat, plus the entire 'works in tight parking spaces' is patently absurd… unless the DRIVER never exits the vehicle in said tight space. Model X summed up :

Even tho the X generally stickers higher, IMO the Model S is far above the X in stature. To me, the X is a Tesla 'also-ran' while the S is the aspirational unit.

^ What movie is that?

Seen elsewhere : in 2015 hybrids and pure electrics together were a screaming 0.66 % of the market. Even if we rounded up to a heady 1%, everybody is buzzing & clucking over 1 percent of the market. Guess what IS at 1% of the market? Convertibles. 'Electric cars are going to surpass gas/diesels in 10 years'. Uh huh; sure.

For a number of years I have on occasion called it out that 'auto design is in its 95th percentile' as far as moving forward goes. Coming to mind here is the current Camaro vs. the prior gen, the miata, the SIlverado, and the above audi. There are more, but these alone represent a clear illustration of my point; that consumers at large are seeing less & less forward design progress. Far too many external influences and technology/the science of building cars has made ALL the MAJOR advances already; only tweaks are left. - - - - - Audi has the most palatable styling of the German Big 3, but it still leaves me flat. I don't find it to be aspirational or particularly good looking, just… meh. I wish they had their own engines across the board… but I'd never own one either way.

5 is too many for Cadillac tho. I think 3 would work very well; XT5, XT7 and Escalade/ESV.