balthazar

Amazing highway MPG out of GM's 3.0L TD :

OK, buddy; I'll go sit in the corner and think about my behavior for a while.

...Tahoes ARE fat; wow.

According to GM, my '04 3/4-ton crew cab/6.5' 2500HD 6.6L was 5892. This is supported, because going over the scale at the scrap yard (AFTER unloading), but with me & my tools in it, it weighed right about 6500. According to GM, my '21 1/2-ton crew cab/6.5' 1500 3.0L is 4867. What did you guys see when you looked up GM-spec weights on specific pickups? The 'trunk' on a pickup doesn't have a 'trunklid', but the 'trunk sides' are double-walled, so that's a virtual wash. It also has 3 layers of steel across the mid-section (rear wall of cab, double front wall of box), and the tailgate is double-walled. That more than makes up for 'not having a trunklid'.

Searching, I did see this: GM raised the full-size 2500-3500 pickup pricing $300-$700 in Nov '21, $500 in Jan of '22, and $500-$1100 in March. At least they're not coming 7 days apart. Maybe GM has a lot better foreseeing abilities than Tesla.

OK, how about this? The 185" long toyoter pictured above weighs more than my 241" long, full-frame 4x4 pickup. I know, I know; not fair comparing a compact SUV to a full-size pickup; I'll stop now.

toyoter certainly is no stellar build, plus its a full decade newer than the Model S. Just hoping the weight on these starts going the other direction from ‘up’.

Model S is a foot longer and weighs 300-500 lbs less.

Edsel featured here recently looks world's more appealing than this hot grey mess. And... a 185" SUV that weights 5000 lbs. Wonderful.

So after raising prices on 3 out of 6 trims on the Model 3 / Y on March 9th... a mere 7 days later Tesla raised prices again, this time across the board between 3% & 5%. The cheapest, no-option Model 3 now starts at $46,990, approximately a $1365 increase there. [~ Bloomberg]. Tune in next week for another installment of 'but at least this way I'm not getting gouged!'

Maybe...

They won't; it's Big Gov't. 🙄 Of course, the suggested future "bans" are sales of brand new vehicles - IC vehicles on the used market are unaffected. And there's 275 million of those. Because IF (hypothetically) ALL IC vehicles were to be 'banned' - their value would plummet to zero overnight... and probably 99% of consumers use their existing vehicle as a trade / private sale toward its replacement. Obviously, that scenario is totally unworkable. You cannot take the 2nd largest financial investment in most households and render it valueless.

It’s not a GM problem, it’s an industry problem. Maybe the ‘all-in’ dreamers about an electric car future can add ‘real full-size cars’ to their wish list of unwanted body styles that somehow magically an electric motor is going to make viable again. 😄

^ New ones can be too - one is very 'contained' in modern, narrow vehicles with thicker doors, wide consoles and high cowls; not much room to shift position despite a power/positionable seat. I'm not tall (5'8"), but I stiffen up if I can't shift around to (slightly) different positions on longer drives. That said, I don't really have complaints about my wife's Malibu on long trips (2 hrs), I just think there could be more room.

What the hell are you learning about fitting into a Rivian from a picture?!? Rivian has three inches LESS front leg room than an Escalade. You're not going to find that they 'nailed it'. Keep on convincing yourself tho. 'The leg area allows for a guy to sit with his knees spread' - That's tru of everything back to...oh; the dawn of the motor vehicle. What a bizarre statement.

Current gen Model S enclosure: Agreed- trucks have plenty of structure height. The floor in my Sierra is just about completely flat- in the rear the center hump is barely an inch tall. Good thing- the kW-age needs to be up there to move the weight. CT5 is a half-inch shorter than the Model S in wheelbase, but has the same front legroom and a few inches more in the rear.

Anything to convince oneself. - - - - - I'll use a current Malibu- because there's one in the driveway here. The floorpan of it isn't flat- it contours to fit around various things. Of course- there's no longitudinal trans or driveshaft. And who cares what the floorpan does under the butt or in-between passengers. However, the lowest portion of a Malibu's floorpan is 1/2-in BELOW the bottom of the rocker panel. From what I can find online, a Tesla Model S battery pack measures 3.1 or 3.5" tall... but that's just the battery pack. That goes inside a sealed enclosure, for protection (and I think cooling). So is the whole thing 3.25-4" tall? More? I couldn't find the spec. How would that fit below a current Malibu body shell? Either the shell sits on top of that & rises 3 & a half inches, it comes out of the interior, or a combo thereof. Model S has a long wheelbase (116.5"), so some of the height constriction can be regained by stretching the seating position and playing around with seat height. Malibu is 111.4" (2016); less 'wiggle room' to play with... unless you go up. But a battery enclosure placed under the floor cannot exist in another dimension- it takes up physical space.

Maybe YOU are bending your legs sideways and angling them off beyond the footprint of the front seat bottom... but how you're working the accelerator that way I can't imagine. C'mon, be realistic- that space is not 'legroom' and that's not eh way legroom is measured.

And since EVERYTHING today has a center console anyway, front passenger compartment having a trans hump or not is inconsequential.

😄 Space -height-wise- either has to come OUT of the interior, or the body shell is placed on TOP of the pack, making for a taller vehicle. Its one or the other.

48 Buick ~ '

Battery packs.

Huh. When did I say that?