Drew Dowdell
Editor-in-Chief
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Drew Dowdell
-
-
It would, but I think it would be losing one of the key selling points of the vehicle. Why? All the other EVs out there have to plug in. This car should have other selling points going for it besides that one feature to make it compelling..... ... but then again, if it doesn't, maybe that's why it was canceled.
-
-
I think the law should be "If you have franchises, no corporate owned stores. If you don't have franchises in the state, then corporate owned stores are ok" That way, the existing stores will be fine and new entries can join the market in either fashion. Tesla may do corporate owned stores because it has the money to do so, but a company like Coda or Fisker may do franchises because they don't have the money to build a network of stores on their own. I think that satisfies both sides.
-
-
-
Not gonna happen this go'round. The coming refresh is just a very light sand and spackle of the current model. Think 2012 Cruze v. 2014 Cruze.
-
It's not dated at all... it is exactly competitive to other naturally aspirated V6es. Should Cadillac add a light turbo version? Sure, that would be a nice addition. But you're comparing apples to oranges and calling the apple dated just because you don't like the flavor. Different does not equal dated.
-
Who has tried it? What do you think?
-
-
Cadillac also. They have a partnership with Carnegie Mellon Univeristy and there are autonomous Cadillac SRXes running around Pittsburgh.
-
Cadillac also doesn't need to spend as much on development because it can share behind the scenes resources with the rest of GM. Does Cadillac really need a special door lock actuator that is different in design than a Chevy one? Cadillac is already going down this path by using the 3.6 as a basis for greater engines that only Cadillac has. Which reminds me... where is an ATS V-Sport? That would be a nice in between vehicle between the regular 3.6 and the ATS V-Series.
-
I mean that the logic behind doing a law such as this is inconsistent. Why do car dealership franchises need this sort of protection but not hotel franchises or food store franchises? Giant Eagle, a grocery store chain here in Pittsburgh is a mix of Franchise stores and mostly corp owned stores. Franchises compete with parent company all the time in the marketplace, what make automobile dealerships so special that they deserve special protection?
-
Fixed
-
But see the laws as they were applied originally were to protect franchises from having to compete directly with the manufacturers of a product. That doesn't apply to Tesla because it has no franchises. Furthermore, if the original premise were true, why are we not "protecting" McDonalds franchises from corporate owned stores? There are McDonalds corporate stores out there. Same goes for Marriott. There are corp owned Marriotts right next to franchise owned Courtyards. Why are we not protecting Best Buy from the Apple owned stores (the answer there is that Apple price fixes their products, but that's another worm)? It is inconsistent logic.
-
Multiple users have reported issues with the current skin we are using. I've opened a ticket with the skin's creator and not had any reply. If you are having difficulty with the current skin or it isn't rendering in your browser properly* feel free to scroll to the bottom and change your theme to Haze. This may become the new theme for C&G going forward after I make a few more adjustments. *Almost all problems are being reported when the user is on a Mac and using Safari. If you are one of these users, you will almost certainly want to switch to the Haze theme. Please please please report any issues to me promptly.
-
See, I don't see that at all. Tesla doesn't have any franchises, so it's not like Tesla is competing with Tesla franchises by opening their own stores. There is absolutely ZERO consumer protection being done here. Fisker had franchises and the owners of those cars are just as far up the creek without a paddle as if they were sold the cars by Fisker directly. Saab owners are being saved, not by dealers, GM, or Spyker, but by a third party company that sees a business opportunity in manufacturing parts. This is protectionism for the existing manufacturers. Not the dealers.
-
-
-
-
No, it was aimed at the DNS servers of our host.
-
The host reports they have mitigated the attack. I'm going to leave the notice up until the morning and if everything seems fine I'll take it down.
-
The server we're on has been under a bit of a DDOS attack for the last 8 hours. The server is fine, but the network connection is flooded. I will post status updates on the CheersandGears Facebook Page when I can't get on here.
-
Most likely.... Rental service only.
-
I'll let you know as soon as I see the schedule posted. Refreshed Terrain should be coming along soon.
