I’d say that if you’re shopping in the $100K+ category, perhaps you should care about things like pedigree, sound or status. If you don’t care about these things in a car, then why are you spending $100K+ on a car?

I’m not disagreeing that there are plenty of other interesting options, but a V8 certainly isn’t among…

This is why I really hope Hyundai lets Genesis build something 90% of that Essentia concept. First of all, it looks amazing inside and out. Second—and more importantly—Genesis currently means nothing to almost anyone. Third, Korea has basically all the technology to make futuristic vehicles on its own. Why not append…

Cue the predictable responses of, “union in industry A is bad, so all unions are bad”. It’s called the ecological fallacy, guys; look it up.

You leave my car alone!

Considering how many other million-dollar electric coupes are pouring out of wherever they hell they want to, why not actually build this as is, sell it at an audacious yet Korean-discounted $750K, and establish Genesis and Korean luxury as stalwart in one fell swoop?

God, this thing is so badly proportioned. I’m not a fan of the current version, which is all kinds of bland, but wow is this one worse.

Sadly, you’re not wrong. I’m among the apparent minority who like the new Accord’s looks, so I was hoping to get a new hybrid one in a few years, though the possibility of this being a liftback would’ve swayed me to the Insight instead. Guess my choice is made.

But how the companies function financially has a strong bearing on the engineering aspects. With Kia being essentially free from Hyundai’s control of its finances, either company could behave in a way such that they diverge and are more visibly separate. It is truly just a marriage of convenience. Conflicts of…

Ah, false. Hyundai owns only about a third of Kia, far from enough to be a controlling interest. Pre-’97 Asian financial crisis, they were separate car companies altogether, and Kia’s automotive ventures actually predate Hyundai’s.

Best part is probably that it wouldn’t likely fit under the hood, so...mid-engine quad-turbo W16 SUV?

Ladies?

While you plebs get this little canoe, I’ll be in that limo from the Windowlicker music video. That way, in the almost inevitable situation when this...oxcart...breaks down, I can fit it inside my car. Could your limo have another limo in it? Didn’t think so.

I always thought that was a natural development. Cylinders got bigger again—after the early, early days of 7-liter I6's—as cars and power expectations grew again. It’d seem obvious to go to a combination of smaller engines, perhaps with cylinder-on-demand tech, and hybrid powertrains.

Mmmmm gotta love that capitalist efficiency.

Lemme clarify things for the OP: name 3 good things that Drumpf has done. Speed of policy production is no indicator of the quality of policies produced.

...Lack of refueling infrastructure? I thought that was the well-known problem with H2-powered cars?

They’re less energy-efficient overall, too, but that first issue is the big one. Considering the stranglehold Hyundai maintain on the KDM, it’s surprising the Korea’s hydrogen refueling infrastructure is even a bit back…

Much though I love cars, there’s just no getting past the fact that even in the hypothetical never-happens scenario of every seat in a group of cars being occupied, they take up more area than a train for the same number of people. Short of walking or bicycling, trains are the most space-efficient means of moving…

We’re not talking about gay marriage, or government spending, or drug policy, or healthcare, or whatever. We’re talking about making available or not available tools which are—let me repeat—specifically designed to at a minimum seriously injure, and more often kill another human being.

I’m waiting for the NRA to judge themselves. No matter the killer’s motivation or his mental state, a gun is always going to make his job easier. Therefore anyone that promotes the allowance of gun ownership is anathema to me. I’m sure that a lot of NRA members are very nice people, and as we can all justify anything,…

You’re right; doing that kind of thing is called the ecological fallacy. However, if that ends up saving more lives than the alternative—which at this point, sorry, but the numbers back me up—I’m totally fine with it.