Cadillac: physical rotary volume control on the console or GTFO.

They could compete (and cooperate) if they’d let the infotainment group provide upgrades — both software and hardware — on existing vehicles, and let the car use a phone’s data connection.

Not if they can keep lawmakers convinced that uncontrolled smartphones are a deadly hazard and that only carefully-designed in-dash systems can keep things clamped down enough that people will just drive.

CAFE is effectively a gas-guzzler tax already, but because the manufacturers pay it instead of the consumers directly, the manufacturers have the flexibility to smooth out model-to-model and even year-to-year variance, which is important when the design cycle of vehicles is so long.

Politipets.

This is not a photo of Erna Solberg’s new cat.

You misunderstood my comment. I used the terms sometimes-autonomous and always-autonomous deliberately, because the common layterms partially-autonomous and fully-autonomous are about what the car is capable of, not what the car actually does. Always, as in every time, on every occasion, without exception.

No, you broke it. “No driver input” is an oxymoron. The always-autonomous vehicle is its own driver.

No, keep it just to no-seat belts; put the other stuff in another bucket. The problem is that apparently 14 out of 100 of us are living in denial; don’t give them any wiggle room.

Inattention is a problem. So is inability. The less frequently people drive and see and respond to “everyday” situations, the less they’ll be able to respond non-spastically when something does happen.

Peugeot is planning to enter the US market like I’m planning to lose weight.

You oversimplify the Chrysler LX’s development, but whatever.

Water it down further? Is this opposite day? How about giving it some meaning? What would a proper chance have been for a car whose only differentiating characteristics appeal to enthusiasts? The Holden imports got plenty of coverage in the buff books and enthusiast websites. It got NASCARed. There is no huge untapped…

That’s definitely what people doing interviews for movies mean, which is to say not very much, generally.

I know it’s poetry, but don’t be such a delicate flower.

Is this a real thing? It should be a real thing. I want this to be a real thing. But it needs to be 2-ply.

I cannot even hazard a guess as to what any of that means. But I’m pretty sure you don’t actually agree, because I said they knew it was a waste of money and you’re using words like “given a proper chance,” “grow into,” “mysterious,” and “risk.”

Order it and it will come.

GM didn’t put better marketing behind the G8 and SS because they knew it was a waste of money. Charger’s cheaper and bawdier. FWD sedans are cheaper and offer a range of styles, trims, and features finely honed by cutthroat competition. The Holdens were suicide missions.

They could, but why would they? There’s less money in it than in selling Malibus and Regals and ATSes. And even less than crossovers.