I’m guessing the extra weight from making it longer is the culprit.

It gains a thing that most people want - a better, more upright seating position and easier ingress and egress.  It’s non-trivial. 

Ah yes, the fabled Buick strategy.

Yeah. He found a narrative to go after and ignored some pretty basic things. Chevy also discounts these like crazy and it’s no where close to the Y or Mach-E.

I’d hardly call 3" more rear legroom “slight” in a small car. The “lift” however, is 0.2" more, which is miniscule, and likely only due to the roof rails that the regular Bolt lacks.

Packaging and marketing aside, with 2.9" longer wheelbase, this appears to be a lengthened Bolt, not a lifted one.

I’ve been in the rear of the current Bolt. If the Bolt EUV has more leg room, even if it’s a few inches, it’s worth the price increase.

The height difference is 0.2”. The roof rails are the only difference to begin with. 

Making it 6” longer to have a bigger backseat, thus adding weight, probably has more to do with the mileage loss than the 0.2” of height.

Nobody knows about it

Jesus Christ, you guys are not getting it.

Please note the shortage is caused by the panic.

I would assume that “process” NEBcruiser is referring to is the revocation of the easement. That is defined somewhere, someplace.

Can definitely confirm re: the mileage vs. speed limit - and this doesn’t even take into account the minute you lift it, add heavy duty bumpers, and upgrade your tire size.

There are already cases being litigated that could apply to this. When President Biden decided to unilaterally revoke the federal permit for the KeystoneXL pipeline, TransCanada and many others filed suit. The premise is that the government through its various agencies and jurisdictions cannot grant permits, only to…

No, but they kill a lot of birds.

If suddenly all vehicles in the world got more than 10% better gas mileage then that would be pretty “earthshaking”, so that 11%+ difference is a big deal. That typed, neither vehicle should be considered economical on fuel use and I’m willing to bet it does not matter to customers in this automotive segment.

My RAM 1500 Rebel has 33" tires from the factory, it gets terrible mpg compared to regular street tired RAMs.

I suspect it’s the larger wheels tires, heavier weight and higher body configuration of the Bronco. The things that make you good off-road don’t help mpg.

They look great in-person, it seems like everyone else present was just as jazzed to get to see one (that said, both were Bronco events, lol). The two-door looks much cooler, but I only got to sit/ride in a four-door, so I can’t say how the smaller interior feels.

Initially that sounds pretty terrible - but then I remember it has 35's. And the extra height kills the aero. 34" tires on my 4R = 17mpg on a good day. 35's with low gearing - I’d be more like 13. So I think it’s probably right where I’d expect, maybe better. The same engine returns 19/24 in the F150. It’s the tires…