I went down the rabbit hole this morning trying to figure out what happened with Levandowski’s company so you guys don’t have to.

I feel like Chrysler has suffered from neglect. The company never knew what to do with it, and never investing in any products into the brand. Back in the day, it was Chrysler’s answer to Cadillac and Lincoln. But as Mercedes and Fiat (alfa romeo) came into the picture, they didn’t want Chrysler encroaching in their…

Right, that’s why Porsche is dead and why VW kept Audi around.

So what you’re saying is, it’s entirely possible if they spun Corvette off as it’s own brand. People would still call it a Chevrolet, and if they added fundamentally profitable models like SUVs, it’ll be fine. Got it.

Just remember Genesis was a Hyundai model until it became it’s own brand.

100% agreed. And if you’re making a list of brands that could transition into a Porsche competitor (think Macan and Cayenne) very very few options would fit the bill. And I personally think Corvette as a brand is about as perfect as it can get. Now it’s just up to GM to create a competitive product

Has hell frozen over? Is Erik Shilling.... defending GM?

Cool Story.

I would argue that the investment in cellular technology has lead to a greater benefit to the economy and, in the end, tax revenue than the initial investment.

Well

While I agree that charging technology even 5 years from now will be vastly superior to what we have now. I doubt they are going to build it like public roads, owned whole by the federal government. If anything, I would think they would give heavy incentives to private companies to build them. And beyond that point,…

1st Gear:

Yeah, it’s not like we didn’t land on the moon 50 years ago. Hear that NASA? Throw that new rocket development in the trash, strap some people on a rocket and fire them off to the moon. You did your due diligence in the 60's, why do it again!?

Oh I totally get that it’s a states rights thing, and is definitely up for debate. I was just speaking to the auto manufacturers perspective. And I totally understand that they can build to two different requirements (way easier if they are mostly in line or have the same requirements just at different magnitudes).…

Agreed, however for whatever reason, the authors here seem to think the auto companies were siding between higher emissions vs lower emissions, which may be true for some, but others were arguing for a national standard vs piecemeal measures from states on top of a national standard. I can personally attest that…

Porsche releases 15 concepts. Jalopnik reports on two of them.

Formula 1 cars, and other race cars for that matter, are geared only for what is necessary. Gearing this Bugatti to go 300mph is clearly a decision not to create a track car that will be fastest around most tracks, but a decision to hit that magic number.

I mean even the most basic of economic concepts should tell you.... when they’re cheaper and/or a better value than the alternative.

At the end of the day, this is just cost saving by Tesla. And it’s such and odd place to cut costs. Their idea is that eventually, with enough software development, cameras should be enough to accomplish Level 5 autonomy. So if Lidar is just a stepping stone to a cheaper, camera only solution, why not skip a step?

I think that VW consept, depressingly, came to life as the VW Eos