The margins on $20k vehicles are very low, even for companies that make good ones. It’s actually very hard. 

The argument isn’t meant to hold up on a macro level to sustain the car market. It’s just saying that, from a purely practical and financial standpoint you shouldn’t spend much on a car, and thus you should likely buy cheap and used.

That’s not how 401ks work. 

That is incredibly stupid. Just shockingly so. 

If you’re under 45 you should be making Roth contributions, not pretax. 

When you start getting around 6’6” health problems start cropping up too. 

I don’t think that will be hurt by using the nameplate on Ford’s first EV, even if it’s a bloated crossover.

I think everyone here is overselling how much this will all matter in the end. Also, as Ford’s first EV, this thing will carry cachet, even if it’s bloated. 

The Blazer, while sometimes interesting was not a good vehicle, even compared to its contemporaries.

It was in another morning shift or something. 

The S10 was not a great vehicle. The new one also isn’t great but it’s not ruining some grand legacy.

Nah. 

Ford still gets the full EV credit, so that’ll help for a good long while. 

A performance oriented EV that’s Ford’s first is more aspirational than the Mustang II or Fox Body.

It looks like the spy shots without camo. What were you expecting?

Ah yes, the market for a car isn’t made up of the people who buy the car.

“Ford is taking one thing, whose market is made up almost entirely of enthusiasts,”

This COTD is great and correct. The name will piss off people here and won’t really matter to the normal Mustang. 

But the current Blazer and the last Blazer were both bad. 

Eh, the basic idea is that the cost curve will bend downward eventually and they’ll use their remaining brand cache to bring people back or convert them from other brands.