Just a note about the CoG/wheelbase thing: I had a Mercedes C180 wagon. It did not behave well on slippery roads, and did not feel as stable as it ought to at high speed.

They tend to look decent, but technically put together by someone who has no overarching vision.

Peak car.

Bike = light = small engine = needs high revs to give adequate power.

My car.

Physical buttons. Large, chunky, solid ones with decent travel and tactile clicks when operated.

Does it have any redeeming features that would warrant that we choose it over its competitors?

As a rule of thumb I assume that most economy news are lies seeded by those who stand to gain, and thus the opposite is true.

This is good and all, but I think they are shooting for a target that people are not interested in.

Oh, I hate carburetors as much as the next guy. I spit on that damn Quadrajet.

No, you are right. I clearly remember how my computer-aided Rochester Quadrajet used to bluescreen and I had to reboot it once in a while.

Fair enough.

You are technically correct, which is the best type of correct - but most of those did not run operating systems. And they usually stuck to one task.

WV Bus, with a 20' linkage between the shifter and the gearbox at the rear.

About what I expect from computers.

Looks a lot like what I was doodling in the sketchbook at age 15, except mine had a humongous engine filling that rear space.

The problem is the axial sealing. Where you twist a (big-ass!) thread to compress something soft, and then hope that it will not vibrate off.

Define “weak down low”.

1986, winter.

I don’t have dyslexia, and I had to do a double take to unravel the gibberish. “BZ... BX... X4...wat”