The ZL1 retained it’s front end because of the additional cooling requirements from the supercharger and higher output motor. The front end on the ZL1 was also designed to assist with downforce. Because of the functionality of the original design Chevrolet decided to not update the ZL1 front end. They followed this…

Do you have evidence that the NRA opposes that?  I have never heard this.

However, the pictures in the article and in Nic’s post are both SS models.  The article’s pictures also include a prototype design for a body colored bumper and bow tie relocation.

The renders in the article include an optional dealer accessory bow tie replacement and body colored bumper. This reveal is also kind of a pre-SEMA teaser.  The photo you posted is the factory look for the 2019 SS.

This isn’t that massive. It’s comparable in size to the first generation of Traverse/Acadia/Enclave. The Acadia was 201.1" long, 78.9" wide, and 72.8" tall. Those also managed to have 3 seats in the 3rd row. They also had middle row options of a bench seat with 3 seats (total of 8) or 2 captains chairs (total of 7).

I can’t say for sure how the fences are designed. I’ve never seen one used in person, and I’ve never had the experience of using one myself. Sorry for not reading into the sarcasm, but yours wasn’t the first post referencing brake sizes/bashing drag racing in general.  I just felt the need to say something.

Like this?  I too was raised in the backseat of a Camaro.  A 1983 Camaro followed up with a 1995 Camaro.  I carry on this tradition to my kids.

They utilize a system of parachutes and brakes to slow down, and it works perfectly well thousands of times every season. However, in the event that something does go awry, the design of the track and the cars assist with ensuring driving safety. You have the roll cage, the seat harness, the suit, the helmet, the…

Precisely, it is the same as hitting an object of the same weight moving the same speed because that immovable wall can only exert the same amount of force on the F150 as the F150 is exerting on it. Now think of the scenario of a Miata hitting an F150. In the crash tests, both cars hit the wall and stop basically…

I imagine that these were pushed at lower volumes than the older styles.  The name of the car probably also contributes to the depreciation curve as well.  Excluding the rental factor, an identically equipped, model year, and mileage Avalon will always have a higher residual than an Impala based on the badge alone.

You are correct.  It looks like the Impala moved to the W chassis around 2000, however, the origins of that chassis go back to the late 80s.

The Impala had a major design overhaul in 2014. I would imagine that the depreciation is based off 2013 models which were built on the third generation of the W platform which can ultimately trace its roots back to the 80s.

Here is a little note on the Impala. These are 5 year depreciation trends which means we are most likely looking at 2013 model year vehicles. The 2013 Impala was the last year of the previous generation Impala (excluding the 2014 rental models) which dates as far back as 2006 with the origins of the chassis going back…

With the Fiat being the exception, those pictures also highlight that the windows are also usually surrounded by must beefier pillars than the cars of yesteryears.  What used to be a thin strip of metal is now a fully formed piece of structural steel encased in noise reduction material and trim pieces.

Actually under a load the turbo motor will likely use more fuel because it will be running rich to help keep intake temperatures in check.  The NA motor will be running more efficiently under a full load.

My  1998 base V6 F150 2WD single cab stepside never saw above 16 mpg on a highway trip. Mixed driving was closer to 13.

Any evidence of that? My first vehicle was a single cab 2WD F150 with the 4.2L V6 and short bed.  It was the smallest configuration with the smallest motor.  I never got above 15 mpg highway. Combined was closer to 13.

Sounds like he has some traction issues. The trap speed (115 mph)seems high for the time (12.5s).

A stock LSA is good for wheel horsepower in the 490s while being rated 556-580 hp at the crank. This car seems to be in line with those figures.  However, the LSA does those numbers with closer to 8-9 lbs of boost.  I don’t know what displacement motor nor heads nor cam that he is running.

Up until last year, I drove a 2000 Accord as my DD (hard to argue against free).  It was smaller than a current Civic.