So did Ford in the early to mid-90s with the SHO slicers

I like directional wheels when done properly, meaning left and right wheels are different so they all “roll the same way”. There have been a few cars in the past that had these but it increases production costs so it’s not the norm.

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I’m agreeing with you lol. This Mach E may be fast but it will be far more expensive and straight line performance isn’t everything. I don’t think this Mach E will handle very well, at least not as well as the coupe.

Don’t forget the price difference. The current GT still starts at under $40k. I’m sure higher trims of the Mach-E will be faster in a straight line, but looking at these leaked images you’ll spend over $60k.

The coupe isn’t going anywhere. There’s a 7th generation in the pipeline. This thing and the coupe do not share a platform so there is no cost savings there. There is no “saving” the Mustang with this, just a lame attempt to capitalize off the name.

And the new ones no longer have the DCT. Traditional auto with 8 speeds. But it left such a bad taste in consumers mouths I don’t think they would care to even notice the DCT is gone. 

Technically it’s already a thing. The Tesla Model X has its electric motor out back and I assume this Ford crossover thing will as well.

It was the CR-V that showed it’s AWD essentially useless. Admittedly that was several years ago and I am not sure if it has been improved. 

Im glad I’m not the only one that noticed this. Even without the rock these people are clearly going over the curb with at least 2 if not 3 of their wheels. How bad of drivers are these people to be turning that early?

I would agree with this theory with one caveat. If financing look at the interest rates, interest accrued over time, and money saved buying used. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some cases it makes more sense to buy new if you are able to snag 0% financing.

Rotational mass and unsprung weight are greatly affected by wheel weight. It’s much more than the simple number in weight savings. 

My thought as well. Getting satellite radio when I lived in Madison was a godsend simply for these commercials.

I think you are missing the gist of the OP’s post. GM isn’t even worth $100 billion. It should probably say hundreds of millions.

Considering the average age of vehicles on the road today is like 11 years, I’d disagree. 

That’s because they share a platform. And while Ford would not want to admit it the Taurus X became the Explorer with some minor tweaks.

Thanks for the additional info, good to know. Still sucks it impacts you.

I don’t think that would solve the problem panthercougar mentioned, unless profit sharing bonuses are further defined separately between white and blue collar employees. You’d just have 2 unions not caring if they screw one another over.

In a way it does, because of regulations. Crossovers and SUVs are lumped together in truck average fuel economy figures. In the 90s when SUVs were starting to become popular it make more sense for the manufacturers to sell a 20 mpg SUV than say a 25 mpg wagon. The wagon dragged down the average of cars while the SUV…

Wow, seriously never heard of flat contributions. Learn something new every day.

Hence why he said it’s usually percentage based. If it is, GM would put more in as your salary increases anyway. And an annual contribution cap is more limited by the government more than anything else. Has anyone ever seen a flat $$$ amount employer contribution to a 401k? I personally have never heard of a company…