The “500 mile” range claim is essentially meaningless in that there’s no mention of loaded trailer weight or ambient operating temperature, the later of which hugely impacts real world range. I’d put real world range at 120 miles or so, assuming a 70,000 pound gross vehicle weight (including loaded trailer) and 25…

A supercharged front wheel drive car has nothing to do with NASCAR. This Monte Carlo came closer to the NASCAR concept (:69 5.0 liter HO V8, rear drive with limited slip diff, full frame and the aero rear that was specifically designed for NASCAR homologation:…

Rear locker makes a huge difference, even with so called “4WD.” (To me, it’s not true 4WD unless all four wheels are turning under power in the slipperiest of conditions.  That’s why the Power Wagon comes STANDARD with locking rear AND FRONT differentials. Same with Jeep’s Wrangler Rubicon.)

Does it have the Power Wagon’s fully lockable front and rear differentials, front sway bar disconnect and other specific off road features? Why is this the engine I’d want? The 6.4 gas V8 is quicker, burns less expensive fuel, is substantially lighter and much less expensive. I’d want the 6.4 (real Power Wagon).

Horner’s the best and most balanced team principal in F1.  I find this article insulting.

VW took what was a fantastic and highly function interior and turned it to garbage with the new MK VIII GTI. I’m presently on my 4th consecutive new GTI (2018 Autobahn 6 speed manual with 31,000 miles on it). The interiors played a large role in my decision to buy all four of my GTIs from 2010 - 2018. Given what…

The emphasis here is clearly on performance.  It outperforms many cars that cost more than $40K.

This car would walk all over a VWR32 in the straights, on road racing circuits and so on. Different league entirely. By the way, my daily driver is a 2018 GTI autobahn, which is my 4th consecutive new GTI. I’ve never owned a Civic. Original R32 road test here: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15132680/volkswagen-r…

Nothing is really “hydrogen powered” because hydrogen is only an energy carrier, which makes it very similar to batteries in that regard. More energy is required to produce the hydrogen than what it’s capable of yielding.

It’s your response that’s trivial.  Increasing ride height a little would greatly impact ground effects generated downforce.  Do you honestly believe that F1 team’s engineers are so stupid that they wouldn’t follow your suggestion if it made any sense?

EVERY issue I mentioned is readily verifiable, son.  Get real.

And I’m guessing that you don’t know thing one about EVs, including their primary energy sources (fossil fuels used at electrical utility plants that generate the electricity that charges the batteries), the constant degradation in performance of the batteries themselves (which range declining accordingly), the…

Camaro looks like a rolling cartoon, has a cheesy interior with poor ergonomics and lousy outward visibility. It’s also a 4 seater and not a 2.

Camaro looks like a rolling cartoon, has a cheesy interior with poor ergonomics and lousy outward visibility.  It’s also a 4 seater and not a 2.

The Z28s from this era were among the best handling cars on the planet at the time:  https://www.thirdgen.org/besthandlingamericancarpart2-caranddriver-oct1984/

An ‘87 5.0 liter/5 speed manual Mustang 5.0 liter HO that couldn’t rev past 3,600 RPM?  Are you even serious?  Go review the original road tests. These engines could rev to 5,400 RPM with EASE and make useable power to that point.  Here’s me on Cape Cod with my then ‘88 5.0 LX notch.  Very quick car in its day!

Less than I was hoping for.

That’s no “exception.” Indeed, it’s the very root of my statement.

Expanding on my prior comment.

I’ve been a propulsion systems engineer for more than 30 years, meaning I qualify.