That's nice. Ford offering an automatic or DCT as an option doesn't change any of that. It simply means they sell more and make more money off of the car.

...Except your reasoning does not, and has not, applied for years. Just take a look at Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, etc. They all offer either very, very good alternatives to manuals, or they simply don't offer manuals at all any more. In Porsche's case, the latest iteration of their most focused, hard-core car…

That V8 is linked directly to a six speed manual transmission, and there is no mention of a dual clutch or an automatic or a CVT or anything else anywhere. This pleases us.

I don't even mind them as a collection. But all that yellow in that black-and-white checkered garage is nauseating.

You know, there's nothing actually wrong with the Stingray or the Chevelle in and of themselves. I'm not a huge fan of excessive chrome, but those wheels are far from the worst I've ever seen.

It's actually not. What is hard for people to do, however, is understand that an opinion can be presented for the sake of sparking a discussion as opposed to bashing the opinions of others. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

A fair point, but as time has gone by, the major differences between these cars have begun to narrow dramatically. The Corvette has always had the ability to soundly thrash an equivalent 911, but it's always lacked the refinement and quality. Now that's changed. The C7 has the refinement and interior. And it can still…

...And that's the point of the comment - to discuss different preferences and why people prefer different things.

Why bother? A simple LS-series engine will do the job just fine for less money and less complexity.

You know, dropping in an LT1 would probably have been simpler. And far sexier.

Well, the idea behind putting up the Me 262 wasn't the effect that it had in individual battles in WWII, but rather the fact that in one fell swoop, it essentially brought the era piston-engined aircraft to an abrupt end, which would dramatically change the way we fought in the air.

...Except for the fact that none of that is true.

See my reply to another commenter. I'm well aware of why it looks the way that it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it is A) inelegant and B) not particularly well suited for any of it's roles.

Not really; not in this instance. The jet was saddled with so many requirements to do so many things that at the end of the day, it's form allows it to have different airframe configurations.

Not yet it can't.

You must be quite young; the Hornet hasn't been around that long. The A-4, A-7, F-8, etc were all single-engine jets. They worked just fine.

If you're going by the measure of since the 70s, that leaves the Tomcat and Hornet/Super Hornet. All else were earlier, and many of their contemporaries that were well-regarded and had long careers were single-engine jets.

That is one inelegant jet...

Historically, most USN carrier-based jets have been single-engined.

I don't know about that. I'm a fan of the Power Plus 105: