2.4 NA from most reports, but it's been pretty easy to turbo the 2.0 in the current car, so it would be surprising if there weren't kits out pretty quickly.

By most reports, yes. Not quite 200/200 (I’ve seen 220/180 as the numbers thrown around for the NA FA24).

Pfff. Slick roads just mean more fun.

They’re building on the existing platform, so there shouldn't be as many teething issues with this generation.

(Dany Bahar)

Too many unique parts (they would need different parts for every combination of interior and exterior trim and colour). They couldn't do it economically.

FCA is moving away from magnetos and carbs? Good for them!

Considering the head-start that Toyota have in the hybrid field, it's astonishing that they don't already have one.

Do you know how difficult it is to find a gold-plated road case?

Brutal.

In having said what I did in my prior comment, I agree that the court will sometimes return a surprising opinion - Bostock v Clayton County is a good example of an ostensibly conservative court returning a progressive verdict.

So no taste at all then ;)

It’s also useful for regenerative braking purposes, particularly compared to rear-drive-only.

Dessert has an even bigger effect on range. You might think snow is bad, but that’s just because you’ve never tried driving through sticky toffee pudding. The fudgy centre causes terrible range losses - it’s like trying to drive on quicksand. Even a simple flummery puts up a lot more resistance than you would expect,…

Hendrick has evidently calculated that his capacity to win races, combined with the redemption narrative, more than offset his original offence in the eyes of fans and sponsors. Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen, and it could be considered a cynical approach to the sport, but it's not unprecedented.

In that particular case, one of the key passages of the majority opinion stands out as unlikely to be repeated with the current justices, six of whom are conservative Christians:

That’s very kind of you - many thanks for your generosity.

Nah mate, just got time to kill and thought I might correct you.

You do realise that it wasn’t actually called Obamacare, right? That was a term coined by a health industry lobbyist and popularised by Republicans as a derisive nickname meant to ridicule the policy (which is actually called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

In the next 20 years two of the conservative justices (Thomas and Alito) will almost certainly be dead (as will Breyer). Democrats have to win big in this election, gerrymander like hell and ensure they’re in power for that whole time, so that they can rebalance the ideological seesaw.