Seriously, Occam’s Razor needs to be applied here.

Price, depreciation, battery wear (and the significant threshold before it’s warrantable), cold weather degradation, charger compatibility, and vehicle desirability are the primary factors holding us back from buying an EV.

I love how he mentions a bunch of glaring design and quality issues, including that he broke part of it the very first time he used it, but still compliments its “smart design” and “attention to detail.”  The truck doesn’t even have the “tent mode” the instructions say to activate!  I just don’t get the doublethink.

True to me. I drive either very short miles once a week or several thousand miles once a year. So thinking that my car would lost a lot of value every year due to these kinds of driving drives me away from EVs for the time being.

Relax kid, it’s a tongue-in-cheek comment related to one of the articles posted yesterday. You’ve got the entire internet at your disposal, go look it up. Or don’t, you’ve already ruined it.

Ah, okay. No, those things I certainly do not do. Politically speaking, I’m far left in the US, but even centrists on the Europe scale is a leftie liberal compared to the US political scene (where everyone seems to be cluttered at the very right).

Of all people you should be happy. This car went from concept to production in only two years.

“A Challenger outlast a Corolla”? Oh yeah, just like that time a Dodge Durango outlived a 4Runner.

“Queue up pedantic know it all commenters on this article.”

Isn’t “complimentary WiFi” quite de rigueur at all dealerships as well?

Providing a full tank of gas upon purchase is one of the rules. Is this not an industry standard? In the past 30 years of buying vehicles, private or dealer based sales, I have only once not gotten in to it without a full tank. Weirdly, that was a Jeep (see user name), but they also gave me $40 in cash to top off the…

That’s two of the same car.

Or travel back a little bit farther, and tell the proud owner of a new 1981 Lamborghini Countach that, in 2024, a Camry could beat his car’s 0-60 time. 

They’d say, “Word up! They must be all that and a bag of chips!”

Go to the 80's when a Mustang 5.0 was 222HP and anything over 200HP was Big Power

An engineer friend was offered a job at the Boring Company. The experience he relayed to me was this: they strung him along for round after round of interviews including a flyback to meet with the head honchos. The job would have required relocation to a higher cost of living area. They kept being evasive on salary…

“For Porsche, Turbo is more than just a model designation – it is an expression of a whole host of very special characteristics. But one thing stands out above all: a Turbo is always a technology leader.” https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2020/products/porsche-model-designation-turbo-characteristics-technology-leader-230…

It hasn’t morphed. The marketing/sales department decided. It is not a natural change in connotation, it is a manufactured definition. And stupid. Like when I was in high school and the control question on the drug survey. “Have you ever done Turbo’s?”. That did exist either.

What if it had a “turbo” button like some computers did in the 90s?

Calling it a wing disintegrating I actually think is fair, since the general public won’t know the difference between the structural part of the wing and its control surfaces, and certainly won’t know the proper terminology. They’ll recognize its one of the moving parts on the wing and not know what to call it, and…