Absolutely--follow a pattern--good as a reason for a model name as any.
Your point is completely valid. I still maintain that the Chrysler family over the years has had a much higher proportion of “-er” names than the other manufacturers. Go to the trouble of inputting a spreadsheet of model names to settle it? Nope. Just something I’ve noticed that maybe, maybe not be true.
“... leaving them alone for the afternoon then returning to find a perfect 1:1 recreation of Michelangelo’s David made entirely of lego sitting in their foyer...”
All I see is a Jeep trying to pass itself off as a Postal Service Jeep.
Carmakers sometimes use patterns in how they name their vehicles—Ford with names beginning with “F” designating most of its cars (when they built cars) and “E” for their SUVs.
So for $47K you get a loop of plywood painted black with a seat pretentiously mounted within it as you deal with a less-than-cutting-edge video controller.
Good. There is security footage—it’s a tale of the tape so let’s review—no more he said, she said bullshit.
Too funny--COTD.
These 21st century pimpmobiles make me want to puke. It’s just a big, ugly box on wheels with way more cachet that it deserves.
You make bad decisions, you suffer the consequences.
Ka-ching! COTD.
So easy: the 1985 Indy 500 when Danny Sullivan did the “Spin and Win”:
Why does Vikander get cast in anything?
It presses my buttons. Price on the high side, but then what isn’t nowadays? And looking remarkably good for a 40 year-old car.... Yes, it’s a wheezing motor and today’s actual output has to be even lower, but think of it as a diamond that needs a polish.
Sure, if they were paying me $4,500 to take that fustercluck off the seller’s hands.
Look, I don’t care how fantastically high Alpine cars are held in regard. That E-termite, uh, E-ternité is just too damn chunky to be fobbed off as a sports car.