6 hours ago, balthazar said:

Maybe a tiny fraction of the money-is-no-object tri-5 builders might consider an electric build. If you have a huge budget, all sorts of possibilities are out there ? : 

 

 

Awesomeness! 

But Id opt for a 426 Cubic Inch Hellephant motor for that ride.  And if all sold out, Id PROUDLY stuff the 'ho-hum' Hellcat motor in it.    Not taking away from that build. Its just what I would prefer doing.  

THAT is an interesting build.  Certainly more compelling than a Hellephant or Hellcat swap.  

 

Now...about this one:

 

As much as I dont mind electric motors and batteries for the next generation of restoring restomoding the classics, I wouldnt want that 572 cu in motor in a '57 Chevy.  If I did, it wouldnt be lowered like that.  It have THE classic Hot Rod/muscle car  high rear stance.

 

But THAT is not what I would want from MY '57 Chevy.

So it would be lowered. NOT with a 572 cubic incher.  But with a Corvette 6.2 liter.  Yeah, supercharged. C7 ZR1 motor. Or the C7 Z06  motor.  Or the in between, the detuned Ct5 Blackwing V.   The motor would be as far back to the firewall as possible, suspension parts and brakes  from whatever late model Corvette (C5, C6, C7) would be a good fit with an Art Morrison or similar modern chassis  so it could be a classic, modern Chevy restomod. 

The Fuelie cross flag logo would be replaced with the C7 Corvette version on the front fenders.

From this:

 

To this: (the C5 Corvette logo)

 

Candy apple red.  

Pearl white top. 

Possible polished nickel on the chrome parts.  I said possible...  But the shiny parts, ALL of them, would be present and accounted for! 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 20214 yr by oldshurst442

47 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

This is the worst console in years, this is like 80s GM level bad.  Even worse is the option with only 1 screen, and you just get a big chuck of black plastic at the top.

 Or...1980s Mercedes bad

 

The caption says 1991 on this particular picture... 

1991

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1991-Mercedes-Benz-190-Class-Pictures-c6222?picturesTabFilter=INTERIOR#pictureId=35891412

 

Edited September 15, 20214 yr by oldshurst442

VW showed off their new ID.Life concept BEV that will start below $20,000 Euro's or below $23,640.00 U.S. Dollars. This will be built on a Shortened MEB platform.

Album of Images: ID. LIFE concept car | Volkswagen Newsroom (volkswagen-newsroom.com)

Outlook into electric entry-level mobility: world premiere of the Volkswagen ID. LIFE concept - Volkswagen US Media Site (vw.com)

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

Or...1980s Mercedes bad

Even after generations of chasing Cadillac, mercedes was still struggling to offer a luxury interior... by 1991. 

18 minutes ago, David said:

new ID.Life concept BEV

half-baked at best!

 

1 hour ago, David said:

VW showed off their new ID.Life concept BEV that will start below $20,000 Euro's or below $23,640.00 U.S. Dollars. This will be built on a Shortened MEB platform.

Album of Images: ID. LIFE concept car | Volkswagen Newsroom (volkswagen-newsroom.com)

Outlook into electric entry-level mobility: world premiere of the Volkswagen ID. LIFE concept - Volkswagen US Media Site (vw.com)

Why even bother with this as a concept? It looks like a cartoon clown car. Virtually none of it is buildable. I don’t even care about it’s propulsion since it wouldn’t be legal as a vehicle in any 1st world country.
 

people get paid to come up with this crap?

Car interiors for decades have either been cheap, forgettable or lame.  Only in the last 10-15 years have interiors actually improved to the point where you actually see a car as more than just a transport device.  By today's standards, no car built prior to 2002 is even worthy of praise for its interior.  Virtually all car interiors were cheap and often forgettable for a very long time.  We should enjoy what cars are offering us NOW because a lot of us remember what car interiors have been: cheap, forgettable, lame or a combination of the three, regardless of automaker.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

This is the worst console in years, this is like 80s GM level bad.  Even worse is the option with only 1 screen, and you just get a big chuck of black plastic at the top.

Hold my beer

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, regfootball said:

Hold my beer

 

 

 

 Hold my wine spritzer.

Add insult to injury, its @smk4565 car's interior. 

Now, if we want to criticize GM for whatever reason, we should ALSO look at the German car with the SAME freakin' critical eye.  

If we dont, well then, by golly...we arent really truthful to ourselves then.  And I dont really give a shyte who the phoque I offend! 

That right there, that Mer-say-deez Benz. Its one cl -ass-y car, I must say.  Better than anything Ive ever owned, I reckon. 

 

 

Honestly...I REALLY dont understand why we keep on shytting on GM's interiors? 

 

Is it BECAUSE Mercedes used two toned plastic greys and shinier fake wood on the more expensive models? 

From 2007 that Mer-SAY-deez.  An E 500 apparently. 

1998 Cadillac 

One generation apart and the Mercedes looks EXACTLY like that shytty FWD Caddy.  Go ahead, zoom in on the steering wheel and dash.   Plastic and vinyl.. Its "luxury" because its got textured plastic?  LOL

Its the same category too...  Its not as if I took a C Class to compare it to.  A freakin E 500 at that.  MORE expensive...

Yet alls we here about is how shytty the STS' interior was in car magazines and Eurosnobby patrons of Eurotrash cars like our fellow Mercedes E Class owner resident. 

 

Nothing personal, buddy. (SMK)  But I find it hi-larry-us you dissing on American cars when your own 'luxury' car was a dime a dozen taxi cab with a rugged, but taxi cab worthy interior... 

 

Edited September 16, 20214 yr by oldshurst442

17 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

 

 Hold my wine spritzer.

Add insult to injury, its @smk4565 car's interior. 

Now, if we want to criticize GM for whatever reason, we should ALSO look at the German car with the SAME freakin' critical eye.  

If we dont, well then, by golly...we arent really truthful to ourselves then.  And I dont really give a shyte who the phoque I offend! 

That right there, that Mer-say-deez Benz. Its one cl -ass-y car, I must say.  Better than anything Ive ever owned, I reckon. 

 

 

Honestly...I REALLY dont understand why we keep on shytting on GM's interiors? 

 

Is it BECAUSE Mercedes used two toned plastic greys and shinier fake wood on the more expensive models? 

From 2007 that Mer-SAY-deez.  An E 500 apparently. 

1998 Cadillac 

One generation apart and the Mercedes looks EXACTLY like that shytty FWD Caddy.  Go ahead, zoom in on the steering wheel and dash.   Plastic and vinyl.. Its "luxury" because its got textured plastic?  LOL

Its the same category too...  Its not as if I took a C Class to compare it to.  A freakin E 500 at that.  MORE expensive...

Yet alls we here about is how shytty the STS' interior was in car magazines and Eurosnobby patrons of Eurotrash cars like our fellow Mercedes E Class owner resident. 

 

Nothing personal, buddy. (SMK)  But I find it hi-larry-us you dissing on American cars when your own 'luxury' car was a dime a dozen taxi cab with a rugged, but taxi cab worthy interior... 

 

Looks like MB copied GM on the same use of that short fuzzy rat fur carpet on the transmission tunnel.

Random cool picture of downtown Columbus...my woodworking friend Devon took this with his motorcycloe on a bridge...

 

Random cool pic for today. 

Idiot in Camaro thinks he can beat a Tesla. Eventually I see idiots in BEV doing the same thing only faster.

Another Camaro messed up by an idiot driver.

Original Twitter Post

 

Of course, that goes 2 ways.

16 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

You need to because I still see Crown Vics rolling around here lol. Furthermore, they are only producing 1800 of these over the course of nine years. Most of the current ones are at least a decade old with probably a ton of miles on them. 

See my above response. Also, again, this over the course of nine years so obviously the first 200, in the first year, are going replace the oldest models and not the four year old models. By the time year nine rolls around, those four year models are now thirteen years old with a ton of miles and wear and tear. This is a common sense move, believe it or not. Is it wasteful? On some level, sure, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t need to be replaced. These are specific use vehicles and a lot of work go into them. 

Do you genuinely believe the United States government is in NEED of these new vehicles, the government that is known to piss money away like no other?  

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Do you genuinely believe the United States government is in NEED of these new vehicles, the government that is known to piss money away like no other?  

Depending on their purpose, the vehicles they are replacing will filter to other agencies.  The Suburbans referenced are likely only for the highest level security detail and the units they are replacing are reaching the end of their lives for front line use... but they'll get passed down to other agencies/departments.

When Obama came to office he started the program to replace the government fleet with more efficient vehicles. This was partially to help the domestic auto makers during the financial crisis, but replacing general purpose V8 Crown Vics with 4-cylinder Focus, Fusions, and G6es matched up with the desire for a more fuel efficient fleet.   And when you think about it... why do some Dept. of Transportation worker need a 22mpg Crown Vic when at 32 mpg Fusion will do?  At the Municipality where I work we repurpose old police vehicles to other departments when possible.  We have our own TV station/New Station and the TV Station Director just got a decommissioned Police Explorer with all of the armor removed. When the public works director gets a new truck, her old one goes to one of the lawn crews.  

A lot of those cars started to age out of the system at the beginning of the prior administration and started to get replaced. That batch will begin to age out by the end of the current administration.  The current admin has also not put a timeline on BEV conversion which gives them a lot of wiggle room.  But by declaring their intention now, they can encourage manufacturers to get production ramped up to replace those vehicles when the time comes. It won't be the entire fleet all at once like during the financial crisis. 

42 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Depending on their purpose, the vehicles they are replacing will filter to other agencies.  The Suburbans referenced are likely only for the highest level security detail and the units they are replacing are reaching the end of their lives for front line use... but they'll get passed down to other agencies/departments.

When Obama came to office he started the program to replace the government fleet with more efficient vehicles. This was partially to help the domestic auto makers during the financial crisis, but replacing general purpose V8 Crown Vics with 4-cylinder Focus, Fusions, and G6es matched up with the desire for a more fuel efficient fleet.   And when you think about it... why do some Dept. of Transportation worker need a 22mpg Crown Vic when at 32 mpg Fusion will do?  At the Municipality where I work we repurpose old police vehicles to other departments when possible.  We have our own TV station/New Station and the TV Station Director just got a decommissioned Police Explorer with all of the armor removed. When the public works director gets a new truck, her old one goes to one of the lawn crews.  

A lot of those cars started to age out of the system at the beginning of the prior administration and started to get replaced. That batch will begin to age out by the end of the current administration.  The current admin has also not put a timeline on BEV conversion which gives them a lot of wiggle room.  But by declaring their intention now, they can encourage manufacturers to get production ramped up to replace those vehicles when the time comes. It won't be the entire fleet all at once like during the financial crisis. 

I get what you're saying but this contract is specifically only for "Large Support Utility Commercial Vehicles". Pretty much everything you just mentioned is irrelevant with these new vehicles as they're large commercial vehicles. Knowing how poorly the federal government spends money, I can almost guarantee these are not a NEED and almost 100% a WANT.

Nothing more than the government saying one thing and doing another (any administration).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/01/28/biden-federal-fleet-electric/

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I get what you're saying but this contract is specifically only for "Large Support Utility Commercial Vehicles". Pretty much everything you just mentioned is irrelevant with these new vehicles as they're large commercial vehicles. Knowing how poorly the federal government spends money, I can almost guarantee these are not a NEED and almost 100% a WANT.

Nothing more than the government saying one thing and doing another (any administration).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/01/28/biden-federal-fleet-electric/

As @David pointed out, the last time GM built these vehicles was 2017... so yeah, they are reaching the end of their service lives.  And also, read between the lines.... this is basically a contract for Secret Service support vehicles.  They have a duty profile unlike most any other in the world.   The existing vehicles last entered service 5+ years ago.  You're correct that they won't get passed down to other departments but they're also such a tiny percentage of the overall federal fleet that they're less than a rounding error.

Also, the current administration did not put a timeline on when the fleet conversion would be completed and they were likely informed by GM and Ford (the likely only two bidders on the contract) that there would not be a BEV platform that meets the requirements of the Secret Service (and similar) in time for when the 2017 units need to be retired.  Along with these, the government is going to have to replace the aging Fusions and Impalas as they reach the end of their service lives.  Bureaucrats driving these cars are going to switch to.... what?  What is on the market as a BEV that will:

1. Be a like for like replacement for a Fusion or Impala
2. Be cost effective
3. Be built in the US with US parts

As for the need, the standards of reliability are so much higher for the Secret Service that it is more economical to replace the entire vehicle than to do tear down and rebuilds at 50k miles (just a guess on the service interval). You can't have a Suburban breaking down over a bad lifter actuator while the Pope or Queen Elizabeth is visiting.  Things that are inconveniences to you and I are international incidents to any administration.  We have 50% more police cars than officers on duty at any given time for exactly this reason. 

I could see once the battery issue is fixed that GM Bolt and Bolt EUV would replace the impalas / Fusions.

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

they are reaching the end of their service lives.

The service life the government put into place. There is no way these are actually worn out and NEED replacing and if you think they are, then why did you buy an older Avalanche if you think its reaching the end of its life? 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

The service life the government put into place. There is no way these are actually worn out and NEED replacing and if you think they are, then why did you buy an older Avalanche if you think its reaching the end of its life? 

Yes. The use profiles of government security vehicles is substantially different.

My Avalanche sat in warehouse the first 7 years of its life only accumulating 12,000 miles in that time. Secret Service vehicles get used and abused.. My Avalanche is still under 28k miles and already had its first set of front brakes because of a stuck caliper from under use. If it weren't for the time limit, my Avalanche would still be under mileage bumper to bumper warranty from GM. 

But again, what is a minor inconvenience to you and I could be a huge deal to the Secret Service. 

The standards of reliability are so much different for government than for civilian duty. I have to replace the generator in the building I work and because we have a 911 call center, the specs make it expensive.  But as I learned after multiple generator/battery failures this summer, if we're in a situation where we need a generator, we're probably also in a situation where we're getting lots of 911 calls. 

It's been a major learning experience for me on just how different the reliability requirements are just for local government work. I'd imagine it is equal or higher for the Feds.  They're probably already tearing down and rebuilding Suburbans now just to keep them on the road with their requirements.

18 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

 

 Hold my wine spritzer.

Add insult to injury, its @smk4565 car's interior. 

Now, if we want to criticize GM for whatever reason, we should ALSO look at the German car with the SAME freakin' critical eye.  

If we dont, well then, by golly...we arent really truthful to ourselves then.  And I dont really give a shyte who the phoque I offend! 

That right there, that Mer-say-deez Benz. Its one cl -ass-y car, I must say.  Better than anything Ive ever owned, I reckon. 

 

 

Honestly...I REALLY dont understand why we keep on shytting on GM's interiors? 

 

Is it BECAUSE Mercedes used two toned plastic greys and shinier fake wood on the more expensive models? 

From 2007 that Mer-SAY-deez.  An E 500 apparently. 

1998 Cadillac 

One generation apart and the Mercedes looks EXACTLY like that shytty FWD Caddy.  Go ahead, zoom in on the steering wheel and dash.   Plastic and vinyl.. Its "luxury" because its got textured plastic?  LOL

Its the same category too...  Its not as if I took a C Class to compare it to.  A freakin E 500 at that.  MORE expensive...

Yet alls we here about is how shytty the STS' interior was in car magazines and Eurosnobby patrons of Eurotrash cars like our fellow Mercedes E Class owner resident. 

 

Nothing personal, buddy. (SMK)  But I find it hi-larry-us you dissing on American cars when your own 'luxury' car was a dime a dozen taxi cab with a rugged, but taxi cab worthy interior... 

 

I actually liked the 98 Seville interior, the Zebrano wood trim was the same thing used in 80s S-classes.  

But my car is not the all black interior as that base E350 appears to be.  E550's have real leather seats and leather inserts in the door.  And mine is 2 tone sand beige and black.  I was going to upload a picture but the file upload wasn't working, so oh well.

But if those GM interiors of the 90s and 2000s, or even 2010s were so good, they why do their customers keep leaving?

 

 

6 hours ago, balthazar said:

Of course, that goes 2 ways.

To be fair, the dude in the Tesla did NOT want ANY part of it.

He even WARNED him that "its a TESLA! NO! NO! NO! I DONT CARE!"

The Tesla passenger after the crash told the driver to just go. 

The idiot Camaro driver just trashed what  looked like a nice freakin' car.  

In my eyes, there was only one idiot. Of course we do not know what transpired before of where the video starts, but hearing the Tesla driver emphatically denying any wanting of any shenanigans and warning him like "dude, its a Tesla, why you even want to bother?"  is proof enough for me that the Camaro driver is a couple of beers short of a six pack. 

 

 

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

But if those GM interiors of the 90s and 2000s, or even 2010s were so good, they why do their customers keep leaving?

Self hating Americans would be MY guess.

But I could be wrong... 

7 hours ago, David said:

Idiot in Camaro thinks he can beat a Tesla. Eventually I see idiots in BEV doing the same thing only faster.

Another Camaro messed up by an idiot driver.

Original Twitter Post

 

Best video of the week.  He totaled his car for sure, because the repair cost will easily eclipse the value of a Gen 4 Camaro.  What a moron.  And you couldn't out race a Tesla anyway, what is the point?

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

What is on the market as a BEV that will:

1. Be a like for like replacement for a Fusion or Impala
2. Be cost effective
3. Be built in the US with US parts

 

A Tesla is made in the USA.  There is a Model S I think that did 1 million miles, Tesla claims the Cybertruck is designed to do 750,000 miles.  So assuming a Model 3/Y is build in the same way, it should be able to do 500k miles which would be probably triple what a Fusion or Impala will do, thus making it cost effective.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

There is a Model S I think that did 1 million miles

There's one that has done at least 750K miles, but that was on 3 motors and 4 battery backs by the 500K mile range. That might be $100K in repair costs.

Edited September 16, 20214 yr by balthazar

 

There's the guy who drove his Volvo P1800 3.2 million miles, but I've yet to see how many engines / transmissions / rears it went thru (other than 'there were rebuilds but it has the original engine block & trans case'). Ford used to run ads for trucks having over a half million miles in the 1940s; a block can handle countless rebuilds, and they even can spray-weld cracked/broken blocks back together.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I actually liked the 98 Seville interior, the Zebrano wood trim was the same thing used in 80s S-classes.  

But my car is not the all black interior as that base E350 appears to be.  E550's have real leather seats and leather inserts in the door.  And mine is 2 tone sand beige and black.  I was going to upload a picture but the file upload wasn't working, so oh well.

But if those GM interiors of the 90s and 2000s, or even 2010s were so good, they why do their customers keep leaving?

 

 

Photo uploads are fixed

3 hours ago, David said:

I could see once the battery issue is fixed that GM Bolt and Bolt EUV would replace the impalas / Fusions.

No, the Bolt in both forms is still not an Impala/Fusion/Taurus replacement. 

21 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Car interiors for decades have either been cheap, forgettable or lame.  Only in the last 10-15 years have interiors actually improved to the point where you actually see a car as more than just a transport device.  By today's standards, no car built prior to 2002 is even worthy of praise for its interior.  Virtually all car interiors were cheap and often forgettable for a very long time.  We should enjoy what cars are offering us NOW because a lot of us remember what car interiors have been: cheap, forgettable, lame or a combination of the three, regardless of automaker.

Eh, I think if you narrow it down to like 1987ish through 2002ish with allowances for some exceptions that might be true.  That was certainly the malaise era for car interiors.   But even as bad as most of the 80's powertrains were, the interiors of the mid-lux and up at least had some style even if they weren't made from top end materials.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Photo uploads are fixed

No, the Bolt in both forms is still not an Impala/Fusion/Taurus replacement. 

You are right.  The Bolt is simply much too small to replace an Impala or Fusion.  A BEV Equinox would be a better replacement.

On 9/15/2021 at 10:43 PM, oldshurst442 said:

 

 

 Hold my wine spritzer.

Add insult to injury, its @smk4565 car's interior. 

Now, if we want to criticize GM for whatever reason, we should ALSO look at the German car with the SAME freakin' critical eye.  

If we dont, well then, by golly...we arent really truthful to ourselves then.  And I dont really give a shyte who the phoque I offend! 

That right there, that Mer-say-deez Benz. Its one cl -ass-y car, I must say.  Better than anything Ive ever owned, I reckon. 

 

 

Honestly...I REALLY dont understand why we keep on shytting on GM's interiors? 

 

Is it BECAUSE Mercedes used two toned plastic greys and shinier fake wood on the more expensive models? 

From 2007 that Mer-SAY-deez.  An E 500 apparently. 

1998 Cadillac 

One generation apart and the Mercedes looks EXACTLY like that shytty FWD Caddy.  Go ahead, zoom in on the steering wheel and dash.   Plastic and vinyl.. Its "luxury" because its got textured plastic?  LOL

Its the same category too...  Its not as if I took a C Class to compare it to.  A freakin E 500 at that.  MORE expensive...

Yet alls we here about is how shytty the STS' interior was in car magazines and Eurosnobby patrons of Eurotrash cars like our fellow Mercedes E Class owner resident. 

 

Nothing personal, buddy. (SMK)  But I find it hi-larry-us you dissing on American cars when your own 'luxury' car was a dime a dozen taxi cab with a rugged, but taxi cab worthy interior... 

 

I was mainly just poking fun at the large plastic bezel on the malibu dash on the model where they give you the really smalL screen 

speaking of those Mercedes like interiors chrysler did it too

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by regfootball

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

You are right.  The Bolt is simply much too small to replace an Impala or Fusion.  A BEV Equinox would be a better replacement.

A BEV equinox would be a good seller but a blazer size one would be that much more useful. 
 

WHOS GONNA BE RESERVING A CADILLAC LYRIQUE THIS WEEKEND 

1941 GMC ~ 
 

21 hours ago, David said:

Idiot in Camaro thinks he can beat a Tesla. Eventually I see idiots in BEV doing the same thing only faster.

Another Camaro messed up by an idiot driver.

Original Twitter Post

 

Sadly, that was a clean Camaro. 

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

1941 GMC ~ 
 

I love the rat rod vibe of this. 

9 hours ago, riviera74 said:

You are right.  The Bolt is simply much too small to replace an Impala or Fusion.  A BEV Equinox would be a better replacement.

Yeah, Equinox is kind of the sweet spot of where consumer tastes are at the moment. Consider how succesful Hyundai is with their SUV lineup. 

On 9/15/2021 at 7:42 PM, oldshurst442 said:

 Or...1980s Mercedes bad

 

The caption says 1991 on this particular picture... 

1991

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1991-Mercedes-Benz-190-Class-Pictures-c6222?picturesTabFilter=INTERIOR#pictureId=35891412

 

Actually I like that Era of Benz much more than the current product lineup. 

16 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Secret Service vehicles get used and abused.

How do they get abused more than any other commercial vehicle? They idle for 10 hours a day? 

Drop in a new engine, transmission, AWD system every 50k and it's brand new. The government just loves pissing money away for no GOOD reason.

It may not be real wood, but I'm partial to this for obvious reasons. It's got good style and a comfortable layout.  Cars today all try to have that fighter cockpit layout that I think is completely unnecessary and space consuming for anything not named Supra, Camaro, or Mustang.  Hip room in modern car is measured in inches.... hip room in my Toronado can be measured in feet.

It always strikes me that OEMs / the EPA ignore thick center consoles when measuring "front hip room".

Optional Toro wheel above, or from another model? 

8 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It always strikes me that OEMs / the EPA ignore thick center consoles when measuring "front hip room".

Optional Toro wheel above, or from another model? 

That's the wheel that comes only on the Caliente trim. I have e-bay searches out for one in my color. 

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It may not be real wood, but I'm partial to this for obvious reasons. It's got good style and a comfortable layout.  Cars today all try to have that fighter cockpit layout that I think is completely unnecessary and space consuming for anything not named Supra, Camaro, or Mustang.  Hip room in modern car is measured in inches.... hip room in my Toronado can be measured in feet.

That just says come drive me....

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

How do they get abused more than any other commercial vehicle? They idle for 10 hours a day? 

Drop in a new engine, transmission, AWD system every 50k and it's brand new. The government just loves pissing money away for no GOOD reason.

I have seen a Secret Service vehicle and with all the guns and other stuff these humans have to carry, you have to take into account the seats having holes worn in them from the gun holsters, doors, dash, etc. messed up from shotgun holders to other equipment that they carry. 

Used and Abused might be a bit harsh, but I will say these folks do not worry about the interior or shape as their focus is on protecting the ones they are assigned too.

As such, while I agree with you that there is excessive waste by Federal, state, county and city governments on pissing away tax payers money, the Secret Service and FBI I think tend to be hard on their SUVs from a valid reason as taking care of the auto the way you or I would is not their concern or focus.

IMHO

21 minutes ago, David said:

I have seen a Secret Service vehicle and with all the guns and other stuff these humans have to carry, you have to take into account the seats having holes worn in them from the gun holsters, doors, dash, etc. messed up from shotgun holders to other equipment that they carry. 

Used and Abused might be a bit harsh, but I will say these folks do not worry about the interior or shape as their focus is on protecting the ones they are assigned too.

As such, while I agree with you that there is excessive waste by Federal, state, county and city governments on pissing away tax payers money, the Secret Service and FBI I think tend to be hard on their SUVs from a valid reason as taking care of the auto the way you or I would is not their concern or focus.

IMHO

They're also hard on them because they know they'll just get replaced in a few years. It isn't the tax payers' fault they treat their tools for work extra hard because they're careless. 

They are not abused anymore than any other HD commercial vehicle. 

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

They're also hard on them because they know they'll just get replaced in a few years. It isn't the tax payers' fault they treat their tools for work extra hard because they're careless. 

They are not abused anymore than any other HD commercial vehicle. 

But their reliability is more critical 

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But their reliability is more critical 

And HD vehicles aren't breaking down very often to begin with. 

Maintain them. If reliability is extremely critical, maintain them. 

And are you talking about just regular ole secret service vehicles or the ones for actual high ranking officials/foreign leaders that are armored and weigh 20,000lbs? 

31 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

And HD vehicles aren't breaking down very often to begin with. 

Maintain them. If reliability is extremely critical, maintain them. 

And are you talking about just regular ole secret service vehicles or the ones for actual high ranking officials/foreign leaders that are armored and weigh 20,000lbs? 

Doesn’t matter. The suburbans that trail the one with the dignitaries are usually filled with their support staff or additional protection.

Interesting as I did not doubt that EV mode would help out on the trail, but seems people experience is showing EV over ICE is a better mode.

Tested: 2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime is better off-road with EV Mode (greencarreports.com)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're an advocate for the government pissing money away on things that are not needed. 

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're an advocate for the government pissing money away on things that are not needed. 

Watch it.  Who are you to determine what is needed or not? 
 

Again, I’ve learned a lot about reliability requirements since working for the government. Having things not work during emergencies is a no go and I have to plan for it.

Bog Gov’t doesn’t decide if things are needed or not, they just spend whenever they can. 

There’s been a real inversion over the last 50 years in the approach to fiscal responsibility in Gov’t.

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Watch it.  Who are you to determine what is needed or not? 
 

Again, I’ve learned a lot about reliability requirements since working for the government. Having things not work during emergencies is a no go and I have to plan for it.

Watch what? What about that comment is there for you to take personally? 

Oh, I guess because you work for the government. Well, don't piss money away and there wouldn't be anything to complain about...

20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Bog Gov’t doesn’t decide if things are needed or not, they just spend whenever they can. 

There’s been a real inversion over the last 50 years in the approach to fiscal responsibility in Gov’t.

 

12 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Watch what? What about that comment is there for you to take personally? 

Oh, I guess because you work for the government. Well, don't piss money away and there wouldn't be anything to complain about...

Because you’re making it political.

working for the energy company we had some pretty high standards for resiliency but it’s a whole new level for government. And even my small local government has high standards. 
 

But this argument is one I have at work regularly with one employee in particular. She regularly buys junk because it’s the cheapest… and then it doesn’t work right and there is no chance of it lasting the expected life.  Spending more up front to buy quality products pays off in the long run.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Because you’re making it political.

I have not made it political at all and even earlier I have very clearly stated that all administrations have been extremely wasteful. I have not singled out any political group whatsoever. 

I'm not saying to buy junk and replace it often. I'm saying they DO NOT buy junk AND they replace it often. 

Good things coming for Ford Mach-E as an over the air update will allow it to keep fast charging to 90% rather than the original 80% capacity limit Ford had at the start. Enough history is gathered from the current Mach-E out on the road to allow longer fast charging reducing the time to a full battery pack.

Exclusive: Ford Mustang Mach-E Fast Charging Update Coming (insideevs.com)

This is the best way to view Mercedes big showing of Electric Auto's to come over the next few years.

To me a very consistent ugly conservative image of dated electric auto's IMHO.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're an advocate for the government pissing money away on things that are not needed. 

In case You needed help seeing it.

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I have not made it political at all and even earlier I have very clearly stated that all administrations have been extremely wasteful. I have not singled out any political group whatsoever. 

I'm not saying to buy junk and replace it often. I'm saying they DO NOT buy junk AND they replace it often. 

The point is that the readiness profile of these vehicles is unlike any other in the world. It’s likely that they have 2 or 3 layers of redundant vehicles and cycle them out for overhauls, so if they buy 300 of them only 100 are duty ready at any given time, another 100 are kept on reserve standby, and the other 100 are being overhauled.

Can the government spend less money? Absolutely. But this is such a tiny chunk of the budget not even the accountants would notice the difference and replacing 2017 and older vehicles that have been literally flown around the world doesn’t seem like a huge problem to me. Now, if all they did was go back and forth to the golf club for the last 4 years, then you might have an argument.