surreal1272

Are you sure about that? Now, I'm not saying that the Tahoe Z71 is a "Jeep killer" but apparently it's also not slouch off road. One quote from it, "As the Tahoe slowly made its way past the first obstacles, I learned to trust in the 34.9-degree approach angle that comes as a result of the Z71's trim-specific front bumper, realizing the machine could climb higher step-ups than I'd ever imagined. (For context, the most capable Ford Bronco Sport has a 30.4-dgree approach angle, and a Toyota 4Runner TRD Pro comes in at 33.0 degrees.)" https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/chevrolet-tahoe-z71-road-trip-review/ Oh and why has no one mentioned the fact that the Hummer EV/SUV is coming out as well. Is SMK going to tell me that it is not an off road SUV?

No $h! Sherlock . It sure wasn't for the lack of trying though was it? The rest of your post doesn't even matter because it's just more pom pom waving from the resident Daimler fan. What are you talking about? Did you ignore the part where the Blazer's down year was directly because of the chip shortage or do you just like making up stuff as you go? Did you actually READ why it's being discontinued? It's not because of sales. https://carbuzz.com/news/ford-edge-and-lincoln-nautilus-are-dead-after-2023 Stop posting half truths.

Who freakin cares? You keep finding ways to take a $h! on it when you’re the only one who seems to care. Again, they have other off road vehicles in the form of the mid-size and full size pick ups. So, based on your “Benz has an off-road SUV” logic, let me ask you this. Which Benz pick up beats those off road?

Meanwhile GM makes and sells several off road pick ups while Benz has ZERO pick ups for being with. And they sell plenty of them. And big whoop! Benz makes one true off road SUV (that 99.999% of their never take off road). It's also a low volume seller but hey, numbers only count when they work in your favor right? BTW, as good as the 4Runner is, it is outsold by every other CUV Toyota makes so not really convincing argument. One last thing. Blazer sales are down for obvious reasons that you should already be aware of. It's the same reason why most sales figures are down. Most CUVs have that but I will agree with SMK, that GM messed up calling it a Blazer (throw in the Trailblazer for good measure). However, they sell plenty of them still.

Agreed. It is just boring though.

No need to exaggerate. Unless you drive 300 miles a day or even 150 a day, you would not be plugging it in that often. Based on your ten day figure, it’s more like every five days. If it was me, I’d rather the “inconvenience” of plugging it in once a week than having to deal with your average gas station.

Still a HUGE gulf in costs to fill up vs. juice up. Oh and nice bar moving there SMK.

Well, good thing cars can't run of gas while stranded on the highway in the cold, I guess. Oh wait. Also, of the record, if power is out in surrounding areas, then you can't get gas either. point being, whether its and ICE or an EV, there are risks when you're stranded out in the cold.

Because the German car fan has to find any excuse to $h! on domestics, that's why.

That also comes with AWD and a V6 as an option and doesn't NEED to be any of that since they have already committed to it being a CUV EV. Now, they could surprise everyone and do just that but for now, that does not appear to be the case.

Again, not an apples to oranges comparison and you know it Balth. It should be noted that it is FAR cheaper to juice up for 300 miles than it is fill 300 miles worth of diesel into your GMC. You also are skipping over a lot of features that the Lightning offers that ICE pick ups don't. While it may not be "worth it" to you, I bet it is worth it to plenty of others.

Don't get it twisted. I'm not VW fan but yes, the CC was a nice looking ride. However, It was more about the "best or nothing" building a $100K+ jellybean version of a $30K VW lol. He actually did mention that in the same sentence. "and that EQXX concept which looks better has a .18 cD. " Oh and I wouldn't get my hopes up on the production model looking like that concept. That rear end will never pass crash standards here.

I guess Rivian and GMC didn’t get that message. Neither of their EVs have any kind of coupe like slope. You are only making that a point of emphasis because that is what Daimler wants to do.

I’m going to call 100% BS because most automakers have eyes. The Lyriq has a slope but it is nowhere near “coupe” like so that’s not a correct assessment either.

With all due respect, there is blue, black, and chrome, the same number of colors (with a slightly brighter blue) as your GMC.

They stand a better chance of making that happen than Tesla and their chances are better than Daimlers chances of putting out an EV that doesn’t look like a used VW CC on the outside (wink wink EQS). Besides, no one expects the base price anyway, much like with every ICE vehicle. Most importantly here, at least GM and Ford are releasing vehicles that are actually in demand and have sell like hotcakes (pick ups and CUVs) instead of a $100K jellybean sedan that only Stevie Wonder will want.

Stop it, stop it, stop it with the apples to oranges comparisons. They are even close to being equipped the same plus the EV has a ton more power than a standard V8 Silverado. Furthermore, there are lower trim models (staring at $39K) that will be I that mix as well. Oh and I would pay $100K for the Chevy over that jellybean looking excuse of a monstrosity known as the EQS and it sure as hell looks better and is more capable than the fugly Cybertruck at ANY price point. Oh and the Equinox looks better than any Benz CUV under $50K. Nice job on yet another round of domestic bashing though.

The Hummer? Yes. The Lyriq? No. The Lyriq starts at $60K and is a Caddy so that price is actually pretty damn good, if you ask me. The $100K GMC, though, clearly is.

And that's YOUR choice but that is not the way for everyone. Avalanche part deux. I dig it.

And he also gave examples of why the practices (he mentioned) should qualify as bait and switch, not that are )legally speaking) bait and switch. Key distinction that you seem to be missing in all of this. As far as the dealership, you make a fair point but if you also read what I said, I said that "98%" are doing this. Your dealership is the 2% exception. My dealership remark was also a smaller statement mixed in the larger point of true customer choice and being able to skip the dealership altogether. Sorry but folks can claim capitalism and choice when at least one of those doesn't really exist (choice) and you currently have dealerships and governments (looking at you Michigan and Texas) who are stifling the buy direct approach brought on by companies like Tesla. Sorry but those tactics and blocking maneuvers are the EXACT opposite of capitalism.

Since you asked for David to give an example of something (that wasn't even part of his core point), I would like to even ONE example of this mythical dealer that doesn't mark up. The simple fact is that if 98% of the dealers are doing this, then that is not customer choice, no matter how many times Olds and you say it. This whole "you don't have to buy it" nonsense only goes so far when virtually very dealership commits to the same practice of markups and there are people who rely on a reliable car to get to work and pay their damn bills (because mass transportation clearly isn't an option for everyone). I'll say it one more time for those in the back. If it were REALLY a choice for the customer, then they would buy directly form the manufacturer and skip all the inflated dealership nonsense. You can't support "customer choice" while ignoring the fact that there isn't really that much of a choice to begin with (for reasons I have already stated). PHOQUING sigh on that.

And both were from car accidents. Big and KEY difference there. The same could not be said for the Pinto and GM's ignition issues (again, 124 deaths). I don't even know how you can even compare it at this point.

Which makes his point. It should be the customers choice to buy directly from the manufacturer without the dealership being involved at all, thus cutting out the unnecessary middle man who process nothing to the product involved, other than lip service. And @oldshurst442-My response here is what the free market car buying practice should actually look like, CUSTOMER CHOICE.

Sorry but that sounds like whataboutism to me. The fact that there are two people before the buyer, making that extra money (Manufacturer and now the dealership) sum up the problem here. Nowhere did he question the current definition of "bait and switch". His exact words were, "To me, the adjusted market value stickers is bait and switch that the states need to crack down on." The part in bold is the key part here. It's to that it is technically bait and switch but maybe it should be.

Here's the key part. 0 deaths vs. 124 deaths. There have been ZERO deaths from the Hyundai" Kia engines issues. Not even a reported injury from them. The same can not be said of the GM ignition debacle. If folks don't see the reason(s) for the perceived media disparity, knowing that fact, then this entire page here has been one big waste. Some folks here tend to see what they want to see because bias is real. And I'm with you Robert. There has been PLENTY of coverage on the Hyundai/Kia engine problems.