balthazar

I love the emblem (O-60) ~

I... I d-don't know...

I'm surprised that OEMs are starting to offer insurance, tho I suppose there's nothing preventing such. It feels like there'd be a conflict of interest, but who knows.

I'm sure the consumer planning their next/future purchase would appreciate knowing the 'bottom line' WRT switching over. 'No oil changes / no gas' is obviously pushed hard, but you almost never hear of the 'hidden' price increases to the consumer with BEs. Problem is -esp on the state level- a LOT more of that is coming like a tidal wave. DAVID- have you solicited an insurance quote yet for a Rivian, and if so; how does it compare to something similar? '22 F-150 Platinum starts 10 grand less- don't know if that'd be considered a comp.

Reading about Kansas's approach to BEs'. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-build-repair-roads-without-230026436.html Currently they are at 0.3% electric vehicles in KS, but of course 'Protect the Revenue Streams' thinking is having Gov't scrabble around on ways to bill consumers more. BE current registration fees are $100 (IC is $39 under 4500 lbs), and there's a bill in circulation to tax BE owners by the kW hour used from charging stations.

Because blue 'E's are JUST as unappealing as an 'xxxiq' name.

I've never been in an Uber/Lyft. I've taken a taxi twice (that I can recall). I've been in a 'town car' twice. Have no interest in expanding that list. Have no interest in autonomous 'pool' cars / not owning the vehicle myself. If it comes to the point I cannot meet my needs in the new motor vehicle world, I'll go back to vintage; get a clean '60s car rebuilt/restomodded to my specs. Should be on par with the ever-rising ATPs people spend on new stuff. Then I can bask in the 'invisibility cloak' that car offers me; no vehicle-to-vehicle communications, no black boxes, no OEM tracking. THAT'S when I start my crime spree. ?

? Ford charges you $19,500 for a mere 70 mile increase in range on the Lightning. Welcome to the new OEM "gouging".

Seems like electric/redesigned models are a prime opportunity to re-intro heritage names. I'm OK with Celestiq & Lyriq... generally, but all the rest and the 'mandate' to name everything in the same vein I often hate. I would rather Celestiq be 'Fleetwood' tho.

Can you image a culture/time period where someone names a model 'Fleetwood' and that name runs from 1935 thru 1996?? Or Deville... and it runs from 1949 thru 2005?? - - - - - Seems logical that a 'Cadillac Owners Society' would find new, non-traditional names unappealing... but Cadillac is looking outside it's own steady demographic here. Not that I like the future naming convention either...

Makes sense; still have to get your electric vehicle's tires rotated, cabin air filter changes, wipers, shocks/struts, bulbs, etc etc...

I always get excited when the wealthy / disposable income folk get new playtoys. ? Only thing that's 'pre-production' on the Hummer SUV above should be the body, so why all the loud, electrical whines?

From a FB GTO group ~ bone stock '69 GTO Judge hardtop on individual digital scales : weight distribution : 59.4 / 40.6 total weight : 3696 lbs.

^ It's painfully obvious - GM isn't putting the same amount (or dimensions) of steel/aluminum under a Silverado as they are in a Trax. It's no different that pointing to am Impala frame in 1970 and saying 'that'll support compact to full-size'.

This is a very loose definition, and I wonder why GM chose to represent it this way. There will unquestionably & ultimately be many platforms in production.

OK, yeah; that needs some fact-checking.

What’s this now??

One can only hope the Chinese automakers never get into the USDM, for the sake of the industry AND the consumer.

I don’t think automakers have been in such a precarious scenario since the depths of the Great Depression as far as the unknown near future is concerned. And some of what’s driving the OEM-level frenzy seems to be a strong urge to ‘get in on the new ground floor’… (Rivian for ex) but what if Tesla is the anomaly and not the future norm?

This is the source I referenced the first time, in case anyone wanted to see : https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/vaccination-rollout-and-access/ No vested interest, not promoting it, not saying it's the best, just posting a source. - - - - - It's actually Gibraltar who is apparently "leading the world" (whatever that outmoded concept may mean). They have a population of 33,675 and the BBC puts them at the top of the list with "121%" fully vaccinated". Or - assuming there's something amiss with a percentage over 100 - it's Pitcairn, whom 100% of it's [67] people are vaccinated. If anyone thinks telling someone who doesn't want to get the vaccine that -say- 'Cuba had a higher rate than the U.S.' is going to do jack squat; boy are they going to be disappointed.

At this point, if you got your first & 2nd shot in the spring of '20, it's pretty much ineffectual for you, so the focus as far as effectively vaccinated goes (if one wants to talk about that instead), should be on the 3rd shot.

Like I said, I used apples-to-apples 1-dose only numbers. It's what I happened to click into to get a sense of comparison. State numbers is another metric, but I addressed a comment about the country as a whole, not a comment about individual states. Apples, again. This site shows the following (click to see all countries listed) : https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations Here's a snapshot of what I quoted, for those who might believe it was either erroneous (not within a 10% point range for 1 dose) or agenda-driven (for some reason).

I used a site (which I can't find in my history) which listed all the countries in the worlds' at least 1 dose percentage. Apples to apples. The range of the countries I listed were within a 10-percentage point range, or very similar. Yes, I'm sure about it.