• Carson D You've got to admire the perversity of the administrative state that it is impossible for a manufacturer to offer a three-liter, port-injected gas engine with a manual transmission in a 3,200-pound sedan returning 24-34 miles per gallon for hundreds of thousands of trouble-free miles, but it is perfectly fine for people with 179 funds to burn to buy SUVs that get 6-9 miles per gallon. Deregulate now.
  • Ajla I could see going for a used one. Most reviews seem to say it's a reasonably fun experience.
  • Theflyersfan BMW. Because at this extreme point of brand dilution and loss of identity...why not?
  • Carson D Land Rover should market a pickup truck. Section 179 buyers don't need durability, as they buy a new one every year. They also don't expect trouble-free ownership during the 12 months they keep a vehicle, based on the number of my peers who get new Ford Raptors annually. A Land Rover truck's ephemerality would perfectly suit someone who is taking 100% depreciation while paying 60% of the price of the truck after taxes. The Land Rover truck would need to be as big as a Trail Boss or TRX though, and it would need every sophisticated parking aid yet conceived. I know a little about the customers who keep the UAW 3 in business, and the tax subsidies that created this behavior.
  • Kcflyer the heated seats are welcome. the rev hang and direct injection to satisfy epa goons not so much. no more gunky intake valves for me.