By on December 27, 2015

Holden-VF-Commodore-SS-3 (1)

A Belgian named Guido is looking to save the Commodore and part of the Australian auto manufacturing industry from its ultimate demise.

That, and Pak, not Paki, is probably the more correct term, flying vs. driving, austerity pain for Porsche employees, you should thank a trucker and more … after the break!

Commodore Ute - picture courtesy heraldsun.com.au

‘Project Erich’ is a last ditch effort to save the Holden Commodore

Belgian automotive engineer turned businessman Guido Dumarey believes he and his company can acquire the Holden Commodore and its Zeta platform to crank out premium vehicles after GM’s exit from Australian manufacturing.

But there’s one big problem: He’s running out of time.

According to Motoring.com.au, the businessman plans to acquire the Commodore and the Elizabeth plant where it is built.

One of Dumarey’s businesses already supplies transmissions to General Motors for the V-6 Commodore, so he isn’t a complete outsider. Motoring.com.au also says Dumarey has “made a specialty out of buying businesses in financial strife, or earmarked for closure, and resuscitating them.”

CNG_Re-Intr

Pak is probably better than Paki

This isn’t so much news as it is a continuation of Aaron Cole’s piece on the usage of the word “Jap” in automotive circles.

In India, they have Maruti-Suzuki. But in Pakistan, Suzuki is incorporated as Pak Suzuki. In fact, that name is prominently displayed in many of its advertisements.

So, there you have it. Pak = totally cool. Paki = probably way less than kinda okay.

boeing-787-dreamliner_100416655_m

Want to save the environment? You should fly or drive a Prius

According to Green Car Reports, the modern airliner has all but left the automobile in the dust when it comes to environmentally friendly, long-distance travel.

Using some math, the amount of energy used by modern planes is about half of that used by modern automobiles when you calculate it by passenger mile.

Or, if you don’t like flying, drive a Prius. That’s the only gasoline-powered vehicle on sale today that equals the energy efficiency of a commercial jet, says the report.

Porsche Mission E

Porsche needs to make cuts to build the Mission E, and employees seem okay with that

A report from German Automobilwoche explains Porsche must make cuts and get concessions from workers in order to produce the Mission E. Employees, for their part, are okay with that. Solidarity!

Those concessions will mean more high-tech jobs at Porsche in the long run and a zero-emission vehicle for Porsche showrooms to take on the Tesla Model S.

Now, all they have to do is not screw it up.

World Premiere Freightliner Inspiration Truck

Long-haul trucks aren’t autonomous yet, so you should thank a trucker

All those gifts you gave your loved ones over the holiday season were delivered by those ultimate road warriors who probably spent Christmas without their families this year. They’re our truckers. And we should all thank them.

This year, the trucking trade has gotten even more intense as retailers are now relying on teams of drivers to pilot the trucks and wares to their eventual destinations, reports The Wall Street Journal:

That has raised the profile of the small subset of truck drivers who spend weeks or even months away from home, crisscrossing the country, taking turns sleeping in cramped compartments at the rear of the truck cab and then taking the wheel, and stopping only for showers or short breaks.

“The goal would be for this truck to never stop,” said Gary Helms, a 57-year-old driver, who spoke while his partner was behind the wheel. Mr. Helms—who has hauled freight for companies including Amazon.com Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and FedEx Corp.—was on his way to New York from South Carolina with his current partner, after originally picking a shipment up from California.

Seriously, truckers are the true heroes of the retail holiday season.

 

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

89 Comments on “TTAC Sunday News Round-up: Belgian Commodore, Planes vs Automobiles, and You Should Thank a Trucker...”


  • avatar
    RideHeight

    ZOMG! What a womanly Porsche! Unnh!

  • avatar

    The “Commodore” (aka: “SS” aka: “Super Snail”) never had a chance against the SRT division.
    Just another example of shortsightedness and negligence.

    The GM fanboys and the useless “auto enthusiastS” can talk all they want about “MAN EW ALLLS” and “handling” but when it comes to anything other than “carving canyons”, the HELLCAT rules.

    CTS-V is a LOSER too.

    Dead on Arrival.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      What is a SRT?

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        He evidently still thinks its an FCA division. Maybe he didnt get the memo that noted their demotion back to trim level status.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Jeep which is basically FCA here is about to disappear in Australia. US sourced vehicles really struggling

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            US sourced vehicles don’t need Australia. Respectively, the OZ market amounts to a tick on the dogs tail.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “US sourced vehicles don’t need Australia. Respectively, the OZ market amounts to a tick on the dogs tail.”

            So is the US market as far as heavy trucks, Vans are concerned and many cars as well.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You don’t get it. US sourced vehicles do OK in the US. Better than OK actually. They definitely don’t need the rest of the world to buy them.

            If not for tariffs, the Falcon and Commodore sedans would’ve died by the ’90s along with our LTD, Fury, Fifth Ave, Bonneville, Caprice, Impala, and other fossils.

            It’s comedy your Ranchero and El Camino equivalents have lived this long too.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @denvermike
            If just doing well in the US market was the key to success then GM would not have gone bankrupt.

            Ford might have gone bankrupt.

            VW would not be one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world.

            And companies like Suzuki and Mitsubishi would not even exist.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’re missing the point, Arthur. Demand for US domestics is large enough to support a US domestic market. This is true whether or not the bogans who frequent this website are willing to admit it.

            The same cannot be said of Australia, which has annual car sales that are somewhat less than what the US has in a month. Automakers need scale, and they can’t get that scale from Aussie sales. It only made sense to build there when tariffs supported high prices for domestics while they made imports cost-prohibitive.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @pch
            I understand the scale of the Australian market.

            The point that I was trying to get across is that vehicle manufacturers can no longer be successful by only catering only to the US market.

            Markets like China and India will to a significant degree be driving new vehicle designs and sales. Therefore, manufacturers, should not ignore any potential markets or profit centres.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Correct. US vehicle manufacturers are losing market share everywhere with the exception of China. Profit is very narrowly focused on US Pickups, making up 90% of the Corporations profits

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The point was that the US domestics don’t need to export domestics to Australia in order to do well. That’s absolutely correct — Australia is a relative pimple on the backside of the global industry, and just isn’t that important. American companies can take their share of the not-very-large Australia market by importing vehicles there, most of which weren’t made in North America.

            Nobody claimed that US sales alone were enough to sustain the industry as a whole.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            The only part of the US industry doing well are Pickups, making 90% of overall profits for Ford, And GM
            “Importing vehicles there” that do not sell, part of the huge problem the US industry not just here but everywhere else outside NA

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Sigh…

            No. The most profitable products for Ford this year have been the Escape/MKC, Explorer, and Edge/MKX. Louisville Assembly will probably be FoMoCo’s mots profitable plant this year.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @BBall,
            I would think the overall F series Pickup segment, would be the major profit centre for the Company,Globally not some CUV’s that are not sold anywhere else

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            And you would be wrong. In 2015, high priced and near luxury CUVs have been the profit center for Ford.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @BBall,
            So these CUV’s are not exported anywhere else, but they are the most profitable for Ford? Outside of NA Ford is having a very hard time. Hard to believe that the F Pickup segment. does not make profits ? If that was the case, then dropping the FPickups would make sense Concentrating on CUV’s,drop the F150and the rest, really does make sense

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Why do you bother?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I haven’t the foggiest. I you have to tell me this every few months. I really should listen.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @BBall
            As I suspected CUV’s are only part of the answer
            “Sales are up significantly in the Ford brand’s most profitable segments, with utility vehicles rising 16 percent in the third quarter — including a 25 percent gain for the highly profitable, newly freshened Explorer — and other light trucks up 14 percent. Ford introduced the $54,000 Explorer Platinum during the quarter and has a $60,000-and-up Limited version of the F-150 on the way.

            Lincoln sales rose 15 percent in the quarter. The brand was helped by the redesigned MKX crossover, which went on sale in mid-summer.

            Ford’s average transaction price rose $2,100, or 6.6 percent, from September 2014 to September 2015, according to data it provided from the Power Information Network.

            Many of Ford’s higher-volume nameplates, including the F series, Escape, Fusion and Focus, command prices that are at least several hundred dollars above the average for their segment. The Edge, redesigned for the 2015 model year, sells for an average of $2,739 more than a typical midsize utility, according to Kelley Blue Book.”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            US sourced vehicles may not thrive abroad, as they do at home in the US, but those weren’t the ones that almost killed the Detroit Big 3. Figure the DB3 vehicles mostly seen sold around the world, are highly profitable lines back at home. The ones that always stay home would be highly redundant around the globe, as they definitely are, at home in the US. We’re talking compact and midsize fwds with nothing special to offer to their respective segments. These are made for a lot of reasons, with actual/direct profitability low on the list of objectives .

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Yes they are highly redundant vehicles. You can happily keep them

    • 0 avatar
      TOTitan

      You would be more accurate if your wording was changed to “on everything but a straight line hellcat loses”.

    • 0 avatar

      @BTSR
      the CITROEN DEUX CHEVAUX (aka the “snail” and aka the “duck”) beats the HELLCAT! every time. The HELLCAT! is a sorry loser next to the DEUX CHEVAUX. The HELLCAT! is such a sorry loser that it needs an exclamation point, just like JEB! does.

      In the matter of plane vs car, the car gives me much more flexibility (I can see my friends in NYC and/or Quakertown PA on my way between Boston and DC), I need the car when I visit DC, and renting a car for two weeks is MUCH more expensive than the cost of using my own car, I skip the stress of the TSA lines, and the rest of the airline experience, and I enjoy driving.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        For shorter distances, the car seems to be the way to go in today’s world. As for fuel economy between the two, the car would be way more fuel efficient too, if we filled it with people like today’s cattle class. Airline passenger spacing would probably for ten people in a Fit.

  • avatar
    RHD

    It would be interesting to see an expose of the working conditions of the folks who make overnight, 2-day and Prime packages arrive on time during the holiday madness season.
    The electric Porsche shows quite a bit of Viper DNA… powered by Tesla, built by workers desperate to keep their jobs at VAG.
    In other news, Reuters reports that Volkswagen will drop “Das Auto” for a more positive image in future advertising. Unsubstantiated rumors indicate that the old slogan really stood for “Defective, Awfully Smoky Auto”.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    Fly or drive a Prius? I cant imagine two worse options.

    I think Ill walk if the ecoterrorists take away everything but commercial planes and those, um, things.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I fail to see how a Taurus from two decades ago would be preferable.

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        Because a Taurus of that vintage costs less than a floor jack that you can also use with your next cars?

        Good prioritizing, I say.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        I cant believe this requires explination. Its against my religion to drive a Prius (Im a car guy, Prius is the anti-car), and since I have no desire to be carried off the plane in a stretcher after being wedged between two people who have never missed a Big Mac in their lives, youre damn right my Taurus is the best option. Now, go troll someone else.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      The Ford Taurus is and always has been, at best, a mediocre lumpen sad form of vehicle, and often, at worse, a pathetic vehicle symbolizing that the one driving it has lost their zeal for life, and has given up.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        To be fair, the first-generation Taurus was a breakthrough vehicle for its time and a leap forward for Ford’s US lineup.

        The same thing can’t be said of the subsequent generations.

        • 0 avatar

          Way back when I drove a new 1987 Mercury Sable in a VERY spirited way from central western Arkansas to Lake of the Ozarks. I remember running up I-44 at steady speeds of 90+. I caught a glimpse of my grinning self in the rear view mirror several times. Those were very competent cars in their day.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          Took the electrons from my fingers – Gen I Taurus was as they say, a “game changer,” in a lot of ways. It influenced a lot at Ford. Then they went and screwed it all up.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Took the electrons from my fingers – Gen I Taurus was as they say, a “game changer,” in a lot of ways. It influenced a lot at Ford. Then they went and screwed it all up.”

            Ford’s biggest mistake with the Taurus was building it with the same basic mechnicals for way, way too long.

          • 0 avatar
            bunkie

            The single best thing about the Taurus was that it came as a wagon with an (optional) rear-facing seat. I had three of the things. People can talk all smack they want about them but, with the exception of having weak transmissions, (mine never failed, they just seemed “soft” on upshifts) they were solid cars with great utility and incredibly low ownership costs.

        • 0 avatar
          jhefner

          “What’s worse that he’s waxing nostalgic for the third-generation version, which was to the original Taurus what the Mustang II was to the original pony car.”

          Actually, JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N drives a 1995 Taurus as do I; and they are both Gen II, not Gen III; so I don’t get why you say that. I don’t get the hate for the Gen IIs either; yes, they were evolutionary rather than revolutionary; but that is not a small thing; for example, they finally got all the bugs out of the AXON transaxle that was a real bugaboo for the Gen I.

          In regards to the Gen III; the book reveals what mistakes were made. But time is a good judge of how good a car is; and at least in my neck of the woods I still see a ton of Gen IIIs; as many as the current Taurus. They are right up there with previous generation Toyota Camry; which Ford used as their benchmark when they designed it.

          The Gen III Taurus was a failure in Australia because Australia was a lousy market for the Taurus. Everyone bought rear wheel drive because of boat trailers; and road conditions did not favor the Taurus either. They shine on interstates at freeway speeds; or relaxed driving in stop and go traffic. They certainly did much better stateside; but drastic decontenting and price cutting by the Japanese at the same time Ford was stepping up their build quality game meant that the market was against them; and they became indifferent about the Taurus when the Explorer and the “Taurus truck” (Gen 10 1997–2003 F series) both took off in sales and made more money.

          • 0 avatar

            The Taurus was the first non-luxury car not to offer a manual. The beginning of the end. Other than that, it was a decent car.

            “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @Deadweight,
        ” Catfish” car was the worse and that is saying something, vehicle to be sourced from the US. Absolutely putrid.

      • 0 avatar
        seth1065

        Hey,
        The man drives what works for him, if it is a Taurus that is his choice, do not understand the lack of support, not everyone can stand on their high horse or their hellcat and decide what is worthy of driving, I see Christmas has passed and the Christmas Sprit must have been put away already. I think you all are judging the Taurus a little harsh in hindsight.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The Taurus dude is fond of sneering of other cars. If he was a food critic, then he would be complaining that more restaurants aren’t as “good” as McDonald’s.

          What’s worse that he’s waxing nostalgic for the third-generation version, which was to the original Taurus what the Mustang II was to the original pony car.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            That’s an insult to the Mustang II ;-)

          • 0 avatar

            Well, I owned a 99 Taurus SHO. While it was a much more powerful car than the Gen 1, it never had that rear view mirror grin factor. And it was in the shop more than it was in my driveway. It did have a pretty awesome wide open throttle exhaust note.

      • 0 avatar
        macnab

        The Taurus lured the whole industry to suppository styling bringing us years of ugly cars. what’s wrong with a car having corners anyway?

  • avatar
    Fred

    I thought resurecting TVR was a stretch, but I’m having a more difficult time understanding Commodore.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Fred,
      I have more problems trying to understand TVR, it was a very badly built, but interesting boutique Sports Car
      Commodore is still the 4th best selling sedan in Australia

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The Commodore-Falcon rivalry was akin to the Ford-Chevy rivalry in the US — fairly significant when market choices were limited and the muscle car variants were more in vogue, but now horribly antiquated now that there are a lot more choices.

      Australia could support its own car market when there were high tariffs to suppress competition and when fleet buyers would support the volume. It’s hard to imagine creating a vital export market for Aussie cars when very few people outside of Australia (and, for that matter, not many Australians) care about them.

      • 0 avatar
        Jethrow

        I don’t think reduced tariffs killed the Commodore. I see it more the result of changing market tastes. In Australia we seem to prefer little cars or dual cabs or 4WD.

        And the Falcon or Commodore is none of those. That said, I do not entirely get why. I think the Commodore Sportwagon makes for an excellent family vehicle at less than the cost of a dual cab, is cheaper to buy and own, and yet we still buy Hilux’s and the like.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Market tastes couldn’t afford to change when the tariffs were approaching 60%.

          • 0 avatar
            Jethrow

            Agree tariffs were high, but they did come down a long way before the decline began.

            And that aside, the Commodore is still cheaper than a Hilux which along with its Ranger and Triton siblings, outsells it by miles.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Market tastes changed , because demographics changed. People were not taking a family of five for a drive. Ford was feeling those changes mainly, Holden less so, before there was a reduction in tariffs.
            Now many people are wondering if reduced tariffs help an economy. Answer probably no. Getting a manufacturer to pay appropriate taxes on economic activity is another story

    • 0 avatar
      MRF 95 T-Bird

      Or the resurrection of MG. This seems to be quite a stretch. The base model looks like a new Austin America.

      http://mg.co.uk

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        The dead UK car industry, is slowly coming back, but not under UK ownership

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        My God, that MG website is tearful. All they gots is a Scrubbing Bubble and an overpriced Elantra.

        Really, slapping that badge on these things is a perverse insult. It’s like tying today’s Dick Butkus to a chair and making him watch game footage from the late ’60s.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Rideheight
          They thought the same about Geely’s Volvo and TATA’s Land Rover and Jaguar
          Since changed dramatically

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            Thees words jou are using; some are meessing.

          • 0 avatar
            ExPatBrit

            You can’t compare Volvo and JLR.

            After 10 years of Chinese ownership MG sells a few hundred cars a month in the UK. Resale is awful.

            They are are not even pretending to build them in the UK anymore, 100% Chinese.

        • 0 avatar
          MRF 95 T-Bird

          They did produce for a few years a version of the MG-TF

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_F_/_MG_TF#MG_TF

          There were rumors back in the early 00’s when these were being produced that us Americans were going to get a version. Apparently the quality even on the Chinese built models was British-Leyland like.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “It’s hard to imagine creating a vital export market for Aussie cars when very few people outside of Australia (and, for that matter, not many Australians) care about them.”

    It would seem very few outside NA want US sourced vehicles, not the products of ” transplants” . Can add the heavy truck maker Navistar that initially left the Australian market, but has come back , but is now struggling again.
    Those ” lot more choices” are SUV’s that are killing off sedans in general. Pickups and SUV’s make up 52% of the market

    . CUV’s

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I wish Mr. Dumarey luck but this is all reminiscent of Rover and the Phoenix Four or more recently the SAAB fiasco. Even if he was gifted the Aussie factory he won’t have the economies of scale in order to produce a niche model profitably. If Tesla cannot do it at from what I have read 20K units per annum I fail to see how it can be done out of Australia.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @28 Cars,
      It seems he has a very export orientated outlook. He thinks the emphasis on FWD has been a tragic mistake and many in Europe are regretting it.. He talks a lot about producing SUV’s. Looks like his interest in the Australian market is attracting others from elsewhere

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        If he can rig up a company who can produce an unprofitable product but be kept going through stock market games and gov’t money in various forms (so, Tesla) he may have something. I wouldn’t put money on him though, the product may be great but between heavy import/displacement taxes from First and Second world nations, no dealer network, and a limited advertising budget he’s go his hands full. I think its great and I sincerely do wish him luck but he’s going up against an industry and a series of gov’ts who will all be working against him. None of these parties care about producing/importing/making available a product customers want to purchase.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Yea but he doesn’t seem to live in fantasy land where the car needs to be electric, so long as he keeps the 3.6L and 6.2L V8 in the commodore he can’t lose. All those other companies seemed to think they could take niche brands with tiny followings, destroy the most important aspects of the cars and try to sell them with a niche drive train, it’s a niche within a niche, Saab owner NEVS have completely unrealistic plans for Saab, and they will fail as others have.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Not everyone is a V8 fan, and having a V8 doesn’t make a vehicle fast.

        Most people don’t know, and some don’t care.

        The only V8 I ever owned couldn’t get out of its own way, because it was in such a heavy vehicle.

        I have to look at both power and weight. And I have to decide what I want the car for… Slow cars have their place, but is the right tool for the job?

        • 0 avatar
          RideHeight

          V-8s are like last century’s med tech; we have better stuff now.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            No you don’t, the same tricks that are applied to a four cylinder and six cylinder engine work equally as well with a V8.

            The only time a V8 suffers in comparison to an engine with a lesser cylinder count is when it starts to displace less than 4 liters in the road car world.

            Frankly the old adage that there is no replacement for displacement is as true today as it ever was despite what the charlatans hailing turbochargers as the second of Christ would like them to think.

            And I can think of no better example than Porsche’s 918 Hybrid electric that uses a 4.6 liter V8.

            They could have chosen a six or four cylinder forced induction engine but instead chose a naturally aspirated V8 rated at 608 horsepower to couple to their hybrid powertrain.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not really. EVs are very much 20th Century and still suffer from battery limits first encountered in the early part of said century. Hybrids are interesting but all geared toward economy.

            The MY15 Mustang 5.0 (3705lbs) nets this mileage

            16 City 19 Combined 25 Highway

            The MY15 Tahoe 5.3 4×4 with DoD (5400lbs) nets this mileage and weighs

            16 City 18 Combined 22 Highway

            So its same city and similar combined mileage despite the extra 1700lbs? Now do DoD in a five liter V8 (which I realize Ford can’t do with OHC) and mileage climbs a bit more and change the tune for economy. I’d wager we could see 25 city out of a similar 3700lb car with a DoD enabled V8 and auto transmission. Not saying we shouldn’t pursue the Jetsons but just saying the ICE technology could do so much more if allowed.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            V-8s are like last century’s med tech; we have better stuff now for passenger cars.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The V8 may be from last century but there’s not a better tech. Yes V8s are overkill for small cars. Small V8s, say below 4.5 liters, haven’t really worked out. But that’s where research needs to focus. Yes perfecting and perhaps shrinking the V8 for small applications and tuned for economy, instead of performance and towing.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            >>> Not really. EVs are very much 20th Century and still suffer from battery limits first encountered in the early part of said century.

            Using that logic means that ICEs are 17th century technology if you go back to Huygens gunpowder engines.

            Modern EVs don’t have very little in common with early 20th century electrics. The battery technology is late 20th century (1991 first commercial lithium ion battery) and the battery in my car uses tech from about 2013 (no degradation at 25k miles -still 100+ range). There is also new 21st century materials technology used to deliver the amounts of power needed in high performance evs like the P90DL.

            Limitiations obviously aren’t the same as early electrics. You couldn’t go coast to coast in 58 hours in a Baker. I’m putting about 22k miles a year on one – try that in a 20th century electric.

            ICEs have their limitations too. It doesn’t get fueled where it’s parked and you have to go out of your way to drive it someplace to fuel it. Not only that, you have to stay with it while it’s fueled. You have to periodically change the oil in them (again, time lost) and they need complex transmissions to drive the wheels. Crappy fanbelts – talk about ancient technology. No instantaneous response…

            >>> Hybrids are interesting but all geared toward economy.

            All??? McLaren P1, Porsche 918, LaFerrari..

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Regardless of how you feel about V8s, it’s a much better idea than using the same tired electric drivetrain routine, it’s over done and it’s simply not what people want. These are unprofitable companies that wouldn’t exist without government intervention. You don’t see GM throwing out the ICE, why? Because it’s as relevant as ever.

  • avatar
    Joss

    Hogan & Subie killed Commodore/Falcon. Salties 1 oz auto workers nil.

    MG die sell? No chances of finding an MG 3/6 in Cali wrecking yards – when you’ve got Mirage plastic interiors to pick over…

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I love my VE chassis Pontiac but the times have moved on, and even in VF from the Zeta platform is dated, and the LS3 is a very thirsty engine.

    There is so much “right” about Zeta, but even I have to say, it is time for the platform to retire.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Terrific comments as usual , subscribed .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    cournteysia

    That’s one awesome Long-haul truck!

  • avatar
    macnab

    The Taurus lured the whole industry to suppository styling bringing us years of ugly cars. what’s wrong with a car having corners anyway?

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “The Mission E is truly a zero-emission vehicle.*”

    *When parked

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bullnuke: In 1969 (the year Uncle Sam forced me to seek out the US Navy to escape that Crazy Asian War ™),...
  • ttacgreg: Interesting math there. Assuming said Silverado is getting 20 mpg, that means that 18 cents will take my...
  • ttacgreg: More like a narrative to mislead and anger people. A whole lot of politics is just a battle of narratives.
  • MitchConner: Owned a couple of Fords with the 2.0. Good engine. Decent power. Not buzzy like their smaller ones....
  • ttacgreg: Yeah you got to come for inflation. I Remember a number of different prices for different items in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber