Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
I think it's paper thin. I was shocked by how light and thin the exterior doors were. I also think not having a control gauge in front of you is dangerous. The whole concept of "heads up" display is to reduce fatigue. Tesla goes the other way and puts it down, to your right. Makes no sense.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
I think it's paper thin. I was shocked by how light and thin the exterior doors were. I also think not having a control gauge in front of you is dangerous. The whole concept of "heads up" display is to reduce fatigue. Tesla goes the other way and puts it down, to your right. Makes no sense.
Yah that's my biggest issue with Tesla's. I would prefer the classic gauges right in front (speed, odemeter etc.).
I really want a small electric pick up truck. I keep crossing my fingers that the Alpha Wolf+ will start getting made.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Government needs to step up on the batteries and their components.
Everyone forgets that Tesla is a step in the right direction. All these companies coming around that you want to do better is a direct cause of Tesla in the first place.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Yup.. we are just tearing up the Earth looking for nickel now, rather than crude.
I'm admittedly an asshole on this topic as I have a few classic cars that are not good on gas. Although I drove them about 3k miles per year. But still, not green.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Government needs to step up on the batteries and their components.
Everyone forgets that Tesla is a step in the right direction. All these companies coming around that you want to do better is a direct cause of Tesla in the first place.
Looking at how many people support the gop, I have little faith. Maybe teslas are becoming a status symbol now. Musk did carve out a brand new car company in the US market, which is impressive, but looking at him now, it really looks like he is more interested in profiteering off of taking advantage of liberal fear of climate crisis.
The problem is too many vote for politicians who support coal and other fossil fuels. Climate is not even an issue for the midterms.Belief that EVs are better is obscuring the fact that we need to eliminate coal and convert oil heat to electric, and convert gas fired plants to renewables.
Until all this occurs, not sure why we’d call an EV “better.” It’s misdirection - the need to change the source of the energy, not the consumer end use. Frankly, the EV industry has grown too fast considering many issues, including pollution off of disposal, something utilities need to consider at the beginning of an investment, is not being addressed by the EV industry and could quadruple costs, which will be paid for by guess who? Taxpayers of course. We believe EVs are better and it’s entirely possible they are every bit as bad as the combustible engine vehicle.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Yup.. we are just tearing up the Earth looking for nickel now, rather than crude.
I'm admittedly an asshole on this topic as I have a few classic cars that are not good on gas. Although I drove them about 3k miles per year. But still, not green.
Forest from the trees would be improving & investing in public trans infrastructure. But Elon wants to talk about hyperloops when all we need is some trains. But that's too pragmatic and practical.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Government needs to step up on the batteries and their components.
Everyone forgets that Tesla is a step in the right direction. All these companies coming around that you want to do better is a direct cause of Tesla in the first place.
Looking at how many people support the gop, I have little faith. Maybe teslas are becoming a status symbol now. Musk did carve out a brand new car company in the US market, which is impressive, but looking at him now, it really looks like he is more interested in profiteering off of taking advantage of liberal fear of climate crisis.
The problem is too many vote for politicians who support coal and other fossil fuels. Climate is not even an issue for the midterms.Belief that EVs are better is obscuring the fact that we need to eliminate coal and convert oil heat to electric, and convert gas fired plants to renewables.
Until all this occurs, not sure why we’d call an EV “better.” It’s misdirection - the need to change the source of the energy, not the consumer end use. Frankly, the EV industry has grown too fast considering many issues, including pollution off of disposal, something utilities need to consider at the beginning of an investment, is not being addressed by the EV industry and could quadruple costs, which will be paid for by guess who? Taxpayers of course. We believe EVs are better and it’s entirely possible they are every bit as bad as the combustible engine vehicle.
You prove my point why EV are better. It brings about a conversation.
I'm all for bringing Nuclear back to the front again. We should totally be building more.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
Those 80's and 90's BMW's cost a fortune to fix. I knew people with them and they dumped them when things went south w them.
No one I knew had an M3 or M6 though. I don't recall the M6 in the 90's?
Saab is ugly yes. Buick was the only other car company I remember that used the turbo. It was a tech early on that the car manufacturers couldn't master. Now it's in every V6 instead of a V8 now. The Mustang GT is slower than the V6 turbo model. Ain't that some shit?
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
Those 80's and 90's BMW's cost a fortune to fix. I knew people with them and they dumped them when things went south w them.
No one I knew had an M3 or M6 though. I don't recall the M6 in the 90's?
Saab is ugly yes. Buick was the only other car company I remember that used the turbo. It was a tech early on that the car manufacturers couldn't master. Now it's in every V6 instead of a V8 now. The Mustang GT is slower than the V6 turbo model. Ain't that some shit?
M5, not M6. I think the M6 started in 2006. But again, I'm talking about sports cars so the comparison is to AMG and other like vehicle. I'm not arguing that a 325i is cheaper to fix than a Toyota Camry...obviously not. Also talking later than you are.. basically early 00's until about 2013 when BMW (and everyone else) went nuts on technology, dual clutch, VANOS, electronic everything. I like cars with rack and pinion or recirculating steering, wishbone suspension, etc. You also can't get a car in manual anymore. Super annoying.
And you're right about turbos (which I also don't love, but I know how efficient they are). Remember the Grand National was the monster with the turbo. Trans Am tried that in 79/80 as well. The only one who really had it down was Nissan with the 300.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Government needs to step up on the batteries and their components.
Everyone forgets that Tesla is a step in the right direction. All these companies coming around that you want to do better is a direct cause of Tesla in the first place.
Looking at how many people support the gop, I have little faith. Maybe teslas are becoming a status symbol now. Musk did carve out a brand new car company in the US market, which is impressive, but looking at him now, it really looks like he is more interested in profiteering off of taking advantage of liberal fear of climate crisis.
The problem is too many vote for politicians who support coal and other fossil fuels. Climate is not even an issue for the midterms.Belief that EVs are better is obscuring the fact that we need to eliminate coal and convert oil heat to electric, and convert gas fired plants to renewables.
Until all this occurs, not sure why we’d call an EV “better.” It’s misdirection - the need to change the source of the energy, not the consumer end use. Frankly, the EV industry has grown too fast considering many issues, including pollution off of disposal, something utilities need to consider at the beginning of an investment, is not being addressed by the EV industry and could quadruple costs, which will be paid for by guess who? Taxpayers of course. We believe EVs are better and it’s entirely possible they are every bit as bad as the combustible engine vehicle.
You prove my point why EV are better. It brings about a conversation.
I'm all for bringing Nuclear back to the front again. We should totally be building more.
Unfortunately the conversation is about one party being fictitiously good at stopping crime and climate issues are getting almost no influence on the midterms. If the Dems were more focused, perhaps a short message repeated everywhere, “when you pass a gas station and see high prices,please think about abundant coal and guns everywhere, because when you vote gop, that’s what you get.”
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
Those 80's and 90's BMW's cost a fortune to fix. I knew people with them and they dumped them when things went south w them.
No one I knew had an M3 or M6 though. I don't recall the M6 in the 90's?
Saab is ugly yes. Buick was the only other car company I remember that used the turbo. It was a tech early on that the car manufacturers couldn't master. Now it's in every V6 instead of a V8 now. The Mustang GT is slower than the V6 turbo model. Ain't that some shit?
M5, not M6. I think the M6 started in 2006. But again, I'm talking about sports cars so the comparison is to AMG and other like vehicle. I'm not arguing that a 325i is cheaper to fix than a Toyota Camry...obviously not. Also talking later than you are.. basically early 00's until about 2013 when BMW (and everyone else) went nuts on technology, dual clutch, VANOS, electronic everything. I like cars with rack and pinion or recirculating steering, wishbone suspension, etc. You also can't get a car in manual anymore. Super annoying.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
I know they cost more to fix, but I have a 7 year old 428 that hasn’t needed any repairs, and meanwhile I hear office talk of how much people are spending on their not very old Hondas and Hyundais.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
I know they cost more to fix, but I have a 7 year old 428 that hasn’t needed any repairs, and meanwhile I hear office talk of how much people are spending on their not very old Hondas and Hyundais.
Change the fluids on time, don't over rev it until the oil is hot, use real oil (proper weight synthetic) and you will have a healthy, happy car especially if you garage it. The formula is simple.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,719
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Yup.. we are just tearing up the Earth looking for nickel now, rather than crude.
I'm admittedly an asshole on this topic as I have a few classic cars that are not good on gas. Although I drove them about 3k miles per year. But still, not green.
Forest from the trees would be improving & investing in public trans infrastructure. But Elon wants to talk about hyperloops when all we need is some trains. But that's too pragmatic and practical.
Thank you for mentioning trains! So much could be improved by (relatively) simply refurbishing our rail systems. But the oil companies don't want that, you know know Musk sure as hell doesn't want that!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Yup.. we are just tearing up the Earth looking for nickel now, rather than crude.
I'm admittedly an asshole on this topic as I have a few classic cars that are not good on gas. Although I drove them about 3k miles per year. But still, not green.
Forest from the trees would be improving & investing in public trans infrastructure. But Elon wants to talk about hyperloops when all we need is some trains. But that's too pragmatic and practical.
Thank you for mentioning trains! So much could be improved by (relatively) simply refurbishing our rail systems. But the oil companies don't want that, you know know Musk sure as hell doesn't want that!
Do we have enough nickel to support a fully electric future? Are we trading one type of mining and natural resource destruction for another? And as nickel gets more expensive, will the cost efficient engine continue to be combustion?
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
SAAB is cooler.
Nothing is cool about a Saab or a volvo... I'd drive a Buick first and those are uncool too.
SAAB is the coolest. Trust me, I know cars.
Nothing is better than an old school BMW, before they decided to over engineer them for the suburban woman.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
I am surprised at both of these statements. One car costs a fortune to fix anything and the other has a shape the Aztec was spawned from.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
BMW's actually don't cost a fortune to fix. Newer ones do, past 2006 (E60/E90 platform and beyond). They are brilliantly engineered vehicles and will run 300k miles without blinking if you care for them and dont' rag on them (which people do). I am speaking of the M's specifically, which is what I collect. For what they are, and what they can do, I don't think they are expensive compared to their peers (RS8, 911's, AMG's, etc.)
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
I know they cost more to fix, but I have a 7 year old 428 that hasn’t needed any repairs, and meanwhile I hear office talk of how much people are spending on their not very old Hondas and Hyundais.
Change the fluids on time, don't over rev it until the oil is hot, use real oil (proper weight synthetic) and you will have a healthy, happy car especially if you garage it. The formula is simple.
Been doing all that and so far so good. I see what you mean about suburban mom though, they’re more luxury than sport, but it’s got enough juice for me and just has a really nice feel.
Anyone been in a Tesla? The friggin car is fast and really nice. I'll say that about the car.
They are very sleek and nice, but consumers are paying for that. $70k for a mid sized car? Considering they are powered by coal and nat gas, have toxic batteries with minimal oversight for safe disposal and significant geopolitical concerns regarding mining raw materials, Teslas amount to a pretty form of snake oil. First, let’s replace all coal and gas fired plants, find a safe way to produce and dispose of batteries, then we may be onto something with EVs
Yup.. we are just tearing up the Earth looking for nickel now, rather than crude.
I'm admittedly an asshole on this topic as I have a few classic cars that are not good on gas. Although I drove them about 3k miles per year. But still, not green.
Forest from the trees would be improving & investing in public trans infrastructure. But Elon wants to talk about hyperloops when all we need is some trains. But that's too pragmatic and practical.
Thank you for mentioning trains! So much could be improved by (relatively) simply refurbishing our rail systems. But the oil companies don't want that, you know know Musk sure as hell doesn't want that!
Do we have enough nickel to support a fully electric future? Are we trading one type of mining and natural resource destruction for another? And as nickel gets more expensive, will the cost efficient engine continue to be combustion?
Regardless - whether it's steam, maglev, solar, nuke, etc etc etc, you name it: the practical fact is moving more people at once in one mode of transportation is more efficient, economic, and better environmental footprint than any world that concentrates on single car/driver transpo.
Comments
Everyone forgets that Tesla is a step in the right direction. All these companies coming around that you want to do better is a direct cause of Tesla in the first place.
I'm admittedly an asshole on this topic as I have a few classic cars that are not good on gas. Although I drove them about 3k miles per year. But still, not green.
The problem is too many vote for politicians who support coal and other fossil fuels. Climate is not even an issue for the midterms.Belief that EVs are better is obscuring the fact that we need to eliminate coal and convert oil heat to electric, and convert gas fired plants to renewables.
I'm all for bringing Nuclear back to the front again. We should totally be building more.
SAAB is a good car though. The 900 is a classic, with a unique look that's its own. I always respect when engineers and designers do their own thing.
Yuck...
And yes I lumped the Aztec and 900 in the same sentence. Both designs are that bad...
As far as the Saab, you can say it's ugly. I say it's unique. Nothing else like it. I appreciate that. Plus it was a turbo when few companies were doing those. Now every friggin' car has a twin turbo of some sort. I prefer naturally aspirated every day of the week, but the 900S was one of a kind.
No one I knew had an M3 or M6 though. I don't recall the M6 in the 90's?
Saab is ugly yes. Buick was the only other car company I remember that used the turbo. It was a tech early on that the car manufacturers couldn't master. Now it's in every V6 instead of a V8 now. The Mustang GT is slower than the V6 turbo model. Ain't that some shit?
Nissan did do amazing things w a Turbo.
See GTR/Skyline. What an amazing car.
I've been watching McDonalds stock rise more and more. I wanted to buy when it was 212 a while back. It's 279 now.
Thank you for mentioning trains! So much could be improved by (relatively) simply refurbishing our rail systems. But the oil companies don't want that, you know know Musk sure as hell doesn't want that!