surreal1272

I’ve lived here most of my life and those are not “southern survivors”. Those are actually pretty typical around here. If you’re going bring up the rust issues, then it should be noted that those were only on early 2000 model Tacomas and Tundras. The LC and LX twins had no such reported issues and neither did the 4-Runner. It should be further noted that most 20 year trucks from the domestics suffered the same issues so there is that to consider as well. Again, compare them to other makes and models of those years and you’ll see how overblown these claims really are. That’s all I’m going to say about it. I will gladly put a neglected 20 year old 4-Runner against any neglected Explorer or Trailblazer. We can act like it doesn’t exist, Toyota reliability, but that doesn’t make it so. Again, not saying they’re perfect but it is damn near laughable to act like they haven’t earned this reputation for long term reliability.

Going to have to interject a bit of this one. Are Toyotas perfect? Absolutely not. However, this bunk about old busted models deserve a retort. Here is a 2003 Lexus LX 470 with 203K miles (low for that year) and I see none of the issues that you seem to think they suffer. https://charlotte.craigslist.org/ctd/d/charlotte-2004-lexus-lx470-loaded-best/7523321702.html And try another almost 20 year old LX. No headlight yellowing. No cracked dash and this also has more than 200K miles so it’s not Ike either of these were babied. https://greensboro.craigslist.org/ctd/d/greensboro-2003-lexus-lx-470/7517568006.html I can find quite a few near 20 year 4-Runners that will shame the Trailblazer and Explorers of those years (mostly because you’ll find more left actually running after all this time). I get the criticisms but most are way overblown.

It’s cute how you pass off the $70K as an insult while now dismissing HP numbers and 0-60 times. Strange how that wasn’t a consideration just a few months ago.

It should be noted that the previous credits had expired a month or so ago. The new bill extends that so it's still a valid number to count against the price.

I am speaking of the quickness at which everything went up. COVID affected that 100%.

Um, unprecedented inflation will do that. It’s also $46K and don’t forget it now qualifies for the $7500 EV credit as part of the IRA bill passed this week.

While it's a much needed addition for Dodge in a much needed to compete in market, I have a major issue with this. Now, take this with a grain of salt and understand this is just my lowly opinion, but all the people who gave GM and Ford absolute hell for badge engineering in the past, better lay it on heavy here because, if it did not say Dodge on it and not have the Dart like headlight/grill treatment, I'd never guess this was anything other than a crappy Alfa. Just a big ole' "meh" from me lol.

LMAO! Doesn't change my core point at all, but okay there SMK.

And there are those famous last words whenever they are not, in fact, there already as the "best or nothing".

You don’t really care yet spent two pages trying to convince everyone here that you, in fact, did. mmmkay.

It's not that difficult at all but some folks lol.

And again @smk4565, it is simply baffling how you keep focusing on just HP and weight like there aren’t at least a dozen other factors there that you have willfully ignored up to this point.

So which is it? Model 3 or Model S Plaid? And who, other than you, would EVER compare a four door ANYTHING to a mid-engine coupe? Your argument is literally all over the place.

It proves nothing unless you want to remember that your average ICE (even from the Germans) is $h! on that track without all the adjustments mentioned for the Tesla (suspension, tires, etc). Just pure faulty logic there.

Again, ignoring important and relevant facts in order to save face and move that bar once more.

So freakin what? The error is on MT then since it was their words. You, on the other hand, were still wrong as only stated M5 while the above is an M5 CS. Details matter I’m afraid.

I know you don’t want to admit that you are wrong and want to insist on us observing your new set of track standards but here are your exact words from your second post here. “An M5 or E63 is still lighter than a Model S, and would beat a Model S on a race track.” And then David showed where you were wrong. Furthermore (per MT last year) ”While there's a long list of internal combustion engine performance cars faster than the Model S Plaid around the 'Ring, only two four-door vehicles are quicker than the Model S—the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 (7:23.164 in a Jaguar-conducted test), and the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 S 4Matic+ 4-Door (7:23.009 in a Mercedes-conducted but independently timed test” End of discussion.

Except it's not, especially when your initial comparison was regarding two other cars that were NOT the AMG GT you referenced later. After David showed where the Plaid S beat the two cars (that you first mentioned), you moved that bar in order to bring up the AMG GT. Point being, you were wrong on two fronts (EV's not having anything more than straight line speed and that the BMW and Benz you mentioned were BOTH slower than said EV around the track in question). No need to back pedal and make excuses because you were proven wrong.

Looks to me like the design department at Mini has been dabbling in the Electric lettuce for a bit too long.

And he just showed you where the Plaid S ran faster than both of the above. You bringing up the pricer AMG GT was pointless and yet again, bar moving nonsense.

It is insane that a near 10K lb. beast can move like that.

And none of what you just said there changes the fact that you were wrong before and no amount of bar moving by you changes that.

Yet you spoke the complete opposite earlier in the thread when it came to Chevy. You questioned why Chevy didn't have a hybrid option, knowing good and well what that reason was. Nice backpedal though.

2026 is the target year for the EV Colorado/Canyon twins, which puts just two years behind the Silverado. Maybe a year long on that but it solids what I was getting at earlier regarding GM and their lack of hybrid options in favor of full on EV plans. Barra told everyone it would eventually be EV and nothing else. Nothing about that says that hybrid powertrains were in their long term or even short term plans. Would have made no sense, financially speaking. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07/chevy-colorado-ev-gmc-canyon-ev-to-appear-in-2026-says-report/

I knew there were other options out but it kind of proves my point about CVTs. It takes overcomplicating it with double units or as an assist to a primary running transmission. One of the original points of the CVT was it's supposed simplicity and fewer moving parts to break (cheaper) yet the only way to make it livable is to modify it from its simplicity. On the flip side, they are far ahead the hybrid front so it makes double sense to port one over tot eh Tacoma, especially given the addition of one to the Tundra. Chevy does not necessarily need a hybrid when their full size brother no longer offer one and the EV version of it is coming in a year or so. There just isn't a good business case for a hybrid IMO.