smk4565

Maybe they should push the Aviator into the $180k range like the GLS.

Interior room isn’t going to be what makes or breaks the EV Equinox. What will break it is if it has an awful GM style interior that is all dark gray with cheap plastic everywhere or if they promise one price and come out with a much higher price. What will make it is if they deliver on their $30k price and have a visually appealing vehicle inside and out. All these other small crossover SUVs are like $50k, if GM can deliver they can kick all their asses on the sales chart. It’s simple math, the number of people that can afford a $500 a month car payment is a hell of a lot higher than the number that can afford $900 a month.

They can remove the center console or have a hollowed out one with storage under it, like every other EV.

I would assume if it is an Equinox then it would be similar exterior size, which would be in line with an iD4. If same size as the current Equinox then it would be similar size or maybe a little better inside, at least you'd get a flatter floor and can open up the center console since there is no transmission or drive axle.

Not only can most people not afford an EV, most can't afford a new car when the average new car is $47k and interest rates are about to be going up, making those 6 year car loans more expensive also. If auto makers want to go EV, then you can't have a $50k small crossover that basically does nothing better than a $30k Rav4 other than it runs on electricity. I would agree that if GM delivers on this it pretty much is a game changer because $30k is basically the cost of a gas Equinox, it would undercut the iD4 by over $10k. Even if the Blazer is a 50 kWh battery to start and has 175 mile range, who cares, for most people that is enough and you can sell a 75 kWh battery with a 250 mile range as an option. Some of these EV's are selling customers more battery than they need, which just makes the vehicle heavier and more expensive. This thing isn't coming until Fall 2023 for the RS model, which means the cheap version won't be until 2024, a lot can happen in 2 years. We saw Tesla promise a $35k Model 3 (2 years out after they sold high end trims) then it never happened. So we'll see if Chevy can deliver here. And really Chevy should start with the low end version first (like how every ICE car puts out the base model first, I don't see them putting out the Zr1 Corvette first then 2 years later the base model shows up) so they don't get reputation of the Equinox being too expensive. If they start with a $60k RS model, people are going to think GM is nuts charging $60k for an Equinox and write this car off before it even gets going.

We need more EV choices, it will be nice once the market gets flooded and it isn't just Tesla, and the random 1 EV per brand that we have now.

The key is getting battery weight down. The Tesla single stamp is good for weight savings, assuming the same structural rigidity. The downside (to the consumer) is when those get hit in an accident and you have to replace a giant section of the car, the car is going to be totaled. But then Tesla gets to sell another car, so they won't care.

The Mach-E is 4,920 lbs. These EV’s are heavy.

I agree, it will probably cost over $50k, which is going to cut down the appeal. If you don't factor in the commercial vans, the minivan market is down to Pacifica/Voyager, Odyssey, Sienna and Carnival. 4 minivans compared to the hundreds of crossovers that you can pick from.

Looks good and the Van life crowd will like it. It could do well since there aren't many vans on market, compared to how many crossovers there are.

GM has off road pick ups, although no Raptor or TRX competitor. But GM doesn't have anything like a Wrangler or Bronco. And I assume this Blazer SS will be like a Mustang Mach-E competitor, maybe larger since an Equinox EV would be the size of a Mach-E, but same idea, crossover that is fast in straight line, swoopy styling or sporty look.

The current Blazer sucks, so I hope they make this Blazer SS an off road oriented vehicle since they can't make Broncos, Wranglers and 4Runners fast enough. The market is in this off roaders, GM is missing out big time on this market with way too many Chevy/Buick/GMC mall cruiser crossovers that are all too similar to each other. I like GM using Equinox, Silverado, Blazer names for their EV's and not doing some sort of EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, EV5 garbage like Kia (and yes I know GM made an EV1). Stick with established names, even if they are killing the Blazer name with bad product, they could still save it if this EV is good.

I am just saying a turbo 4 especially is electrified in some way offers plenty of performance. Obviously not as much as a V8 turbo, but let’s look at regular V6’s like the 300ish hp 3.5 liter Honda and Toyota V6, the 3.6 GM V6, those don’t even beat most turbo 4’s in torque.

Except an AMG CLA45 is faster around Virginia International Raceway than a Supra 3.0, ATS-V, Gulia Quadrafoglio, Panamera Turbo and Challenger Hellcat Widebody. (Tied with a C6 Z06) Although 20/29 mpg isn’t that good, the 48 volt I-6 Mercedes get around 22/30, but the CLA doesn’t have a mild hybrid system yet, the new C-class does, so we’ll have to see those mpg numbers, plus I think that dual clutch transmission on the CLA isn’t good on gas like the 9 speed torque converter automatic.

The CT5 and XT5 have a 4-cylinder too, but if you mean a 6 cylinder CT5 is 4-cylinder E-class money, that's a valid comparison. But also the C43, GLC43, SL43, etc are getting a 390 hp 4-cylinder, the C63/E63 a 640 hp 4-cylinder hybrid, so you are going to get what used to be V8 power with high gas mileage, which given the likelihood of $5 a gallon gas, that is going to look appealing.

It isn't being dumped, here is the 2022 C-class, and the 2023 E-class spy shots look fairly similar. This look isn't going anywhere, also this car looks way better than the current C-class, which I think looks worse than the 2008-2013 model.

I don't think they want the EV to look the same as the gas car, although I would have preferred the electric cars look more like the existing design language. Also I won't be surprised if other brands start copying the EQS styling language.

So VW is going to throw away brand equity in names like Tiguan, Jetta and Passat, for id3, id2, and id5? Makes no sense. Kia if they throw out names like Sorrento and Telluride (although new) for EV5 and EV9 is another bad move. Imagine Chevy throwing out Silverado and Corvette because the new EV naming structure is CE1, CE2, CE3, etc, awful. The Mercedes plan is to make an electric equivalent of every one of their gas models. GM basically has the same plan forming, EV Silverado, Equinox, the Bolt is basically EV Trax/Trailblazer, EV Corvette (eventually), the Lyric is basically EV version of XT6, and so on. These plans make sense because they are just going to map their current line and current names and make them electric, so they can retain current customers. Not sure which Tiguan buyer is trading their car in to spend $15k extra on an id4 which they never heard of.

Daimler(last year, now called Mercedes-Benz) has 2 car brands, Smart and Mercedes, plus the commercial trucks that would have been in last year's revenue. And Volkswagen has VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Ducati, Scania and Man. I did find Mercedes Car and Vans revenue for 2021 was $119.8 Billion, and Mercedes-Benz Mobility (the finance and insurance arm) made $30.5 Billion. So $150.3 billion combined, still makes them #5 on that list without Daimler Trucks and if you put Stellantis in there. Tesla since they aren't on there was $53 billion. Heck is Mercedes has a strong year they might beat Ford. And I don't expect their 1 car brand to out-revenue the 14 combined brands over at Stellantis or VW.

But the rest of the VW lineup is Taos, Tiguan, Atlas, Jetta, Passat, etc. Why does 1 brand have two naming schemes? Same can be said about Cadillac. And likewise with Kia and the K5, Telluride, EV6. Pick a freaking naming scheme and also calling cars EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, etc is lazy. Probably why VW Group global sales in 2021 were at a 10 year low, not a competitive line up. And Mercedes names before you go there mean something as C is for C-segment, E is executive segment, S is sonder-klase, or special class, Geländewagen means all terrain, etc.

Having sat in both EQS and S-class, the S-class has a better interior, and the dash/cowl on the EQS is rather high, I don't know why it is higher. But keep in mind the S-class interior beats anything outside of Rolls-Royce or Bentley. The EQS still has the best interior of any EV on sale now, and fit and finish quality as noted by the article, which Tesla does not have. I would take the S580 all day long over the EQS580, but I would also take the S580 over any EV. All these EV's are over priced, most $10-20k more than a similar vehicle form the same brand, at least the EQS costs the same as the similar gasoline model.

But VW doesn’t make a car called the 4, ani I think they have iD 3,5,6, whatever coming. Not an iD Jetta or iD Passat. I don’t like the EQE styling, the E-class looks better. But I don’t see another EV that’s better than EQE or EQS except maybe the Taycan, because Teslas and other EV’s don’t have very good interiors and even Tesla doesn’t have Mercedes’s tech or self drive capabilities.

A Mercedes interior blows away anything Ford, Tesla or Polestar have. 4 wheel steer which Tesla doesn’t have, a rear drive entry model which Tesla Model S doesn’t have, Mercedes has applied for US authorization for level 3 self driving, which no one else has. The EQE will do just fine, they have EQ-GLE and GLS coming next year, EQB on sale in the USA this year, Maybach EQS and EQ-GLS coming next year, EQ G-class maybe next year. They will have more EV’s than Tesla.

But all other VW’s have a word name, except maybe GTI, but that is just short for Golf GTI. The iD4 doesn’t match VW’s naming system and it’s worse car than the Kia, Hyundai or Mach E. Just like their other SUVs are no match for the Asian SUVs. Mercedes electric cars are the same naming scheme as gas cars, just with EQ in front.

The EQE53 does 149 mph, 155 mph on the AMG EQS. So the performance is there, both those cars have 0-60's in the 3's and both are "53" models, which means there must be a "63" model coming with more. Not impressed with the iD4, bad name, bad car. And the Tiguan and Taos aren't that competitive either, VW's whole lineup isn't competitive with rivals outside of the GTI, which has so few rivals. Compare an Atlas to a Highlander or Telluride, that's a joke, Tiguan vs Rav4 or CR-V, not even close.