Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

ab348

If there is ever another oil crunch Ford could be toast with that strategy.

isellhondas

imidazol97 said:

ab348 said:

What I did learn from that experience was that the media got every story about us wrong about 98% of the time regardless of what we told them or how we tried to explain it. It was really eye-opening.

You were operating under the mistaken idea that the media were average intelligence and higher. For decades here in Ohio we've been told how much better nonpublic schools are. And one TV station employed a high percentage of graduates from same. The mistakes in speling on many of the labels put on the scren and on the scrolin letters would make an elementary teacher's skin crawl. My wife would go mad about how many mistakes were made that even her 3rd or 5th graders would have done correctly. (The mistakes in my earlier sentence were intentional to demonstrate types of errors.)

"The mistakes in speling" Sorry....couldn't resist!

driver100

PF_Flyer said:

Is this going with the flow, or getting out in front of things?

Why Ford is hitching its future to trucks

The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker announced Thursday that 86% of its North American production by 2020 would be trucks and SUVs, up from 70% now.

Good article. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket, and how the great ones fall. It sounds like they make all their profit from F 150s, and they are losing money on their other offerings. The article says these cars are getting a little long in the tooth; Taurus, Fiesta and Flex. Their biggest recent setback is all the recalls, steering wheel bolts and locks.

The only Ford products that are of some interest to me are Mustang in the pony car segment, Lincoln if I was looking for a thrifty luxury car and wasn't too concerned about drivability, Fusion if it appealed to me more than the competition but I think there are probably better cars out there in that category. I see steering bolt and latch problems as being major concerns.

oldfarmer50

ab348 said:

If there is ever another oil crunch Ford could be toast with that strategy.

F


I agree. None of the car companies seem to learn from the past. $4 gas in 2008 killed them in 2009.

Michaell

I read somewhere recently that if Ford stopped producing every vehicle except the F-150, they would still have $40B in revenue annually.

bwia

Nothing was selling in 2009. We were in a recession, remember? And diversification is not necessarily an optimal operating strategy. Trying to compete in every brand or model segment is a recipe for a quick race to the bottom. Remember GM had 9 brands: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevy, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, GMC and (?)
Just saying

imidazol97

driver100 said:

$1,819.24Top Rated PlusFree shippingBrand: Mercedes-Benz
7 new & refurbished from $1,423.10

But the shipping is FREE.

imidazol97

isellhondas said:

"The mistakes in speling" Sorry....couldn't resist!

Please note that I put in those two or so spelling errors as examples. The TV stations reported every negative for public schools on the state-mandated proficiency testing. At that time, the parochial schools did not take the proficiency testing. But the graduates of one such school heavily represented at one station made strange errors when typing text for screen display or scrolling information.

graphicguy

YouTube is becoming another streaming service with many of the same channels as the other services. Biggest difference, they have unique content posted by users.

oldfarmer50

bwia said:

Nothing was selling in 2009. We were in a recession, remember? And diversification is not necessarily an optimal operating strategy. Trying to compete in every brand or model segment is a recipe for a quick race to the bottom. Remember GM had 9 brands: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevy, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, GMC and (?)
Just saying

I think you overstate things. Big things weren't selling but people switched to small fuel efficient cars.Remember the Prius mania back then? The car makers were relying on big SUVs and trucks just like now.

driver100

bwia said:

Nothing was selling in 2009. We were in a recession, remember? And diversification is not necessarily an optimal operating strategy. Trying to compete in every brand or model segment is a recipe for a quick race to the bottom. Remember GM had 9 brands: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevy, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, GMC and (?)
Just saying

GM seems to have just as many car lines now...maybe not as many brands. With cars, it keeps changing as to what is in at the time, so it is best to diversify a bit. The younger people seem to want smaller more efficient city cars...they might not even want trucks.

Another thing is....Ford trucks are riding high right now...but, what if someone starts making more popular trucks. And whatever happened with those Tonka Ford trucks...they were cute?

28firefighter

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

abacomike

bwia said:

abacomike said:

bwia said:

Don't know if it would make a difference but Mercedes new and innovative Digital Lighting System is a step in the right direction and probably would help. The short 2.5 minute Youtube video below shows how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAb7qb1J0BQ

I have that new system on my S450 - the beams move to follow road curves and to reduce/realign the amount of light hitting oncoming traffic.  When the headlights go on, they go through a digital display and align lights by digital sensors.

Mike, does the lighting system "paint" traffic signs on the street such as crosswalks and stop signs?

My car may light up the road like a Leonardo DaVinci masterpiece, but it’s no “Andy Warhol”! 

Michaell

28firefighter said:

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

Yeah, that would not have worked in your favor.

Hopefully, you got nice weather today.

Michaell

driver100 said:

bwia said:

Nothing was selling in 2009. We were in a recession, remember? And diversification is not necessarily an optimal operating strategy. Trying to compete in every brand or model segment is a recipe for a quick race to the bottom. Remember GM had 9 brands: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevy, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, GMC and (?)
Just saying

GM seems to have just as many car lines now...maybe not as many brands. With cars, it keeps changing as to what is in at the time, so it is best to diversify a bit. The younger people seem to want smaller more efficient city cars...they might not even want trucks.

Another thing is....Ford trucks are riding high right now...but, what if someone starts making more popular trucks. And whatever happened with those Tonka Ford trucks...they were cute?

Didn't the Big 3 have this problem in 1975 .... and again in 1979?

And again in 1991, for Gulf War I? I remember gas prices spiking to (gasp!), $1.50/gal in CA at that time.

The problem is, nobody wants a fuel efficient car when gas prices are relatively cheap. But, let a little panic infect the population, and watch folks dump the Expedition for a Fusion Hybrid. Buy high, sell low - which never works out.

28firefighter

Michaell said:

28firefighter said:

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

Yeah, that would not have worked in your favor.

Hopefully, you got nice weather today.

I don't have a ton to compare against but it feels warm and I can see the sun. By Seattle standards its nice weather.

driver100

28firefighter said:

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

DRIVER RULE #247 Never assume your flight will land on time. :@

28firefighter

driver100 said:

28firefighter said:

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

DRIVER RULE #247 Never assume your flight will land on time. :@

I didn't - I'm a realist. That's why I booked Hertz, which is open 24/7. Ended up with a RAV4 XLE. I don't love it, but its brand new, so that's something.

snakeweasel

dino001 said:

Add US isolationism (e.g. Congress prohibited using US transportation facilities (like ports) to move the equipment to war zones, even one that was already paid for by British) and Germans land troops faced material fighting resistance for first time in late 1941, aided by Russian winter, BTW.

General Guderian wanted to pull back for the winter and consolidate German gains which would have been the smart thing to do but Hitler forbade it. The rest is history as Hitler pulled the same bonehead crap the following year.

dino001 said:

At this time, Japanese attacked, so finally all those [non-permissible content removed]-sympathizers and isolationists in the US had to finally give it up the idea that Europe was "not their problem", or simply shut up and stand in the draft line. United States still needed another year to get its economy and troops ready for the war effort, during which time Soviets were already pushing back at incredibly high cost.

The Japanese attack did a lot to save the Soviet Union. Stalin fearful of another attack by the Japanese (Japan attacked the Soviet Union in 1937 and in 1940) that he kept a large army in central Russia to thwart a potential invasion. Once Japan attacked the U.S. Stalin figured that Japan would be to busy with the U.S. that they wouldn't be a threat to the Soviet Union. This freed up millions of fresh troops to throw against Germany.

imidazol97

I've enjoyed the perspective of several of posters on the World War. History was a subject I always hated. I had to take 3 quarters in college. First wasn't as bad because professor was a PhD in Chemistry teaching history (he originally was at IU).
I almost can remember the room location where the class met.

I remember the professor coming over to me as I was taking notes one day to read them more closely. Like many teachers he had learned to read upside down as people wrote during his class. But I had caught his interest because I took notes in shorthand; the look on his face when he realize what I was doing was great. I got a laugh and an "A." I had taken shorthand in high school because there wasn't anything else to take.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You can play that game in reverse, if they had been going slower, even by 1 MPH, the pedestrian would have been across the road before the car got there.

Of if he car was going faster and been past the incident point before the pedestrian got there who is to say that there would not have been a collision further down the road?

It has not been proven wrong.

tbirdmarco

Nice  nice all above

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

How about 3 accidents or 3 tickets?

Accidents (at-fault) yes. Tickets? No!

If you can get a few Auto Insurance companies to give you some recent data, I think you'll find the actuarial have finally figured out that tickets have little impact on the likelihood of future claims. I've begun to see and hear evidence that tickets don't have the effect on insurance rates they once did. The numbers are starting to reflect the reality.

Why not? You can lose your driving privileges for three tickets. Tickets tend to show reckless and/or careless driving and that does increase incidents of accidents.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?

Yes time and space, if going faster would put you past her when she crossed the street going slower would have put you far enough in front of her for her to cross before you got there. That is unless you think she would have stopped in the middle of the street to wait for you.

All this is is just an excuse to justify your speeding.

tbirdmarco

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gul47DvOoV4

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

Mike...if you are tired of TV ads pay the 410 a month and get Netflix....you won't want to watch regular TV ever again.

410 a month, hate to tell you this but you're getting ripped off. I pay only 10 a month.

snakeweasel

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

houdini1

graphicguy said:

Bradd....I have the Google WiFi system (look on the Google site to find it). I have 3 modules, which includes the router. It covers my entire house.....about 3K sq/ft and 3 floors.

I think it was just under $300,but set up is simple and I regularly stream at 100-200 mbps from the ISP and modem.

Netgear has a good router called the Nighthawk, which I like. Single WiFi source but it has a good antenna system. I think it’s about $175....maybe a shade less.

That said, I have 3 TVs, 2 video door bells, 2 laptops, an iPad, 2 mobile phones, Amazon streaming dongle, a UHD blue ray player, a kindle, and probably something else I’m forgetting, on my WiFi network.

I know Sprint has terrible coverage in my house. AT&T and Verizon are fine for cell coverage, though.

My wife bought me a kindle when they first came out. I have 3 kindles now but seldom use any of them. Prefer to read e books on mini ipad. I would cut the cord immediately, but my wife could not live without cable.

abacomike

snakeweasel said:

Mike...if you are tired of TV ads pay the 410 a month and get Netflix....you won't want to watch regular TV ever again.

410 a month, hate to tell you this but you're getting ripped off. I pay only 10 a month.

I pay $10.99.  Every day, I look for newly added films.  I usually do not watch series or serials on TV because I tend to lose interest in them.  But I could not get enough of “Shooter” with Ryan Philippe.  Outstanding - I think there were 12 chapters.

houdini1

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

stickguy said:

I can't even fathom how much it would cost to replace one of those lights if it goes bad. Pretty sure not $30 at auto zone, and 5 minutes to pop it in!

Well there are cars on the road today that aren't exotics with headlight assemblies costing $1400 a pop. You really don't want to punch any new German car in the nose if you can avoid it.

Just checked one:

Mercedes E350 E400 E63 W212 AMG S Headlight Assem Static LED Driver Left GENUINE
This Listing includes: 1 X 2128202139 - Headlight Assembly - Genuine Mercedes-Benz Driver Left Static LED This Brand Includes the Mercedes Benz logo & States: Mercedes-Benz inside the lens.
$1,819.24Top Rated PlusFree shippingBrand: Mercedes-Benz
7 new & refurbished from $1,423.10

That is worth more than a lot of the cars oldfarmer finds for us on CL!

Does that include the registration fee?

snakeweasel

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

bwia said:

Nothing was selling in 2009. We were in a recession, remember? And diversification is not necessarily an optimal operating strategy. Trying to compete in every brand or model segment is a recipe for a quick race to the bottom. Remember GM had 9 brands: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevy, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, GMC and (?)
Just saying

GM seems to have just as many car lines now...maybe not as many brands. With cars, it keeps changing as to what is in at the time, so it is best to diversify a bit. The younger people seem to want smaller more efficient city cars...they might not even want trucks.

Another thing is....Ford trucks are riding high right now...but, what if someone starts making more popular trucks. And whatever happened with those Tonka Ford trucks...they were cute?

Didn't the Big 3 have this problem in 1975 .... and again in 1979?

And again in 1991, for Gulf War I? I remember gas prices spiking to (gasp!), $1.50/gal in CA at that time.

The problem is, nobody wants a fuel efficient car when gas prices are relatively cheap. But, let a little panic infect the population, and watch folks dump the Expedition for a Fusion Hybrid. Buy high, sell low - which never works out.

The last time gas got close to $5/gallon a friend of mine bought Jeeps for himself and his wife. Got a hell of a deal on them.

Mr_Shiftright

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

fintail

MB, not BMW.

houdini1 said:

Does that include the registration fee?

roadburner

imidazol97 said:

I've enjoyed the perspective of several of posters on the World War. History was a subject I always hated. I had to take 3 quarters in college. First wasn't as bad because professor was a PhD in Chemistry teaching history (he originally was at IU).
I almost can remember the room location where the class met.

I remember the professor coming over to me as I was taking notes one day to read them more closely. Like many teachers he had learned to read upside down as people wrote during his class. But I had caught his interest because I took notes in shorthand; the look on his face when he realize what I was doing was great. I got a laugh and an "A." I had taken shorthand in high school because there wasn't anything else to take.

I actually had more hours of History classes than I did of Political Science classes(my major)- and two of the History classes were graduate level courses. I could have had a double major but I only took History courses I liked and ignored required courses for the major.

roadburner

@imidazol97 your story also reminded me of this clip. I actually had a law professor that was just about as manic; he saved me from being kicked out of school my final semester(I pulled a prank at a very formal event- long story).

driver100

28firefighter said:

driver100 said:

28firefighter said:

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

DRIVER RULE #247 Never assume your flight will land on time. :@

I didn't - I'm a realist. That's why I booked Hertz, which is open 24/7. Ended up with a RAV4 XLE. I don't love it, but its brand new, so that's something.

I know you chose a rental company that would stay open. Why do you not love the RAV4?

My guess is...if you appreciate driving and the thrill of a finely engineered car....you won't be satisfied driving a RAV4.

driver100

imidazol97 said:

I've enjoyed the perspective of several of posters on the World War. .

I am impressed with the people who know and analyze history so well around here.........I keep learning more each day.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?
.

Just about every accident is that way. it wouldn't have happened if I left 10 minutes sooner, it wouldn't happen if I had left 6 minutes earlier. The accident happened at that time and place.....you can't change things unless you are in the movie Back to the Future.

I'd like to hear him explaining that to the cop....see if I could have been driving 90 mph instead of 50 this accident wouldn't have happened - it is the stupid laws fault.

28firefighter

driver100 said:

@Michaell - Glad I did not sign up for Silvercar for this jaunt. Flight was over an hour late.

DRIVER RULE #247 Never assume your flight will land on time. :@

I didn't - I'm a realist. That's why I booked Hertz, which is open 24/7. Ended up with a RAV4 XLE. I don't love it, but its brand new, so that's something.

I know you chose a rental company that would stay open. Why do you not love the RAV4? My guess is...if you appreciate driving and the thrill of a finely engineered car....you won't be satisfied driving a RAV4.

Its really well built. Solid. No rattles. It was just anemic. I was getting on 405 and had it pushing 5000 RPM just getting up to highway speed. Felt dangerously slow. And the car was hunting gears constantly. 

abacomike

There is one other Netflix series I truly enjoy - “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” - hysterical!

jmonroe

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?
.

Just about every accident is that way. it wouldn't have happened if I left 10 minutes sooner, it wouldn't happen if I had left 6 minutes earlier. The accident happened at that time and place.....you can't change things unless you are in the movie Back to the Future.

I'd like to hear him explaining that to the cop....see if I could have been driving 90 mph instead of 50 this accident wouldn't have happened - it is the stupid laws fault.

You just might be the guy who can fix our poster buddy. Good luck with that.

jmonroe

snakeweasel

Mr_Shiftright said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot. Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed. Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

Really? I have ran over my fair share of raccoons but I never hit a person. 

fintail

RAV4 is a CVT right? They may last forever, but are another one I watch for on the road, driver's aren't always the most attentive. It's like a Corolla 4x4.

28firefighter

fintail said:

RAV4 is a CVT right? They may last forever, but are another one I watch for on the road, driver's aren't always the most attentive. It's like a Corolla 4x4.

Didn’t feel like it given how it was constantly downshifting. Could be wrong. 

Oh, also, the backup camera was truly awful. Super low resolution to the point of being almost worthless. 

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

bwia said:

Nothing was selling in 2009. We were in a recession, remember? And diversification is not necessarily an optimal operating strategy. Trying to compete in every brand or model segment is a recipe for a quick race to the bottom. Remember GM had 9 brands: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevy, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, GMC and (?)
Just saying

GM seems to have just as many car lines now...maybe not as many brands. With cars, it keeps changing as to what is in at the time, so it is best to diversify a bit. The younger people seem to want smaller more efficient city cars...they might not even want trucks.

Another thing is....Ford trucks are riding high right now...but, what if someone starts making more popular trucks. And whatever happened with those Tonka Ford trucks...they were cute?

Didn't the Big 3 have this problem in 1975 .... and again in 1979?

And again in 1991, for Gulf War I? I remember gas prices spiking to (gasp!), $1.50/gal in CA at that time.

The problem is, nobody wants a fuel efficient car when gas prices are relatively cheap. But, let a little panic infect the population, and watch folks dump the Expedition for a Fusion Hybrid. Buy high, sell low - which never works out.

The last time gas got close to $5/gallon a friend of mine bought Jeeps for himself and his wife. Got a hell of a deal on them.

That was always one of my favorite day dreams...buy SUVs when gas is $4 and sell them when it's $2 so you make out on both ends. What could go wrong?

driver100

How about a new VW Arteon....starting from $37000;


I know....looks like a Buick!

That color is getting popular...I may get more used to it.

Why It Matters: The Arteon is to the car side of VW’s showrooms what the Atlas is to the truck side: a new flagship responsible for ­accelerating the brand’s return to relevance.

Platform: VW’s ubiquitous MQB transverse-powertrain components, set up for sedan use.

Powertrain: A turbocharged and intercooled 2.0-liter inline-four packing 270 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque (substantial increases over the outgoing CC’s turbocharged 2.0-liter) with an Aisin eight-speed automatic transaxle sending output to the front wheels. VW’s 4MOTION all-wheel drive will likely be optional.

VW Arteon

driver100

28firefighter said:

fintail said:

RAV4 is a CVT right? They may last forever, but are another one I watch for on the road, driver's aren't always the most attentive. It's like a Corolla 4x4.

Didn’t feel like it given how it was constantly downshifting. Could be wrong. 

Oh, also, the backup camera was truly awful. Super low resolution to the point of being almost worthless. 

FF, I probably could have written that review without even driving the car....that is exactly what I would expect. I should write their ad copy:
Built for people who like to drive appliances!

oldfarmer50

fintail said:

RAV4 is a CVT right? They may last forever, but are another one I watch for on the road, driver's aren't always the most attentive. It's like a Corolla 4x4.

Are you saying it lasts forever because it's a CVT or because it's a Toyota?

explorerx4

Drove my daughter's rental Focus this morning. It has about 40k on it and it sure is noisy.
Handles well and the transmission isn't horrible, although you can tell it's not a conventional automatic.

driver100

I don't know if I can get the video of the uber car hitting the pedestrian but 2 things stand out.
1. Either the lighting is really bad or the camera doesn't see in the dark very well...but, by the time you see her, she is right in front of the car, and
2. The supposed driver is not paying any attention to what is happening in front of the car.
( 45 seconds)

https://youtu.be/hthyTh_fopo