nelsonlu

A Taurus name on a police car is bad to cops? Then why are pretty much all the homicide detectives on "The First 48" driving Tauruses?

If you answer the phone by pressing the buttons on your phone, it goes to privacy mode.

Not that I'd want to direct you to a Toyota, but I believe the Camry Hybrid has a limited passthrough. (So did the Malibu Hybrid for the short period that it was produced.)

I think the MKZ Hybrid at 41/36 MPG is better than any comparable vehicle in the market. It blows away any comparable that it's not funny (for those competitors). I think that the MKS EcoBoost at 20 MPG overall that returns 355 HP is better than its Cadillac comparable -- all configurations of the CTS Sedan (I'm going to leave aside the more exotic variants, like the CTS Wagon, for now). (The CTS V6 returns 21 MPG at 304 HP; the V8 returns 556 HP -- which, in my opinion, no sane human requires -- and does it at 15 MPG and requires premium (the V6 does not).) Sure, both of those models in their "basic" configurations are not terribly exciting entries, but a buyer does not have to settle for the "basic" configuration. As properly configured, they're very strong entries. Lincoln's weaker entries right now are the MKX and the Navigator, but both are due for overhauls, with the next MKX arriving very soon now. The Navigator, in my opinion, is what's giving Lincoln a bad name right now as it looks awful compared to the other luxury car makers' offerings. No other Lincoln vehicle really has that kind of an effect.

"Not selling as well" does not necessarily mean "inferior product." Otherwise, one would have to conclude that the Fusion is substantially inferior to the Camry and the Accord. There are a lot of reasons why Lincolns are not selling as well as other luxury cars. But the idea that the Lincoln offerings are worse than the competitors' offerings is largely perception, not reality. Some Lincoln offerings may be weaker than competitors, but some are significantly better.

Honda and GM sacrificed (among other things) a spare tire. For me, the spare tire is much more important.

When I drove the 3.0L V6 Fusion SEL last year on a trip, I found it to be less "fun" than my hybrid due to the lack of the electric motor torque.

and Nissan. Note that the Altima has been a top-10-selling model for a while now.

What "better lineup"? What GM vehicle is significantly better than the comparable Ford? I certainly can't think of a single one, and I think the only arguable one is the Cadillac CTS, and I think its drawbacks with the comparable Ford (which I consider the MKZ to be) makes it not an obviously better vehicle. I don't believe that any other GM vehicle is even arguable to be significantly better than the comparable Ford.

As alluded to elsewhere in the thread (but not clearly stated), the Eco trim hasn't been certified yet; that's the trim that's trying to get 40 MPG.

Happened to drive by a Ford dealership (not the usual one I go to) today. Saw a black Fiesta out front. Looks nice -- and more "expensive-looking" than its actual price.

Unless, of course, the I-4 is a hybrid. I've never had a quieter and smoother ride than my Fusion Hybrid.

I've had it happen to me about 5-6 times over the course of a year and a half (37,000 miles). Annoying when it happens, but does not interfere with vehicle operation.

The Michigan Public Service Commission has apparently approved of two separate charging plans for EVs: Edmunds Article 1. Special charging rates for charging between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. or 2. $40 flat fee for charging an EV per month. Given that Edmunds claimed that it cost them about $35 to charge a MiniE for 7,500 miles, I can't see option 2 as making sense for those who don't drive a lot. But assuming that it does make sense (due to residential rates being generally higher), this does give a gauge as to the maximum amount of money an EV driver will pay for "fuel," thus making it easier to directly compare with conventional vehicles' fuel costs.

What I am surprised about is that I don't see a 110V outlet for the hybrid. I hope that that's simply an oversight on the order guide.

I've always pondered about the accuracy of their condom reviews...

I am not sure that they were ever "anti-Ford" -- certainly even through Ford's most problematic years, they recommended a good number of Ford vehicles every year. I do think they were anti-GM and anti-Chrysler, though, but for good reasons.

Perhaps -- and they were initially going to release a plug-in hybrid Saturn Vue until Saturn was eliminated. And then it was supposed to come as a Buick (and was known by its detractors as the "Vuick") until they decided that that was a bad idea, too. We'll see if/when that vehicle shows up, and as what. One thing I did just notice, though, that the Volt, like the Malibu Hybrid, will have no spare tire -- but only a "tire inflator kit." In my opinion, that is a really, really bad idea. But of course, they don't work for me, and as I said, I was not going to get a Volt myself anyway, but that will make my recommendation of a Volt to anyone who may ask me for recommendations much more muted.

Except that GM (and Ford, and any other car company) is in the business of making profits. This is a similar situation to the this thread over in the Ford discussions about how Ford's current upswing is in no small part due to Ford's new pricing strategy, which involves pushing all of its cars upmarket. It is my belief that by including navigation, satellite radio, and five years of OnStar, among other things, GM would be increasing the car's desirability, not decreasing it. While people here may criticize Ford for packaging moonroof and upgraded stereo, for example, the reality is that doing so helps Ford's bottom line. (I know I would have never ordered a moonroof myself if I had not been forced into doing it since one cannot order navigation and BLIS without one -- and while I would have appreciated the possibility of not getting the moonroof without those things, I certainly had the choice of buying or walking away from the Fusion Hybrid.) There is nothing different here about what GM's doing -- simplifying build packages for the Volt. Certainly I don't see you making the same criticism about the fully loaded versions of the Civic and the Mazda3 (or the Jetta, or the Regal), all of which, in terms of cost of ownership, are going to be very close to the Volt and, depending on driving pattern, may surpass the Volt's cost of ownership substantially. And all of them (except the Regal, which is not yet market-tested) sell pretty well. I would imagine that the next Focus will be pretty much in the same category as well as a premium C car (at least offering the possibilities of being loaded up in the same way). That's what will help the company's bottom line and what will, at the same time, enhance, not hurt, the perception about the company's build quality. As far as whether Volt could have been much more appealing as a mid-size sedan -- that depends. If a C-segment Volt costs $41K, a hypothetical mid-size Volt probably would have cost about $48K or so (bigger car requires bigger batteries, plus right now, the Volt sacrifices the fifth seat for the battery space; if a fifth seat is required, that battery space has to go elsewhere somehow), which, I'm sure, you would have criticized as making it even less appealing when compare to the Malibu. I feel that, by fully packaging the Volt the way it is doing, GM is in fact learning its mistakes from the way that it really made the Malibu Hybrid undesirable by decontenting it compared to the regular Malibu, in order to try to make it price competitive, while in reality, the only way that the Malibu Hybrid could have succeeded was by being made to be better than the regular Malibu. They made Malibu Hybrid a hybrid that was inferior to the regular gas version, which was never going to work. Ford made the Fusion Hybrid a nice car, and that's why it is succeeding. The Volt is not going to succeed as a car that is only as good or worse (or even just slightly nicer) than the Cruze; it has to be a much nicer car for it to have any chance of succeeding.

But again, it depends on usage. Depending on a person's usage, he/she can either be completely wasting time and money with a Volt, or the Volt could be saving him/her thousands of dollars over the course of ownership. The Fusion Hybrid really isn't comparable here because even with the Fusion Hybrid (which I love and would probably get another one), there are still substantial fuel costs, so it comes down to whether if people can live with the Volt's limitations to try to save even more money compared to the Fusion Hybrid. As far as I am concerned, I am simply not comfortable driving a C-segment car over the very windy Altamont Pass (ideally, if there is such a thing as a Taurus Hybrid, I might consider it, but there isn't, and the Taurus doesn't fit in my garage, which means that I'd have to park it on the street), which my daily commute involves, and my commute is too long for the Volt to be worth it anyway. (85 miles each way is, on each day, over four times the electricity-only range of the Volt, by which time it is just too much like the Prius as far as fuel efficiency is concerned.) But the Volt can make perfect sense for someone who has a shorter commute, but not too much shorter.

You're free to think that. I think that these days, navigation and satellite radio are pretty essential, and I got them for my Fusion Hybrid. Remote start I could do without, but in hotter regions it can become pretty essential as well.

Except you assumed that the base Cruze and Focus are comparable. They're not. The Volt's standard equipment is comparable to a fairly fully-equipped C car - that's why I used the Civic EX, and even there to get it up to the Volt's standard equipment level you had to add navigation, XM, and remote start. I did the calculation above, which you obviously didn't bother to read. The difference is much smaller than you claim.

There is no way that a Volt is going to cost $30 per month. Again, the Edmunds folks calculated their MiniE to cost $26 over their entire year of having it (about 7,500 miles). Even when accounting for the difference in commercial and residential rates, your assumptions are way off.

Except that's really a $33,500 sedan that pays you back gas savings every year. Again, your driving pattern, which determines the size of that gas savings, determines whether it's worth it, but it would be incorrect to simply look at the sale price.

I am not sure that I believe that this is anything more than fake news...