Integra type S vs Civic type R

[ChromaPop]

I follow two companies that develop solid state batteries, Solid Power and Samsung, both of which are developing solid state batteries with contracts for car manufacturers. It’s a step forward; which increases the range of electric cars and helps eliminate battery explosions and battery size. The cost is still high and materials; toxic to the earth. Currently we’d have to dig up 500k lbs of earth for the materials needed for one EV battery. Toyota has been in the hybrid development for quite some time and there are benefits.

The real issues are with electric power generation and transmission. We’re talking about generating electricity to replace abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc) and solar/wind will never cut it. Hydroelectric power is the best renewable we’ve got and even that is but a fraction of generation. What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos.

Our power grid is grossly outdated and congested. Small businesses in America are embedded with infrastructure that relies on gas and oil, we’d need money and decades to replace all of that.

USA has enough oil to extract and develop for at least a century, not too long ago we were a net exporter for the first time. Yet, how can a state like California expect to ban ICE vehicles by 2030 when they’re constantly scarce on electricity limiting people from usage?

There’s a lot to dive into here this is only scratching the surface. Acura Honda Toyota vw etc., developed manual for their high end sports cars recently for a reason. Clearly much demand still there.

There’s a place in the future for both ICE and EV, certainly hybrid. We’re still decades out from having super batteries and even longer to replace infrastructure and a power source beyond abiotic and electric.

Edit: batteries degrade, capacity severely decreases in extreme cold conditions. The cost to replace electric car batteries is astronomical on the order of 10k-15k, owners will find that out soon. EV batteries are made specifically for certain models, car companies don’t just produce off the shelf EV batteries sitting in a warehouse waiting for people to buy for replacement. Too expensive and it degrades while sitting there

Wow fantastic answer, thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm in agreement with you on everything to be honest. I think the ultimate solution is standard combustion engines boosted by small electric motors for high performance hybrid results.

 

[SierraOne]

If you’re in Quebec it’s mainly ABB, Inc. I’ve worked with them on a number of large contracts for hydroelectric powerplants.

Banning and taxes on ICE is more of a political play than it is a practical purpose. We’re talking hundreds of millions of ICE cars, trucks, utility trucks, law enforcement/health service vehicles, semi-trucks, airplanes to be replaced and the amount of batteries that would be needed.

Take a look at the money that’s gone into solar/wind the past two decades and where has that gotten? It’s not a reliable and efficient replacement. How realistically can solar panels be dropped everywhere? Then you’re dealing with geographical limitations and destroying wildlife. By the time the DC to AC conversion is done solar cells have to be replaced. Hydropower is tapped out, we’ve installed dams at all the feasible locations.

To make a jump to all EV, we’d still be burning more oil coal and gas and need to dump trillions to upgrade power grid transmission. It’s not about renewables but rather a cheap and efficient power source along with super batteries, both of which we do not have.

I do agree that in heavily populated condensed areas, electric transportation can be beneficial. At present time, every house and commercial business has buried gas lines. Replacing that infrastructure and pumping out equivalent energy generation isn’t going to happen any time soon

Unfortunately, nuclear is exactly that cheap and efficient power source you mention, but of course that opens a whole other political can of worms (or is it can of political worms?). I just got my PPL last year and I can say I'm 100% confident I won't be flying in a BEV plane anywhere in the near future, whether they are viable or not.

As to your last point, I agree that fixed gas lines aren't going anywhere, but of course that has no impact on owning an EV. After all, there's no law prohibiting burning fossil fuels for warmth and then driving to work in a Tesla (I think, I am not a lawyer).

Anyways, a bit off topic now. Back to the eternal argument of CTR vs. ITS.

 

[Azkyrie6]

Unfortunately, nuclear is exactly that cheap and efficient power source you mention, but of course that opens a whole other political can of worms (or is it can of political worms?). I just got my PPL last year and I can say I'm 100% confident I won't be flying in a BEV plane anywhere in the near future, whether they are viable or not.

As to your last point, I agree that fixed gas lines aren't going anywhere, but of course that has no impact on owning an EV. After all, there's no law prohibiting burning fossil fuels for warmth and then driving to work in a Tesla (I think, I am not a lawyer).

Anyways, a bit off topic now. Back to the eternal argument of CTR vs. ITS.

Nuclear is proven, many developed countries have demonstrated it. Why hasn’t America gone nuclear? Politics and money. Henry Ford attempted electric cars from the beginning while Nikola Tesla had research for zero-point gravity engine, then he mysteriously died, research lost. Oil tycoon families had too much to lose.

We’re still not putting money into nuclear in present day, you can come to your own conclusions on that. To your point that there’s no laws prohibiting burning abiotic fuels, California and some odd states are trying to ban ICE cars. They’re also trying to ban gas powered appliances. They also tell people to prepare for rolling outages and wait til late in the evening to charge their electric cars.

Where are we going to magically get new power sources to convert to electricity to support even more EV’s and electric appliances? It’s policies, politics and greed.

All said and done, I still want an ITS, many of us do.

 

[raisedhaze]

...Anyways, a bit off topic now. Back to the eternal argument of CTR vs. ITS.

Right!

Like, which car is a better platform to come out with a backward version of the NSX Hybrid AWD system? Utilize the turbo 2.0L for front tires and electric motors on the rear tires. Both have plenty of cargo space for batteries provided the weight in the rear doesn't throw off handling too much....

Gotta tie in your electric vehicle conversation somehow...

 

[Gansan]

I follow two companies that develop solid state batteries, Solid Power and Samsung, both of which are developing solid state batteries with contracts for car manufacturers. It’s a step forward; which increases the range of electric cars and helps eliminate battery explosions and battery size. The cost is still high and materials; toxic to the earth. Currently we’d have to dig up 500k lbs of earth for the materials needed for one EV battery. Toyota has been in the hybrid development for quite some time and there are benefits.

The real issues are with electric power generation and transmission. We’re talking about generating electricity to replace abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc) and solar/wind will never cut it. Hydroelectric power is the best renewable we’ve got and even that is but a fraction of generation. What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos.

Our power grid is grossly outdated and congested. Small businesses in America are embedded with infrastructure that relies on gas and oil, we’d need money and decades to replace all of that.

USA has enough oil to extract and develop for at least a century, not too long ago we were a net exporter for the first time. Yet, how can a state like California expect to ban ICE vehicles by 2030 when they’re constantly scarce on electricity limiting people from usage?

There’s a lot to dive into here this is only scratching the surface. Acura Honda Toyota vw etc., developed manual for their high end sports cars recently for a reason. Clearly much demand still there.

There’s a place in the future for both ICE and EV, certainly hybrid. We’re still decades out from having super batteries and even longer to replace infrastructure and a power source beyond abiotic and electric.

Edit: batteries degrade, capacity severely decreases in extreme cold conditions. The cost to replace electric car batteries is astronomical on the order of 10k-15k, owners will find that out soon. EV batteries are made specifically for certain models, car companies don’t just produce off the shelf EV batteries sitting in a warehouse waiting for people to buy for replacement. Too expensive and it degrades while sitting there

I'm not an EV advocate since they don't appeal to me so far as a consumer but I'm going to put forth my thoughts to counter yours.

Lithium battery recycling is still a growing business but there are startups that are refining the processes and methods to make this scale up and lower the cost. People are recognizing the huge business opportunity this will be in the future and so far there don't seem to be any showstoppers. It's just chemistry since the materials in a battery aren't going anywhere or getting used up. All the same elements are in an old battery that were in the new one. Recycling would certainly put a dent in the half a million pounds of earth you're quoting per battery. I wonder how many pounds of earth have we moved for coal, copper, iron, tungsten, and all the other minerals we use.

The argument:

"What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos."

is saying we should use oil to help out other countries as a way of subsidizing them in exchange for peace. We've been doing that for a long time in the middle east and I'm not sure the results are positive.

Energy generation is a solvable problem. Our society has been growing in electricity use for many generations and diversifying our sources of energy makes us less vulnerable to external manipulation like oil embargoes and war. Surely you would agree that it would be awesome if we could respond to OPEC or Russia raising prices with a big collective shrug. Energy independence is a good thing. Even if we make electricity from burning fossil fuels, using electricity provides an abstraction layer--meaning you can switch sources of energy very easily. Your car can run on coal or hydro or solar. As your region's electricity sources change, your car's going to use evolving sources too. That's what's good about EVs.

BTW, being a net exporter of oil doesn't make us immune to oil pricing because the oil/energy market is highly efficient and fluid. Resources are routed on a day-to-day basis to where they sell for the highest profit. If worldwide market prices go up, they go up for us here too.

I live in California and we aren't "constantly" being limited in electricity usage. I remember we were threatened with rolling blackouts a few years ago but then it never materialized since people voluntarily cut back on their usage during peak times. It hasn't happened since and we've increased our use of wind and solar. Same goes for EVs where you can set them up to charge during off peak or less expensive time periods automatically. I don't have an EV and I'm in no hurry to get one, but none of my neighbors seem to be worried about their EVs and how they'll charge them up. As demand grows over the years (as it always has for a century) the infrastructure will be upgraded.

$10K-$15K is definitely a hefty price for replacement batteries, but that just puts into perspective that EVs are not miracle machines. All that money you saved on gas and lower maintenance will go into new batteries when the car gets old. Let's hope that battery recycling and mass production make batteries a lot cheaper in the future.

Finally, can you explain what you mean by "abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc)"? Abiotic normally means something that's NOT biological, but all fossil fuels are biological in origin.

As an aside, I apologize for contributing to derailing this thread.

 

[VarmintCong]

Can you expand on why you think people will turn on EVs? Consumer adoption of EVs seems to gradually be increasing.

You're seeing it already, as EVs grow, it becomes difficult for governments to subsidize every step of the process. Take away the massive incentives when you buy, and the free charging, and people will get turned off.

But the real issue will be electricity generation - as that gets more and more expensive, and rolling blackouts grow, they'll start banning EVs (already happened in some places), limiting when you can charge them, or simply charging more for electricity.

And what happens when someone's EV burns down an entire row of condo complexes? The home owner associations will start banning EVs, or forcing you to park them 50 meters from a building. People in New England aren't going to walk 50 meters in the snow to get in their EV, hoping the battery will work after being parked in sub 0 temperatures.

It's a pipe dream of governments that think money grows on trees, and it's going to die soon.

 

[grahm]

You're seeing it already, as EVs grow, it becomes difficult for governments to subsidize every step of the process. Take away the massive incentives when you buy, and the free charging, and people will get turned off.

But the real issue will be electricity generation - as that gets more and more expensive, and rolling blackouts grow, they'll start banning EVs (already happened in some places), limiting when you can charge them, or simply charging more for electricity.

And what happens when someone's EV burns down an entire row of condo complexes? The home owner associations will start banning EVs, or forcing you to park them 50 meters from a building. People in New England aren't going to walk 50 meters in the snow to get in their EV, hoping the battery will work after being parked in sub 0 temperatures.

It's a pipe dream of governments that think money grows on trees, and it's going to die soon.

No offense but this has the energy of someone who was opposed to cars because riding horses doesn’t involve any combustion.

 

[Azkyrie6]

I'm not an EV advocate since they don't appeal to me so far as a consumer but I'm going to put forth my thoughts to counter yours.

Lithium battery recycling is still a growing business but there are startups that are refining the processes and methods to make this scale up and lower the cost. People are recognizing the huge business opportunity this will be in the future and so far there don't seem to be any showstoppers. It's just chemistry since the materials in a battery aren't going anywhere or getting used up. All the same elements are in an old battery that were in the new one. Recycling would certainly put a dent in the half a million pounds of earth you're quoting per battery. I wonder how many pounds of earth have we moved for coal, copper, iron, tungsten, and all the other minerals we use.

The argument:

"What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos."

is saying we should use oil to help out other countries as a way of subsidizing them in exchange for peace. We've been doing that for a long time in the middle east and I'm not sure the results are positive.

Energy generation is a solvable problem. Our society has been growing in electricity use for many generations and diversifying our sources of energy makes us less vulnerable to external manipulation like oil embargoes and war. Surely you would agree that it would be awesome if we could respond to OPEC or Russia raising prices with a big collective shrug. Energy independence is a good thing. Even if we make electricity from burning fossil fuels, using electricity provides an abstraction layer--meaning you can switch sources of energy very easily. Your car can run on coal or hydro or solar. As your region's electricity sources change, your car's going to use evolving sources too. That's what's good about EVs.

BTW, being a net exporter of oil doesn't make us immune to oil pricing because the oil/energy market is highly efficient and fluid. Resources are routed on a day-to-day basis to where they sell for the highest profit. If worldwide market prices go up, they go up for us here too.

I live in California and we aren't "constantly" being limited in electricity usage. I remember we were threatened with rolling blackouts a few years ago but then it never materialized since people voluntarily cut back on their usage during peak times. It hasn't happened since and we've increased our use of wind and solar. Same goes for EVs where you can set them up to charge during off peak or less expensive time periods automatically. I don't have an EV and I'm in no hurry to get one, but none of my neighbors seem to be worried about their EVs and how they'll charge them up. As demand grows over the years (as it always has for a century) the infrastructure will be upgraded.

$10K-$15K is definitely a hefty price for replacement batteries, but that just puts into perspective that EVs are not miracle machines. All that money you saved on gas and lower maintenance will go into new batteries when the car gets old. Let's hope that battery recycling and mass production make batteries a lot cheaper in the future.

Finally, can you explain what you mean by "abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc)"? Abiotic normally means something that's NOT biological, but all fossil fuels are biological in origin.

As an aside, I apologize for contributing to derailing this thread.

Here’s a read to stimulate your day:
https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check

Many countries both in the Middle East and South America with millions of people depend on oil commerce as they have nothing else to trade with. Secondly, do some digging and see who has the monopoly on batteries and minerals.

Being a net energy exporter is a huge deal. We saw the direct result of what happens when we ban drilling, fracking and neutering our independence. The skyrocketing of prices and this huge push to get us off ICE to buy battery cars.

You may not have felt the effects of black rollouts yet but take a look at the data from USBR and department of energy, not only has California electricity/water usage gone through the rough, both those resources had to be diverted from Colorado/Arizona/Nevada to sustain So-Cal.

Lastly, the term “fossil fuels” has been thrown around in mainstream media but an astounding number of research has countered the theory of dinosaurs/plants decaying and pressurized from hundreds of years ago to give us oil/methane/coal/gas. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils.

Earth's abiotic methane is now theorized to derive chemically from the hydrogen created by the hydration of ultramafic rocks undergoing "serpentinization"—a reaction that occurs when water meets the mineral olivine. “ petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter.””

See the research of Thomas Gold from Cornell University. Interview with Col Fletcher, chief of special operations under president John F Kennedy explaining how oil is falsified as fossil fuel. See Sweden’s Royal Institute of technology further bolstering the theory of Abiotic fuel.

Long story short, there’s much much more petroleum for us to tap into to power the world and our ICE integra type S. The evidence from our oil shale fields in the USA proves just as much

 

[Integra23]

My next vehicle will be powered by a flux capacitor.. anyone have extra plutonium so I can top off?

 

[Gansan]

Here’s a read to stimulate your day:
https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check

Many countries both in the Middle East and South America with millions of people depend on oil commerce as they have nothing else to trade with. Secondly, do some digging and see who has the monopoly on batteries and minerals.

Being a net energy exporter is a huge deal. We saw the direct result of what happens when we ban drilling, fracking and neutering our independence. The skyrocketing of prices and this huge push to get us off ICE to buy battery cars.

You may not have felt the effects of black rollouts yet but take a look at the data from USBR and department of energy, not only has California electricity/water usage gone through the rough, both those resources had to be diverted from Colorado/Arizona/Nevada to sustain So-Cal.

Lastly, the term “fossil fuels” has been thrown around in mainstream media but an astounding number of research has countered the theory of dinosaurs/plants decaying and pressurized from hundreds of years ago to give us oil/methane/coal/gas. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils.

Earth's abiotic methane is now theorized to derive chemically from the hydrogen created by the hydration of ultramafic rocks undergoing "serpentinization"—a reaction that occurs when water meets the mineral olivine. “ petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter.””

See the research of Thomas Gold from Cornell University. Interview with Col Fletcher, chief of special operations under president John F Kennedy explaining how oil is falsified as fossil fuel. See Sweden’s Royal Institute of technology further bolstering the theory of Abiotic fuel.

Long story short, there’s much much more petroleum for us to tap into to power the world and our ICE integra type S. The evidence from our oil shale fields in the USA proves just as much

Well that's quite a rabbit hole you've dragged me into. I only have limited appetite or time to entertain weird theories, but I did read some of the stuff you are referencing.

To start, using a conservative think tank, the Manhattan Institute, that has promoted a specific agenda for many decades isn't the most credible scientific source. They have a reason to present only certain information in a way that is favorable to their argument. I'm already aware of the dependence on other countries for the critical minerals used in batteries. Finding new sources for them is probably going to be the new oil rush.

More interesting is Thomas Gold. I read his bio and it's very interesting. All credit to him for coming up with the theory of pulsars and what they are. Even though people didn't initially believe him, astronomical observations eventually brought enough evidence to prove him right. (That building of consensus is key to the point I'm making here...)

However, just because Gold came up with this fantastical theory that petroleum is a natural unlimited excretion of the earth, that doesn't mean we should just believe that. Sure, methane is easily formed through non-biological processes, which we've observed in other planets and (as you noted) through minerals in the lab. We also know that biological processes synthesize methane routinely. Both things can be true. However, it's quite a big leap to go from CH4 to having the earth create underground oceans of long chain hydrocarbons (which takes substantial energy to do) which happen to be the same molecules we know are also created by life. The whole thing is just too convenient an argument to advocate that benefits certain interests. If this theory were true, then evidence will eventually mount and a consensus will emerge amongst the scientific community. That hasn't happened yet, so I'll stick with the current scientific consensus. When the community changes their minds, then I'll read about the newly discovered evidence and change too.

You also noted that we're pulling petroleum from very deep down, but you're forgetting the earth's crust is continually being subducted--being pushed up and down by tectonic plate movement. The depth of the layers doesn't mean that's where they were formed. There's no magical depth where other layers couldn't have possibly sunk down to, because the plates are getting pushed all the way down into the mantle.

But your argument boils down to "we have plenty of petroleum, so let's just use it." We are already seeing the results of doing just that for a couple of centuries within our lifetimes and that's not really a good way to go long term.

Regarding banning fracking and drilling--no, fracking was not banned and neither was drilling. Stopping fracking (because it sucks for the people living there) was a campaign promise of Biden's but he didn't do it. The reason fracking isn't used as much now is that it's so expensive that it makes economic sense only when oil prices are high. It became popular back when oil prices spiked. Once prices went back down it was not profitable so there's much less reason to do it.

Oil companies are currently sitting on thousands of unused land leases and drilling rights. They have plenty of land to drill and they don't do it. The reason is the recent higher oil prices that happened as the pandemic was ending have been extremely profitable. For example, in 2021 and 2022, Chevron reported around an 127% and 74% increase in profit, respectively. They're doing fine. Same with many other petroleum companies. There's no reason for them to drill and make prices lower and so that's exactly what they're doing.

I don't know why you brought up USBR and water usage, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

 

[VarmintCong]

No offense but this has the energy of someone who was opposed to cars because riding horses doesn’t involve any combustion.

I know it’s hard for someone who’s blind to see, so we’ll have to just wait a few years and see who’s right.

 

[VarmintCong]

I'm not an EV advocate since they don't appeal to me so far as a consumer but I'm going to put forth my thoughts to counter yours.

Lithium battery recycling is still a growing business but there are startups that are refining the processes and methods to make this scale up and lower the cost. People are recognizing the huge business opportunity this will be in the future and so far there don't seem to be any showstoppers. It's just chemistry since the materials in a battery aren't going anywhere or getting used up. All the same elements are in an old battery that were in the new one. Recycling would certainly put a dent in the half a million pounds of earth you're quoting per battery. I wonder how many pounds of earth have we moved for coal, copper, iron, tungsten, and all the other minerals we use.

The argument:

"What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos."

is saying we should use oil to help out other countries as a way of subsidizing them in exchange for peace. We've been doing that for a long time in the middle east and I'm not sure the results are positive.

Energy generation is a solvable problem. Our society has been growing in electricity use for many generations and diversifying our sources of energy makes us less vulnerable to external manipulation like oil embargoes and war. Surely you would agree that it would be awesome if we could respond to OPEC or Russia raising prices with a big collective shrug. Energy independence is a good thing. Even if we make electricity from burning fossil fuels, using electricity provides an abstraction layer--meaning you can switch sources of energy very easily. Your car can run on coal or hydro or solar. As your region's electricity sources change, your car's going to use evolving sources too. That's what's good about EVs.

BTW, being a net exporter of oil doesn't make us immune to oil pricing because the oil/energy market is highly efficient and fluid. Resources are routed on a day-to-day basis to where they sell for the highest profit. If worldwide market prices go up, they go up for us here too.

I live in California and we aren't "constantly" being limited in electricity usage. I remember we were threatened with rolling blackouts a few years ago but then it never materialized since people voluntarily cut back on their usage during peak times. It hasn't happened since and we've increased our use of wind and solar. Same goes for EVs where you can set them up to charge during off peak or less expensive time periods automatically. I don't have an EV and I'm in no hurry to get one, but none of my neighbors seem to be worried about their EVs and how they'll charge them up. As demand grows over the years (as it always has for a century) the infrastructure will be upgraded.

$10K-$15K is definitely a hefty price for replacement batteries, but that just puts into perspective that EVs are not miracle machines. All that money you saved on gas and lower maintenance will go into new batteries when the car gets old. Let's hope that battery recycling and mass production make batteries a lot cheaper in the future.

Finally, can you explain what you mean by "abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc)"? Abiotic normally means something that's NOT biological, but all fossil fuels are biological in origin.

As an aside, I apologize for contributing to derailing this thread.

This is a nice post, but what EV detractors have a problem with is not EVs at all, it’s governments forcing them on us, based on the ridiculous logic that a vehicle whose emissions occur far away in another town or another country is somehow better for the than one whose emissions come out of the tail pipe.

It’s a lie that EVs are better for the environment and we’re tired of hearing it.

If EVs are so great, let them sell themselves.

 

[Lflouie]

Back to the original purpose of the thread.

I saw a white CTR parked next to the ITS demo......there is no question that the CTR is less exciting than the ITS. Yes it has wing ( not my thing), but the voluptuous body styling, shape, flairs, rear facia makes the ITS the styling winner, IMO.

Driving wise, the ITS meets all of my needs for aggressive street driving but with the added plus of more creature comforts, more flexible suspension, longer warranty and freshness I like.

Yesterday I passed on a 2023 Blue CTR for $55k ( same price as the ITS msrp plus mats) bc the ITS is a better match for me.

 

[optronix]

This is all very interesting, and semi-relevant. Not really to the Type S vs Type R but sure, car talk is car talk.

I'm not a fan of EVs at all either, and don't need to do a shitload of research on the topic to see what's in plain sight. But whatever the future holds is pretty much irrelevant. The fact remains that there is huge momentum from the entire auto industry towards electric vehicles. You can naysay EVs all you want; it's still happening.

Case in point; Porsche announced what seemed like ages ago that their mid-engine platform is going all-electric. You can't buy a mid-engine Porsche anymore! They were a staple of the enthusiast community for 25 years. You can't just say "consumers will turn on EVs" and list a bunch of research... this is happening. EVs are replacing ICE.

Back to the original purpose of the thread.

I saw a white CTR parked next to the ITS demo......there is no question that the CTR is less exciting than the ITS. Yes it has wing ( not my thing), but the voluptuous body styling, shape, flairs, rear facia makes the ITS the styling winner, IMO.

Driving wise, the ITS meets all of my needs for aggressive street driving but with the added plus of more creature comforts, more flexible suspension, longer warranty and freshness I like.

Yesterday I passed on a 2023 Blue CTR for $55k ( same price as the ITS msrp plus mats) bc the ITS is a better match for me.

It's also just ridiculous to eat a ~$12k markup because what, all the cool kids are doing it?

CTR at $43k is compelling. CTR at $55k is absolutely not.

 

[VarmintCong]

Right!

Like, which car is a better platform to come out with a backward version of the NSX Hybrid AWD system? Utilize the turbo 2.0L for front tires and electric motors on the rear tires. Both have plenty of cargo space for batteries provided the weight in the rear doesn't throw off handling too much....

Gotta tie in your electric vehicle conversation somehow...

Overseas you see a lot of cars going mild hybrid, gas engine with tiny electric alternator amd starter and a small battery. It adds like 30 lbs to the car, and slightly reduces emissions and gas consumption, and let’s automakers look like they’re being progressive.