Weird Commercial

~ Clarissa

This is the weirdest commercial. The company is openly saying that they no longer make cool cars.

“See this incredibly cool car? Well, you can’t get it. We don’t make it anymore!”

I really thought they’d reveal something cool at the end.

Losers.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

15 thoughts on “Weird Commercial”

      1. I thought for a moment there, that they were releasing a retro model. I know people who’d be psyched about that.

        -ethyl

        Like

        Reply

        1. I’m one of those people! Our very favorite car ever was a Buick LeSabre; it was a grandma car*, quiet and smooth-riding… and our family got too large to fit in it. 😦 My husband and I wax nostalgic about that car, over a decade after we sold it, and wish they still made them.

          *Literally. Both my sets of grandparents drove those cars. It didn’t make me feel young and sporty, I felt old and stable.

          –A

          Like

          Reply

          1. My grandparents also! They had a careful rotation of vehicles, where they’d buy a new one, and that would be the “Sunday” car (my grandma would drive it to get groceries and stuff as well), and the previous car would then become my grandfather’s “work” car, as he worked at the papermill, and the sulfur dioxide particulates would eventually eat the paint job.

            When the rotation turned over again, the “work” car would get traded in on the next new one. I suppose somewhere down the line, somebody got a well-cared-for Buick with not so many miles on it, in dire need of a paint job…

            -ethyl

            Like

            Reply

  2. On a related note, I have to rant about fucking Obama and the CAFE standards that ruined the car industry. This is part of an email I wrote to a friend who was complaining about Trump abolishing CAFE standards.

    Re: CAFE standards being repealed, that might be an instance of the proverbial broken clock being right. Using some complex empirical formulae they determined the MPG targets by factoring in the vehicle’s “footprint” which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The idea being, the lower the footprint, the higher fuel economy the vehicle is expected to achieve. And it has had quite literally the opposite effect. Instead of investing in R&D to squeeze out more efficiency out of their smaller cars to meet the already high fuel standards, automakers just started building bigger cars, so they could be classified as “light trucks” and crossovers.

    For example, they made the new Honda Civic much larger to shift it into a more favorable regulatory category. And smaller cars disappeared. Honda Fit, for example, would have had to hit 65+ mpg in 2026 to hit targets so Honda simply stopped manufacturing them. Ironically, CAFE standards have helped make vehicles much larger and less fuel efficient. This is also why smaller, more affordable trucks aren’t made anymore. You either buy a $60000 dodge ram or nothing.

    More details here: 

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/

    https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-could-mean-bigger-cars-not-smaller-ones/

    Like

    Reply

    1. Oh wow, I didn’t know. It’s lunacy, of course. Tons of problems would be solved with a larger number of smaller cars. Who comes up with all this garbage. It’s like these people want to ruin everything on purpose.

      Like

      Reply

      1. meanwhile, the whole rest of the world can figure out fuel-per-distance. But somehow, not the US. We’re stuck with all these wacky fuel-per-square-inch, and emissions-per-gallon (instead of per mile).

        Is someone paying them to be stupid?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. The light truck loophole had existed and had been exploited for decades before Obama was president and has existed for more than a decade since. It is a big factor in why the minivan disappeared back in the late 1980s.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Minivans are still around, but large SUVs solved a lot of the issues with those, and still had the two extra seats. Given the choice, I’d take the gas-hogging SUV over the minivan any day, because they handle better, and because the cramped engine compartment in the minivan leads to bizarre repair situations where… things that you can just reach in and work on in the SUV, might require you to remove a wheel or even lift the engine to access in the minivan. I’m more likely to be able to do regular maintenance without a crane and a lift on the SUV. Not a chance on the minivan: that costs me more money over the long haul than I would ever save on fuel efficiency.

        -ethyl

        Like

        Reply

  3. So who the hell wants to be a martyr and drive a small car? They get blown sideways in heavy winds, won’t go very fast when you want to speed on the freeway, and crumble like a tuna-fish can when some asshole smart enough to own a full-size car runs a red light and smashes into you.

    Yes, big cars require expensive high-grade gas and burn more of it per mile — SO WHAT, if you can afford it?

    I’m 80 years old, a retired military physician, and have driven Cadillacs all my professional life except for a tour in Southern Italy when I drove a small cheap Fiat because I knew that sooner or later some crazy Italian driver would run into me, and I couldn’t get a Cadillac repaired in Sicily (and yes, a couple of Italians did just that).

    Since retiring, I’ve had a couple of fender benders caused by bad American drivers, and thanks to the bulk of my Caddy, barely felt the impact.

    Dreidel

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. Definitely agree with the safety factor, I insisted that my wife drive the 150 and later the Bronco II when she had to drive a highway to work — no argument, she loved both of her “tanks” ;-D

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply