Home » Apple Delays The ‘Apple Car,’ Admits It Must Have Steering Wheel And Pedals

Apple Delays The ‘Apple Car,’ Admits It Must Have Steering Wheel And Pedals

Apple Wwdc22 Ios16 Carplay 220606 1

Good morning. Today we are discussing hopes and dreams, and nothing embodies those fleeting things more than Apple’s attempt at making a vehicle. We’re also discussing how Ford is trying to get its dealers in line to sell EVs, the state of things at Stellantis, and so much more. Join me for a journey neither of us will ever forget.

Welcome to The Morning Dump, bite-sized stories corralled into a single article for your morning perusal. If your morning coffee’s working a little too well, pull up a throne and have a gander at the best of the rest of yesterday.

Apple’s Project Titan Hits A Speed Bump, Again

Over the past few years, few endeavors in the automotive world have been as intriguing and elusive as Project Titan, Apple’s long-running and long-troubled attempt at making a car. What kind of car, you ask? Friend, that’s the problem. For a while now, no one at Apple has been quite able to agree on what the vehicle should even be. It’ll be electric; that’s the easy part. But should it be a consumer-focused car, like most of Apple’s products? Should it be a robo-taxi? Should it be some combination of the two? And most recently, word on the street was that the vehicle wouldn’t have a steering wheel or pedals at all—making it, presumably, almost entirely reliant on AI for driving.

Well, that idea just whiffed out the window, according to a scoop from Bloomberg, which says the car’s release has been pushed back one year to 2026. Also, forget not having a steering wheel. The new design will be “less ambitious” and should enjoy conventional controls. From the story:

The latest changes underscore the challenge Apple faces in pushing into an entirely new product category and taking on technological obstacles that have bedeviled some of the world’s biggest companies. The secretive project, underway for years, is meant to provide Apple with another major moneymaker, but it also could test the limits of the iPhone maker’s capabilities.

Apple currently plans to develop a vehicle that lets drivers conduct other tasks — say, watch a movie or play a game — on a freeway and be alerted with ample time to switch over to manual control if they reach city streets or encounter inclement weather. The company has discussed launching the feature in North America initially and then improving and expanding it over time.

The story also has a detail I hadn’t seen before, which is that Apple was targeting a price of around $120,000, but now it’s shooting for under $100,000. In other words, the current vision is a passenger luxury car possibly aimed at the Tesla Model S or X, or something from Mercedes.

The above situation, however, is reflective of how automakers and tech companies alike (increasingly, they are the same thing) are reckoning with the failed promise of autonomous driving. Remember how the computers were all supposed to take our keys by, like, 2019? Yeah, AI is nowhere near good enough for that yet, and it probably won’t be for decades.

But a better question, for now, is why Apple is even bothering with the incredibly complex, heavily regulated, internationally byzantine automotive market instead of just putting more of its technology into existing companies’ cars, as it does with CarPlay. I’ve yet to figure that one out.

2021 Mustang Mach E Gt Performance Edition
2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E GT Performance Edition available early fall 2021. (Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt.)

Ford To Dealers: Drop Your Opposition To EVs

Most Autopians know by now that many traditional car dealers aren’t meshing well with the industry’s EV transformation, from not wanting to invest in charging stations at stores to directing customers to ICE vehicles. I don’t want to make a blanket statement here, of course; many dealers have embraced the electric future. But many others see them as a threat to service revenue or just don’t want to learn the nuances of how they work vs. conventional cars.
But Ford is one of the many companies planning a big EV push, and this week Ford CEO Jim Farley announced that two-thirds of American Ford dealers have signed on with his plans. On their end, it means improvements to stores and commitments to a “no-haggle” sales model for EVs; on Ford’s end, it means the dealers will actually get allocations for EVs. This story is from The Verge, which in a moment of both full disclosure and shameless self-promotion, was written by me [Editor’s note: Nice. -DT], but I’m including it here because it is important news:

Interestingly, the majority of dealers — about 1,650 — chose the “Certified Elite” program, which requires investments of up to $1.2 million. Another 261 dealers chose the lesser “Certified” status, which means investments of up to $500,000.

But that latter designation also means these Ford dealers will only be authorized to sell 25 EVs per year; the “Elite” dealers will be allocated far more EVs. If the dealers don’t commit to anything? They’ll only be selling gasoline and hybrid cars, Ford executives have said, putting them potentially very behind the curve as the automaker plans big EV rollouts in the coming years.

Honestly, I think the biggest news here is the “no haggle” system for buying Ford EVs. Does anyone really enjoy the back-and-forth that happens with a car dealer as they both fight over a fair price? I have forgotten more about cars and car buying than most people will ever know, and I can tell you I’d rather eat broken glass than haggle with a dealer. [Editor’s Note: I can think of one dealership that I’d gladly haggle with — the finest Ford dealer in all the land. The one run by a genuine car nut! You know the one! (I suppose I should clearly mention that Galpin is a major partner in The Autopian, but still, I stand by this!) -DT]
Keep in mind companies like Ford are having to compete with EV startups like Tesla, who have made the buying process a lot smoother and more painless. Traditional dealers need to evolve their tactics or they could be left in the dust.

Stellantis Is Feeding Its 14 Kids Just Fine, Thank You

Stellantis Brands Lead

I sometimes forget how many car brands French-Italo-Dutch-American mega-conglomerate Stellantis actually has. It’s 14! They even have Opel now, for some reason. Nobody wants Opel but they have Opel. It’s so weird.
Anyway, 14 brands are a lot of mouths to feed, but Stellantis North America COO Mark Stewart told the Automotive News World Congress that things are going fine so far, and that every brand is “performing,” whatever that means. Even Chrysler (remember Chrysler? Do you?) seems poised to make a comeback:
This approach has breathed new life into brands such as Chrysler, which has been trudging along with a shallow product lineup in the U.S. and appeared to be in need of direction before the merger.

Stewart said Monday that he’s proud of Chrysler’s new vision that calls for the brand to go all electric by 2028. The product-starved brand will debut its first battery-electric model by 2025. Chrysler has provided a glimpse of the road ahead with an electric crossover concept called the Airflow.

“Obviously we’ve had a lot of different names over the years, but we are a house of 14 brands. And what’s incredible about bringing the brands together, it’s just that they’re highly differentiated brands,” Stewart said. “Everybody has a personality on the brand side, and to be able to fit in different parts of the market without clashing into each other, people are like, ‘Oh my gosh, how can you feed 14 children?’ ”

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 passed by Congress could even the playing field between the U.S. and China on the EV battery development front, said Austin Devaney, chief commercial officer of Piedmont, North Carolina-based Piedmont Lithium during Monday’s Automotive News Congress in Detroit.

The legislation provides a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles that uses battery materials domestically extracted or processed.

A BMW-specific supplier alone, for example, is planning an $810 million battery plant in South Carolina. This is about to become a huge American industry, and it’s going to be fascinating to see where it goes in the coming years.

The Flush

You’re hiking in the woods on a quiet Saturday morning after a demanding week at work. Suddenly, the ground starts shaking—an earthquake, and a violent one at that. As you lose your footing, you see a silver-haired man run up the hill behind you. He’s out of breath, but even that can’t mask the panic in his voice, and when you gaze at the mountain off in the distance you begin to understand why.

“My God, I’m too late,” the man says as red lightning bolts erupt from inside the mountain and fire into the sky. You ponder the impossibility of this sight even as you realize the man next to you is Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple.

“The Shadow Realm!” he screams, grabbing you by your Patagonia jacket. “I was too late! The seal is already broken. They’ll be here soon, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to stop them.” Before you can ask questions, the ground itself splits open. Tim Cook falls into the crevice. You grab his arm and try to pull him back from certain death, but he’s already slipping away from you.

“It’s fine!” the dangling Tim Cook screams, reaching into his pants pocket and pulling out a glowing crystal, which he gives to you with his free hand. “You have to carry on the work I started. You must use my powers to hold back the Shadow Realm. Also, you are now the CEO of Apple.”

“Guh?” you say, utterly baffled by this conversation, such as it is.

“The two situations are not related,” Cook tells you. “Just go with it. But you do need to figure out a car strategy for Apple.”

“I don’t understand,” you beg of Cook as he slips from your grasp. “Why does Apple even need to make a car? Why are you getting into that business at all?” But it’s to no avail; Cook falls into the abyss and you are left alone.

The crystal glows in your palm, telling you—almost instinctively, speaking to you inside your mind—what must be done. You must defeat the Shadow Realm. Also, you need to figure out what to do with Apple’s Project Titan.

(The two situations are not related.)

Reader: What do you do?

Photos: Apple, Ford, Stellantis, BMW

Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit

75 Responses

  1. Regarding the two unrelated challenges foisted on me by Tim Cook: First, I’d partner with an Asian brand with no presence in the US, like Proton or BYD, to design an electric car with the clean design and and user interface we’ve come to expect from Apple. That’s it.

    Then I’d value that partnership at eleventy billion dollars and offer Apple’s stake in it as tribute to the Shadow Realm to leave us alone. It’s the Shadow Realm’s problem now.

  2. The whole business of “no haggle” pricing becomes somewhat irrelevant in states like mine where sales tax on a vehicle purchase is based on the net price after trade-in allowance. While the new car’s price may be fixed, there can be thousands of dollars of wiggle room in trade-in valuation.

    Bottom line is that the bottom line remains negotiable and competitive between dealers.

  3. I would continue the trend of being one of the most anti-consumer companies imaginable and probably build a 2013 Model S extremely cheaply, pretend it’s incredibly innovative, and sell it at an insane profit margin.

    Oh, I would also make every bolt a different nonstandard size and have it brick itself if not serviced by an authorized retailer. Of course things like a windshield replacement from a dealer would cost roughly 80% of the cost of a new car.

    And then give it an unnecessary amount of RAM for some reason.

    Almost forgot- things like the charger would be proprietary AND not included AND cost insane amounts of money.

    It would hopefully perplex the shadow realm demons enough to send them back to whence they came.

  4. CarPlay is the maximum amount of Apple I want in my car.

    I do not want:
    -A car that suddenly changes all the interfaces after a software update.
    -A car that reboots unexpectedly.
    -A car whose range suddenly drops from 100 miles to 0.
    -A car that has anything to do with iTunes.
    -A car that reduces the performance as it ages, regardless of battery health.
    -A car where some features no longer work after the software can’t be updated.
    -A car that insists on having it’s own style of fragile charge connector.
    -A car that won’t turn on, or the key suddenly stops working.
    -A car that turns its full battery range into heat for no good reason so it’s dead right when you need to drive it.
    -A car that becomes so frustrating to use that you end up replacing it with a new one that is fancier but worse.

    Did I miss anything?

    1. Ooh I forgot about the planned obsolescence. Fun. I almost commented on the terrible battery estimation but didn’t know if it was still an issue.

  5. Has the Apple brain trust really become so desperate for ways to deploy its $50B in cash that it’s considering getting into vehicle manufacturing? Seriously?

    If this is more than just a play to design/market consumer electronics or components to be supplied to the upcoming wave of EVs, I just can’t see it making sense. Apple loves its high profit margins and quick product turnover, does it really want to wrap up billions in fixed assets in one of the globe’s most competitive industries? Does it really want to build out a retail/service network and extensive relationships with suppliers? Does it want to be accountable to customers and regulators for the continued safety, warranty and service of these complicated vehicles for a minimum of a decade?

    It just doesn’t fit into their modus operandi or business expertise. They produce flashy, easy to use consumer electronics, and leverage their popularity and brand power to extract usury fees from their App store. That’s it. They are ill suited to enter the world of complex manufacturing, regulation and service obligations that accompanies automobile manufacturing. Especially considering that the global auto market is arguably oversaturated as it is, and every serious legacy manufacturer is entering the EV space with a flood of offerings.

    Maybe I’m just not enlightened enough or underestimate them, I dunno. Just doesn’t seem like a good fit and reeks of Silicon Valley “disruptor” hubris that will do little more than set a massive pile of cash on fire.

  6. Yeah, that’s just fucking great: let’s design a car around a technology like autonomous driving that isn’t going to be safe for deployment for thirty years or so. Assholes.

  7. The answer is clear. I would seek a team; an eclectic team, unconventional to be sure. At least one teenager, someone experiencing a coming-of-age; an older mentor with untold wisdom but still able to learn about himself; a turncoat from the enemy itself, someone with vast experience but still trying to forge their own identity; an aloof, aristocratic warrior that will, over time, be more and more humanized, until they’re just another part of the team. All of that is at a minimum, with room for up to, but no more than, three more members. 4-5 is that sweet spot. I will then set them to the task at hand and rely on their expertise, be patient through their inevitable shortfalls, and await their eventual triumph.

    I would deal with the Shadow Realm in a similar fashion.

  8. Clicked on The Verge link before reading the byline. Thought “why the hell is Matt taking credit for Patrick’s work?!?”

    I assume that GAS is one of the ~1200 elite Ford EV dealers? Hopefully that $1.2M cost doesn’t eat too much of The Autopian budget. P.G.’s salary and bail money can’t be cheap!

    Future podcast subject: what does Beau think about the no-haggle pricing?

  9. Regarding the Apple car… I think most people would want a vehicle that has autonomous capability, but then also gives you the option to take manual control.

    I know that’s what I would want.

    Regarding the flush and Apple’s car strategy – focus on making a great BEV first… one with a steering wheel and brake/throttle pedals. And the vehicle I’d start with would be a van that is sold in consumer-focused passenger versions and commercial/cargo versions. And I’d do that because nobody is offering an electric passenger van yet.

    And for the autonomous software… treat it as a separate product completely… but with an eye on commercial as well as consumer use. One day when the software is done, either build a product and/or partner with an existing commercial vehicle maker (particularly for things like transit buss or trains).

  10. “But a better question, for now, is why Apple is even bothering with the incredibly complex, heavily regulated, internationally byzantine automotive market instead of just putting more of its technology into existing companies’ cars, as it does with CarPlay. I’ve yet to figure that one out.”

    Because this is Apple. One, if they aren’t making all of the money for themselves, they’re not happy. Two, if the margins aren’t at least 100%, they aren’t happy. Three, if they can’t force you to buy a whole new thing when something that’s repairable on any competitor breaks, they aren’t happy.
    What, you think Apple cars will have warranties? Only the minimum required by law. Service? Nope. It’ll all be welded and epoxied and soldered together. Break the charging port, and you’ll need to buy a whole new car.

    “Honestly, I think the biggest news here is the “no haggle” system for buying Ford EVs. Does anyone really enjoy the back-and-forth that happens with a car dealer as they both fight over a fair price?”

    The dealer has 50 of the car you want on the lot, most have been sitting there more than 6 months, and the new model year is being launched next week with more power and more features.
    And you want to pay full original list price for something that is low demand, oversupplied, and already obsolete?

    “Of course, the proof will be in the pudding; General Motors, for example, has been shedding brands for a decade and change now, and it’s in very good shape overall.”

    This is, actually, more a question of corporate strategy rather than numbers. And it’s an interesting one to me.
    GM is very big on being GM. They are GM. You buy GM products. They want a strong GM identity (except when it’s inconvenient.) They want you loyal to GM so that if you get priced out of Cadillac you still buy a Chevy.

    FCAtlantis in contrast, has taken a drastically different approach. The guy on the street doesn’t know FCAtlantis from a hole in the ground. “FC-who? No idea.” But you say ‘Dodge’ or ‘Chrysler’ or ‘Renault’ and he will have an opinion on at least two of those. Each brand in the FCAtlantis portfolio has it’s own unique and strong identity, and seeks to cultivate loyalty to that brand and it’s own identity. As well as encouraging brands to differentiate from each other.
    As a result, Jeep owners have insane loyalty numbers. So does Ram. You’ve heard ‘Mopar or No Car’ to the point of exhaustion. And so on. Additionally, when, say a bunch of Rams catch on fire, it doesn’t tarnish Jeeps or Hellcats.

    The downside of this is the managing of development costs. If your entire product line is 5 platforms and 15 bodies, then you only have to develop 5 powertrains. FCAtlantis can’t do that, and this is where Mergio really shone (not that the Manliest isn’t doing a good job, but it takes years to tell.) Their solution has been to develop the ‘Global’ series of engines – highly configurable building blocks that can be tuned and re-engineered cheaply (in terms of R&D costs, not quality) to be suitable for numerous differing applications. The same engine in the Alfa Romeo Giulia finds a home in the Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe and Maserati Ghibli.
    They’ve also done an excellent job of designing chassis platforms stripped down to their ‘minimums’ so they can be quickly and efficiently built into what they need. Going back to our Alfa Romeo Giulia: that has the same base platform as the WL Grand Cherokee. This also allows them to cycle entire platforms much more quickly at lower retooling costs; the Giorgio platform is already retired after just 7 years, being replaced by a version which supports PHEV/EVs.
    Whereas GM has the GMT T1XX which can be built into… trucks. That’s it. Trucks. Or the Malibu riding on the E2XX platform. Which can be built into… a sedan. Or a station wagon. Or a really bad CUV. Meaning they aren’t getting SHIT for mileage out of their R&D, they have to rely on amortization (keeping the platform around long past it’s expiration date.) Going back to our E2XX example, that’s actually just a minor tweak of Epsilon – GM’s been making the same shit for over 20 years! Longer than the Challenger/Charger in fact. (The Challenger was introduced in 2008 and the Charger in 2006.)

    Like I said: it’s interesting.

    “The crystal glows in your palm, telling you—almost instinctively, speaking to you inside your mind—what must be done. You must defeat the Shadow Realm. Also, you need to figure out what to do with Apple’s Project Titan.

    (The two situations are not related.)

    Reader: What do you do?”

    One, I recognize that the two situations are, in fact, related. Tim Cook is speaking. This means he is lying or manipulating. Two, I defeat the Shadow Realm by saddling them with ‘Project Titan.’ If it doesn’t fiscally destroy them, it will shatter their spirit and soul. Because it is so deeply, deeply stupid in every way there is.

    Please, please show me where the fuck the synergy between making computers and making commuter cars is. Honest, serious question. Because HELLO I DO COMPUTERS AND CARS. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT I HAVE DONE FOR DECADES. I don’t give a flying fuck if it’s ICE or EV; please show me the person saying ‘yeah, I want a stylish laptop and then I want a car to match.’ I don’t CARE if Apple’s cult will buy it anyways just because it has a rotten fruit on it.

    Show me where these two things actually have a synergistic relationship. Or where these two engineering disciplines have ANY significant overlap. “Oh but car EC-” Motherfucker, THREE DECADES! When I tell you that designing a desktop CPU – as in the silicon – has nothing to do with designing a PCM CPU – also as in the silicon – then I assure you, it is not because I cannot design silicon! It is because the only common components between these two things is a handful of passives, some raw aluminum, and maybe wires.
    There is basically zero engineering you can take between point A and point B. Ball joints have no relation to screen hinges. Please, please tell me where durability testing on high durometer rubber is useful in a server chassis application. (It’s just not.) Nevermind the manufacturing aspects because ha ha ha you think those have any similarities boy are you in for a REAL rude surprise about who puts your computer together. (Hint: being able to follow Ikea-level instructions is not a prerequisite or ongoing requirement.)

    The whole fucking thing doesn’t even rate ‘vanity project.’ It’s an albatross brought to you by someone with severe cognitive deficiencies! It’s so gobsmackingly stupid that to this day I still do not believe this is a real project and that it is just Apple trolling reputed pedophile and philanderer Elon Musk.

    1. I enjoy your comments and have no reason to dispute what you’re saying (sans a healthy layer of snark for style points). I found your penultimate paragraph strangely reminiscent of what the telecom industry said in response to rumors of the first Apple phone circa 2006. Remember this quote from Palm’s CEO?

      “And so I just would caution people that think they’re going to walk in here and just do these. We’ve struggled for a few years here, figuring out how to make a decent phone. The PC guys are not going to just, you know, knock this out. I guarantee it. So, look, welcome, let’s go for it. We can’t stop all that. It’s going to happen, but it’s going to be, I don’t think it’ll be so easy for everybody, as everybody thinks to enter it. It’s a tough space.”

      1. I’ve been a bit under the weather, so my quill has dulled slightly. (Also production outages, so, yanno.) But anyhow. It is and isn’t, and I’m glad you brought up Palm vs Apple.

        Palm’s statements were made on the basis of false confidence, because they had no idea what was about to hit them. But this was at a time where Palm? Palm made phones, not just PDAs. And this thing called The Internet turned out to not just be a fad. The codependence of computers and phones was very, very well established. The synergy was observed, and Palm executed on it very well with models like the Treo 700p.
        I worked with someone who bought the very first iPhone. Within two months? He was back to a Palm Treo. Why? Because while the integration idea was grand, Apple’s sucked, especially as a Windows user. And the phone function sucked more.
        No, what ‘knocked them out’ was the cult of Apple. New, shiny, stylish, unreliable, failure prone? Just the price for fashion. That is how every phone maker viewed it – a fashion phone with a fashion price they didn’t expect consumers to pay.

        Pay that Apple turned into cementing a duopoly through buyouts, marketing, and alleged sabotage.

        But again: computers linked to phones. Phones linked to computers. Computer IN a phone? Logical, synergistic, with clear and present advantages made by joining the two. Now your phone can sync your calendar, record your notes, share your pictures, all these things that were a much more arduous task before became … mundane. Simple. The two halves became better wholes.

        That, my friend, don’t apply here at all. It’s like a guy running the best BBQ joint in the state saying “yeah, yeah, they been coming ta me for ribs for 30 years. So t’day? T’day I’mma serve ’em SALADS and FRUIT!”

  11. My thoughts on autonomous cars – ideally, we just want to get in, and have it go from A to B without us doing anything, right? I’m thinking like an elevator, they are generally trusted to just go back and forth moving people without much guidance. Now I think it could happen, but well after ICE vehicles are off the road and considered museum curiosities. And all the car manufacturers will do something smart for once, and actually agree on a single standard for charging, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and road monitoring. (Think if the assisted driving/super cruise systems and mapping from Tesla, GM, Ford, etc were combined today in 1 shared system, I’d think even that could be an improvement over what they are doing on their own today.) So I’d guess we wouldn’t see anything like this actually happen for another 40-60 years?

  12. Stop trying to make the Apple Car happen. Make me an iPhone that actually fits in my tiny hands first, you cowards. The current iPhone Mini is…not mini. To put this in car terms, I need a reasonably sized Cooper (except, like…a phone) and you high-tech fartwaffles whipped out a lumpy, sad Countryman.

    Also, how dare you besmirch the good name of the Manta’s maker.

  13. My main reason for hoping Apple doesn’t build a car is that I don’t want to hear car alarms going off in the middle of the night waking us up to tell us some kid has wandered off 500km away and expecting us to get up and look for them.

  14. Apple has developed a full digital dashboard and has not been successful to date in convincing OEM’s to adopt it as standard equipment.

    Today, Lucid Motors’s market cap is $14.5 billion. It has fallen 82% this year. No one has a more advanced (and compact; you can carry it a suitcase) electric drive system. I have felt for a long time that Apple should acquire Lucid to showcase their digital dashboard and infotainment. The Apple customer base speaks for itself.

    Lucid is a premium product (as is Apple). Their primary weaknesses have been with supply chain and production which has not allowed them to ramp. At their present production rate they have a five year backlog. The Street smells blood and is losing patience. This is Tim Cook’s strength. Innovation is not (his strength). He is no Steve Jobs. This seems like a natural alliance. The acquisition cost for Apple would be approximately 7% of their cash reserves or slightly more than rounding error.

    Under Tim Cook’s direction this project is going nowhere. They have already lost billions and probably a decade of no value-added R&D, other than the digital dashboard referenced above.

  15. Various thoughts.
    Yep,the apple car will be (almost) a non event.Take away autonomy and you have another EV. Even then it’s doubtful to sell well.In the past it made sense to launch an expensive model first but not so much now.It’s a crowded market !

    I kind of like stellantis’ varied range.In theory it’s better than the VW model where the same car is tarted up in various clothes.
    If only stellantis would dump it’s losing models, it could be great.Well semi-great i guess

    The USA subsidizing home made batteries is a good strategy.Not from a cost perspective but as insurance against china’s inevitable future nastiness.
    For the same reason,but much more important ,are chip fabs.It’s extremely important america goes ahead with it’s plans to shift fabs from taiwan.
    This wont stop the USAs inevitable decline but any slowing is a good thing

  16. “Does anyone really enjoy the back-and-forth that happens with a car dealer as they both fight over a fair price?”

    No… but if I have to pick between having no choice but to pay an unnecessarily elevated price and haggling, I’ll suck it up and haggle every time.

  17. Stellantis needs more brands imho. Instead of making stupid new ones (DS anyone?) they could just bring back some of the dormant ones that they already own: O.M., Bedford, Panhard, De Soto. I can’t imagine how many brands are in there altogether. Just let Plymouth stay dead, please.

    1. For real! I had to scroll up to to see who wrote it and was pleasantly surprised to see Patrick’s byline! Last I heard he was working for The Drive, but I guess that’s old news?

      I know Kristin is still over there, and would like to see her back under the tent of weirdos as well.

Leave a Reply