Impractical convertibles seem to do ok. The practical ones not so much.
The Camry Solara, 200 convertible and C70 withered away for lack of interest, like unwanted timeshares – notwithstanding back seats that were both present and adult-usable as well as trunks large enough to hold more than a bag of M&Ms and a bottle of water.
Meanwhile, Miatas without back seats at all do fine.
And convertible Camaros and Mustangs with useless ones, too.
Apparently, the Critical Ingredient is not backseat legroom. Or a more-than-pouch-sized trunk.
In other words, practicality isn’t the problem.
Which could be a problem for Buick and this new Cascada convertible.
The Cascada is a mid-sized, front-wheel-drive convertible, very much like the Camry Solara and Chrysler 200 convertible were.
Like them, it is practical for a convertible, with a roomy, road trip-friendly interior and passenger-friendly back seats (unlike the convertible versions of sporty 2-plus-2 coupes like the Chevy Camaro and Ford Mustang).
Base price is $33,065 – but “base” is an unkind word to use given this version of the Cascada comes standard with almost everything that’s available in every Cascada, including 20-inch wheels, heated leather seats, a seven inch LCD touchscreen, in-car WiFi, GPS, a heated tilt and telescoping steering wheel, dual-zone climate control and a power soft-top that can be raised or lowered in about 17 seconds with the car moving at speeds up to about 30 MPH.
A top-of-the-line Premium trim stickers for $36,065.
It comes with electronic nannies such as lane departure warning and forward collision alert as well as useful items such as air deflectors for the front and rear seats to reduce wind buffeting when the top’s down.
While there are lots of convertibles on the market, almost all of them are either sporty two-seat roadsters like the Mazda Miata and BMW Z4 or soft-top versions of established two-plus-two sport coupes like Camaro and Mustang that sell well because of their popularity, despite their impracticality.
Like the departed Camry Solara and Chrysler 200 convertible, the Cascada is more about taking one’s time and enjoying the ride than getting there quickly.
There are no high-performance engine options – and the ride is set up to be soft and quiet (even with the top down).
The Cascada’s chief rival – or rather, the car Buick is specifically targeting – is the Audi A3 cabriolet.
It is smaller and costs more – $36,300 to start, pushing $45k optioned out – but it’s much quicker and (as an Audi) has euro-brand cachet.
Another possibility is the VW Eos – which is more reasonably priced at $32,860 to start – but you’d better hurry if you’re interested in that one because it’s been cancelled. This year will the the last year for the Eos. You’ll have to pick from whatever leavings are still available on dealer lots.
The Cascade is a new model and Buick’s first convertible model since the Reatta (RIP) back in the early ‘90s.
It’s very pretty – and very handsomely equipped as it sits.
Drop the top without having to stop.
No cowl shake, excellent body integrity.
Usable back seats (32.8 inches of legroom) and trunk (13.4 cubic feet).
Costs thousands less than Audi A3 cabrio.
WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD
Despite its very small engine – just 1.6 liters – it uses a lot fuel (EPA says 20 city, 27 highway vs. 24 city, 35 highway for A3 cabrio; I averaged 21.4 MPG).
Zero to 0-60 takes 8.6 seconds (The base A3 cabrio does the same run in 7.4 seconds. With its optional engine, the A3 can do it in 5.8 seconds.)
No optional engine in the Buick.
Lots of too-small buttons for secondary controls.
Tilt/telescoping steering wheel is manual-adjust; it works fine but doesn’t feel refined.
Ditto the physical/insert and turn (as opposed to push-button) ignition key. Seems out of place for 2016 – and $35k.
UNDER THE HOOD
In keeping with Trends, the Cascada has a very small (just 1.6 liter) four cylinder engine with a turbo bolted to it for on-demand power. A six-speed automatic is the standard and only available transmission and there is no optional engine.
Small (but turbocharged) engines are being resorted to en masse as a way to reconcile the historically irreconcilable goals of high fuel economy (which the government demands) on the one hand and good power/performance (which buyers expect) on the other.
When not on boost, a little engine drinks less fuel than a larger engine. When on boost, a little engine can make bigger engine power, as needed.
That’s the idea.
The Cascada’s engine makes good power – 200 hp – for its size. The problem – from the standpoint of peformance (and fuel efficiency) is the Cascada’s weight: 3,979 lbs. empty.
Add driver and passenger.
The power-to-weight ratio is not favorable.
Which is why the Buick needs 8.6 seconds to achieve 60 MPH. And only earns an EPA rating of 20 MPG in city driving and 27 on the highway.
These aren’t terrible numbers but they’re not very good numbers, either.
The Cascada’s targeted competition – the A3 Cabrio – is both quicker and more fuel-efficient. It is also some 600 pounds lighter (3,384 lbs.) Which is why it gets to 60 more than 1 full second sooner and uses a lot less fuel, too.
It’s the same story vs. the VW Eos (soon to be retired). It has exactly the same power (200 hp) but because it is hundreds of pounds lighter (3,508 lbs.) it is much quicker (zero to 60 in 7.3 seconds) than the Buick as well as easier on gas (22 city, 30 highway).
I’m not sure what Buick’s thinking was when the decision was made to use the 1.6 liter engine in the Cascada. It’s not a bad engine. It’s just not enough engine. Not for two tons-plus.
Arguably, a larger (and not turbocharged) V6 would have done a better job delivering both power/performance and MPGs. I’ll get into that in greater detail below.
On the plus side:
Though it’s turbo-boosted, the Buick’s 1.6 liter engine is designed to run on regular 87 octane unleaded. The A3 cabrio’s also-turbocharged engines (1.8 and 2.0 liters) both are designed to operate on premium.
ON THE ROAD
A World War 11 aviation analogy may help get a handle on the Cascada’s possibly fatal flaw.
The German Luftwaffe had this great idea for a fighter-bomber, a plane that could defend itself against pure fighters while also carrying a payload of bombs to the target. The result was the Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstorer (destroyer).
It was a great-looking plane that got shot down a lot.
Because it was too heavy (when loaded with bombs) to be fast enough and agile enough to dogfight.
And when not loaded with bombs, it was…. not much use a bomber. The Germans never quite figured out what to do with it.
When it comes to convertibles – the successful ones seem to be either those that are light and small and agile (like the Miata and BMW Z4) or those that have the power – at least as an available option – to overcome their size and weight (e.g., the convertible versions of the Camaro and Mustang).
Convertibles that aren’t particularly sporty – without much going on under the hood – haven’t done so well.
In fact, they have done terribly.
I think it has to do with cruiser convertibles being out of step with the times. The pace of things has picked up and take-your-time models like the Camry Solara and the Volvo C70 and the Chrysler Sebring/200 were out of step with the times.
Like Vitalis hair tonic – and men wearing pork pie hats to work.
Flash back to 1969.
When men did use Vitalis and wore pork pie hats to work.
There were lots of convertibles back then – but most of them not “sporty.” Most were big, heavy cruisers packing big V8s that overcame their battleship curb weight with a superabundance of torque and a heapin’ helping of horsepower.
Picture a red Eldorado with a bone white interior and 8.1 liters under its hood. Or a 455-powered Buick Skylark. They had three-across bench seats and column shifters and people loved them because traffic didn’t give you angina in those days and driving with the top down was actually pleasant most of the time.
It’s not anymore – chiefly, because most of the time, you’re not moving. Because traffic sucks and it sucks almost all the time, unless you are lucky enough to live out in The Woods like me, which most people don’t.
So, the top is up most of the time, for most people.
Which shifts the attention to how the car drives; to what happens when you stomp on the gas. How it takes the curves.
Not much happens when you stomp on the Cascada’s gas. Except that it uses a lot of gas. I averaged low 20s, which is pretty poor given the car’s performance. My 40-year-old muscle car sucks gas too, but it also goes when you hit the gas. And its mileage isn’t actually all that bad, considering.
Only about 10 MPG worse than the Cascada’s when I’m running it hard.
And it runs hard.
So do the Camaro and Mustang convertibles – which incidentally also have smallish turbo fours but much stronger ones (275 hp for Camaro; 310 for the Mustang) that deliver V8 muscle car acceleration (5.5 seconds to 60 for the Camaro; 5.8 for the Mustang) and pretty solid MPG numbers, too (21 city, 30 highway for the Chevy; 21 city, 32 highway for the Ford).
Roadsters like the Miata, on the other hand, are not muscle car quick but they are light and nimbler than a corporate lawyer – while also delivering almost-economy car MPGs (27 city, 34 highway).
So where does the Cascada come in?
It’s neither speedy nor particularly economical. It’s a gentle cruiser, with a very smooth and quiet ride, ideal for languid sight-seeing trips on the Blue Ridge Parkway, for instance. With the top dropped on a warm summer day, no hurry about getting there, it’s the perfect car.
Unlike a Miata or Z4, it has back seats.
And unlike a Camaro or Mustang, those back seats are usable.
The trunk is huge for a convertible: 13.4 cubic feet (Miata’s is 4.6 cubic feet).
But such eminently practical attributes didn’t do much for the Camry Solara or the Chrysler 200 or the Volvo C70.
There are also some practical problems.
While it’s cool that you do not have to stop the car to raise or lower the top (you have to come to a complete stop in the A3 cabrio to do either) when the top is up it’s hard to see what’s going on behind you because the rear glass is tiny and slanted sharply and the rear headrests (mandated by Uncle for “safety”) eat up what little rearward view you’ve got. Plus – because Uncle and his rear-impact standards – the car’s ass is big and high.
Rearward visibility with the top up is a problem in most modern convertibles – which probably helps explains why convertibles are a hard sell unless they do other things well when the top’s up.
Another problem is the Cascada’s array of smallish and numerous center stack buttons for the various secondary functions. Other car companies have addressed the problem of having too much “button clutter” by using an all (or mostly) electronic interface of the mouse/scroll/menu variety. The Buick has a touchscreen, but it also has too many physical buttons and some of them are awkward to use. For example, the main knob input is a knob with a ring around it that slides in and out. Like a foreskin, kind of. You rotate the knob to (as an example) find the radio station you want and then – using your thumb and index finger – you push the “foreskin” in to select/engage.
The LCD screen itself is recessed too deeply, making it awkward to make changes by finger touch.
A final oddity is the old-timey ignition key. It’s an actual key – a metal key.
Just like 1969!
There is nothing wrong with this; old-school keys work just fine. But most people under 50 today probably expect a keyless/pushbutton ignition. Buick doesn’t even offer this as an option.
Most buyers also probably expect a $35-to-start new car to either automatically unlock when they approach – or unlock when the owner touches the door handle.
With the Cascada, you have to manually press “unlock” on the key fob transmitter.
AT THE CURB
It’s pretty – no worries there.
And that may save its bacon.
The Camry Solara and Chrysler 200 were the Mrs. Doubtfires of their kind. About as sexy as granny panties. They were Old Lady Cars. Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.
But there are only so many old ladies in the market for a new convertible.
The Cascada isn’t exactly (cue Luca Brasi voice) a masculine car but it’s not geriatric – and that’s definitely in the plus column.
As are the adult-viable backseats.
And the doors – which open super wide, almost perpendicularly – which really opens up access to the interior.
It is a fairly large car – 184.9 inches long overall vs. 175.4 for the A3 cabrio – but it’s not a lunker (like a ’69 Eldorado) and – other than the keyhole visibility to the rear when the top’s up – it’s an easy car to maneuver.
And it is absolutely loaded as it sits.
In keeping with its lover-not-a-fighter nature, the Cascada literally cascades with amenities. In fact, there are no extra-cost amenities. Just a few “safety” gewgaws such as Lane Departure Warning, front parking sensors and Forward Collision Alert. None of these add luxuriousness to the car so if you skip them – by not opting for the Premium trim, which includes them – you won’t be driving a less-posh Cascada. And – in my world – being able to avoid these “safety” systems (which would more accurately be called Addled/Inattentive Driver Idiot-Proofing systems) and their attendant light and buzzer show is a blessing.
Plus, you save $3k by opting out.
One thing that’s not a blessing is that the otherwise loaded-as-it-sits Cascada doesn’t come standard with the air deflectors that come standard with the Premium trim. These are necessaries in a convertible and should be included in the car’s base price.
Or at least, you ought to be able to order them a la carte.
But you can’t.
Instead, you’re looking at a $3k price bump – to the Premium trim – which also socks you with the “safety” nannies you might like to skip.
You’ve read my bitch about the Cascada’s less-than-great performance and mileage. Now hear a related bitch about the standard 20 inch gnomesayin‘ “rims.” You can make an argument for huge “rims” (and super stiff/short-sidewall tires) if they are for a performance car. They make the steering feel sharper and the car handles better. But they also increase rolling resistance (see that point above about fuel economy) and are at odds with ride quality. Buick engineers managed a minor miracle imbuing the Cascada with a plush ride despite the “rims,” but it’d be even more plush with sane (for a car like this) 17 inch wheels.
It’d probably get better gas mileage, too.
Especially if it went on a diet.
The dearly departed Camry Solara – a very similar car in terms of size – only weighed 3,615 lbs. That’s almost 400 pounds less than the Cascada. Even with a big V6 (3.3 liters, twice the size of the Buick’s 1.6 liter four) it still managed 18 city, 26 highway – and got to 60 in 6.9 seconds (nearly two full seconds sooner than the Buick).
The Solara still failed, even so – probably because it wasn’t very pretty.
The Buick is very pretty – but it’s also way too heavy.
Which may be the thing that seals its fate.
THE BOTTOM LINE
I like this car. Most people who see it probably will, too.
But will enough of them want to buy it?
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site. Please be sure to tell us you want one – and also, provide a mailing address, so we can get the thing to you!
I almost never see convertibles with the top down. Air conditioning is far more comfortable and convenient, not to mention sunroofs being outrageously prolific in nearly every new model. Even antiques are kept closed up except at shows. I expect this Buick to be a flash in the pan for the retail market yet popular as a winter rental in favorable climates, much like previous generations of Mopars from the Mitsubishi molds. Not everyone is Mustang material.
Buick is a ho-hum brand except in China, that’s where three out of every four Buicks are now sold. I wonder how that happened?
I did a little search. It’s difficult to ascertain how many plants GM has in China but in 2013 they were predicting 4 more with 5 million vehicles already being sold there. Next week the number of plants will probably have changed…..if you can find a definitive number for how many they have right now. It’s a small world after all……..I got drug(drugged?) to Disneyland once. I have a lot of advice such as do not go but if you find yourself involuntarily there, stay away from machinery(almost all of it) and any sort of music. It’s a wonder I didn’t get killed trying to flee “It’s a Small World After All” or what the hell ever it’s called. Wanta force a confession? That would do it. Isolation and that theme song, a great deal like the original thing.
eric, so you’ve wondered aloud or at least in print when we’d be finding ourselves banned from the roads with “unacceptable” dirty cars. Looks like Paris has found a way and it’s paying bureaucrats of all colors and costing the motoring public to pay for it all.
Paris bans pre-1997 cars from its streets during the week
Passenger cars built before 1997 and bikes older than 2000 are weekend-only now.
by Jonathan M. Gitlin – Jun 1, 2016 3:20pm CDT
Don’t expect to see cars like this on Parisian streets after this summer (unless it’s a weekend).
Don O’Brien @ Flickr
Parisians with cars built before 1997 are going to need to head to the nearest car dealership if they want to keep driving in the city after July 1.
The French capital has experienced quite horrific air pollution in the last few years, and there was a massive spike in March 2015 that saw the city’s air quality drop lower than that of Beijing, China. After trying out temporary restrictions to vehicle traffic, Les Echos reports that the city has decided to implement new rules that will ban older and more polluting vehicles from its streets on weekdays. Those restrictions will also tighten over time; in 2020, only cars built since 2011 will be allowed.
The vehicle classification scheme means you get one of these window stickers based on which Euro emissions standard your vehicle complies with.
This announcement follows a decision by the French government to finalize a nation-wide scheme of ranking vehicle emissions (the system is based on the European emissions standards). Any vehicle made on or before December 31, 1996 was built to conform with Euro 1, the weakest of these standards, and it’s these cars that are no longer allowed in the capital. Pre-2000 motorbikes and other two-wheeled vehicles are also on the hit list.
Parisian drivers will need to register and get a window sticker. If you’re caught in the city during the week with one of the banned cars, expect a fine of between $39 and $504 (€35-€450). The new rules follow a move last year that banned trucks registered before October 2001 from city streets during weekdays.
It’s estimated that about 30,000 diesel and gasoline cars will be affected by the new rules. While the change will no doubt help Parisian air quality, the impact will most likely be felt by the city’s least-well off drivers (as well as people with classic cars).
Here’s the link to the article: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/06/paris-bans-pre-1997-cars-from-its-streets-during-the-week/
Since only a few places in Tx. even test cars I hope the rural counties will be the last affected. But this is a sign of what’s to come for the sheeple of the US also.
Oh, good LORD. Not another front-drive led sled. Why can’t Americans learn to drive and get *real* sports cars to pick from? Even marginally practical ones?!
Hi Brother John,
It’s not for me, either – but I try not to let that color the reviews I write. I try to write them such that they convey info useful to the people potentially interested in whatever the car I’m writing about happens to be.
I can’t just write about Charger R/Ts and Hellcats!
Oh, yes indeed, I understand fully — we ought to hear from a car guy about the new Accord as well! My complaint is not with the review, but the car. I mean, why bother making this thing? A droptop might be a novelty, but so might a car with some snot — maybe not 707 HP, but some real snot, that’s RWD, no open-rear, manual trans standard and not optional, with room for a good-sized suitcase or a set of golf clubs. Maybe even a 2+2.
Upgrading the engine to a V6 would help the performance a lot, but give even worse fuel economy. Take a look at the difference between the 4 cylinder and V6 versions of a comparably heavy vehicle, the 2010 Highlander:
MPG (city / hwy)
Base 4 cyl: 20 / 27 (identical to the Cascada)
V6 18 / 24
I dunno. The Camry Solara’s a better comparison. Very similar vehicle (mid-sized FWD convertible) and even with a V6, its mileage is only a few MPGs off that of the 4 cylinder Buick.
Also, in real world driving, the V6 has the advantage because it doesn’t have to work as hard as the tiny turbo four, which (unless you’re a Clover) is almost constantly on boost and operating at comparatively high RPM.
I’ve been test driving cars for more than 20 years and have found this to be true in almost every case. An under-engined vehicle may be theoretically able to achieve a higher EPA city/highway number, but that’s often very misleading. I drove the Cascada for a week and averaged just over 21 MPG. A V6 Solara (I’ve driven several over the years) would do about the same, maybe a little less – but not dramatically so.
Also, IIRC, the Solara (last year was 2008) had a four-speed automatic vs. the much more efficient six-speeds available today.
Perhaps your experience from test driving cars has skewed your perceptions, since you run the vehicles much faster than most any regular commuter would? If you’re pushing a vehicle near its limit, then yes, a small engine won’t give you much better fuel economy than a bigger engine.
But, in normal city driving, a car is spending a lot of time idling at a stop, where a bigger engine will use more fuel than a smaller engine. And, at steady speed highway driving, all but the most ridiculously underengined vehicle isn’t using anywhere near its top output.
Try this on: what were your real world fuel economy figures for, say, a V6 versus a 4 cylinder Accord or Camry, even running them like a sumbitch?
Maybe, but I honestly didn’t work the Cascada like I would a Porsche (or even an Altima). And I agree it would probably give pretty good mileage as a commuter, in mostly stop-and-go traffic. But once you’re on the open road… it’s an underpowered car.
Also, I am leery about the long-term durability of these highly strung micro-turbo engines vs. a naturally aspirated larger engine. I know for a fact (as an example) that a Toyota V6 will go 200,000-plus miles without needing more than occasional routine maintenance and will usually still be running well at 200k.
But a 1.6 liter four running 20-plus pounds of boost?
I would be surprised if a V6 version of this car didn’t take a hit of at least 10% in fuel economy, based on the 10% to 20% hit in EPA advertised MPGs for current year cars that have optional V6 engines and base engine 4 bangers.
That being said — I would take a normally aspirated V6 engine over the 4 banger every time for the likely greater durability and for the greatly increased performance — and for the sheer joy of saying “fuck you” to the CAFE bean counter mentality.
Unless I moved somewhere mountainous and high elevation like, say, Taos at 7K feet elevation or so, where a normally aspirated engine would be struggling constantly — a smaller turbo 4 might be more fun to drive there.
Someone else posted that this kind of car would be so much more appealing with a V8. I second that. Something like an early ’70s Eldorado or other GM sled with a soft top. Now that’s the ticket!
I suggested they take the cue from a former car of a great Ottawa chief and stick a V-8 on that sideways driveline. 5.3’s are very easy on fuel and would have plenty power. Put BUICK on the top cover and 90% of buyers would never know it was a Chevy pickup engine…..or 99% of those types of buyers.
Imagine the “Uncle free” version… 800 pounds lighter…. and powered by at least a V6. Either way – if it were 800 pounds lighter – it would be at least 10 percent more fuel efficient (probably more like 30 percent) and of course perform much better, too.
PS: Speaking of CAFE-induced idiocies, I have two of them in the driveway. A BMW 3 “eDrive” and a Chevy Volt. It’s my lucky day!
Got stuck behind someone driving a Volt at glacier speed. Glad i rarely see Volts. This clover made Prius drivers look like speed demons.
I wonder how fast the automakers would discontinue these cars if somehow uncle stopped regulating? At least the Caddy ELR got the boot, it sold fewer cars in a year then Buick sold Cascada’s last month.
I have insufficient data on volt drivers, but prius drivers around me are in the faster/more aggressive group over all. Not by a lot, but if it was a choice between getting behind a Prius or a full size Buick sedan, I’m betting on the Prius driver. I’ve seen a good number doing 80-90mph on I-294. It helps that some of the cab companies use them on the aggressive score too.
I have a Volt right now! Also a BMW 330 eDrive…. review’s almost done!
Gee Eric for a long time you lamented that you could not get an electric car to review. Now you get 2 at once!!! I see a collusion goin on here.
So far its selling ok. Least they got it out in time to be useful for the summer 2016 season.
Eggs, bacon, grits sausage
You better use a condom if you taking that sausage
All these broke niggas that be on my sausage
Need to hop off my sausage
My sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa sausage
My sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa sausage
Eggs, bacon, grits
Hop off my sausage
I had momentary interest in this car, until I realized that it is an outdated, horribly underpowered slug. It’s essentially a 2013 Opel model based on the same platform as the Chevy Cruze. No way is that worth $35k in my opinion.
Text of the XXVIII Amendment… Lottocracy…Puts an end to the Nov 2nd federal selection scam…
Each Congressional district existing at the time of this enactment must at the next biennial election submit to the President of the Senate the names of 300 citizens willing to serve as United States Representatives; and each state, at its next Senatorial election must submit the names of 100 citizens willing to serve as United States Senators. The qualifications and manner of providing each list of 300 Representative candidates and 100 Senatorial candidates are to be determined by the states respectively, with the exceptions that no particular political party affiliation shall be considered a qualification, and that all those qualified who present themselves for selection must have, methodologically, a statistically equal chance of selection.
Within a week of the receipt of these names, the President of the Senate must choose entirely at random one name from among those 300 for service in each Congressional district, and choose entirely at random one name from among those 100 for service in the Senate. Within one week of the pronouncement by the President of the Senate of its random choice for each seat, the Supreme Court shall validate solely the randomness of each choice made by the President of the Senate and no other merit. For any district not so validated, the President of the Senate shall draw again from the 300 Representative names and 100 Senate names already in its possession until randomness is validated, or until three attempts have been made, after which point a federal employee, chosen at random by the President of the Senate and without Supreme Court validation, and earning not more than one-twentieth the official salary of the United States President, shall while blindfolded draw one name from a basket containing the 300 names, or the 100 names, according to which seat’s randomness is contested, and that choice shall assume office.
Challenges to the randomness of the names as submitted by each state shall not be heard at the federal level, nor shall any such challenge impugn any name once received by the President of the Senate. Redress shall be found solely within the state so challenged.
This method of Congressional and Senatorial election shall prevail after the first election, as prescribed above. The phrase “by the People” of Article I, Section 2 is hereby amended to read “randomly by the people”; and the phrase “by the people” of the 17th Amendment is hereby amended to read “randomly by the people”.
In those years when the election of Senatorial candidates shall coincide with the quadrennial election of the United States President, the unchosen remnant of Senatorial candidates, that is, 99 from each state holding a Senatorial election, shall form the Electors for those states. Those states not holding a Senatorial election at the quadrennial election shall nonetheless submit 100 names, as prescribed above, for the purpose of serving as Electors. They shall convene in each of the several states at a time and place appointed by the legislatures of those states, but no later than one week after the random selection of their one state Senator, as prescribed above. At that time they shall perform the duties of Electors set forth in this Constitution, as amended.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 beginning “Each State shall appoint…” is hereby amended to read “No person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Any national convention called for the passage of this Amendment shall limit its scope to this single Amendment. The applications of the several states for such a convention may be differently worded, but must be limited to the consideration of matters set forth above. Passage must be accomplished by January 1, 2020, after which time the amendment process must begin anew.
Unless the LGBT market decides to desert the Miata en masse, this thing is going to go down faster than Amy Shumer.
Gliwice plant when it was still assembling Opel Astras. Insert favorite Polish joke here.
Cascada article detroit free press
GM Manufacturing Poland in Gliwice and Tychy.
Shit Ronnie, no catfish front-end….what’ll they think of next? It is a nice looking car, rare I can say that these days(gollum,gollum). But just a good sized brisket off 2 tons? Sheesh, what a fat-ass…..and that doesn’t have to be bad. If GM could just remember to take advice from the old chief of the Ottawa’s and stick a V-8(wow, it coulda had a V-8) onto that sideways driveline it would have probably got better mileage and some serious gitty-up go.
It is a nice looking car, but an overweight slug. Plus overpriced. I bet they give $7k off sticker to move the first production ones out. Where’s it made, anyway?
Is there a sausage option? A Czech detector?
“Is there a sausage option?” Of course – you never sausage a mess.
They’re leaving it too close to the cataclysmic converter.
Too bad, its a decent looking car. Just too expensive. $25k and it would sell like iPhones.