Well, TBH it's an attacker itself, since the early 2nd-gen Prius got complaints about quietness of the vehicle.
If the battery is a problem, then the Tesla's one is YUGE compared to the Prius. Anyway, Belgian VUB students decided to dissect total lifespan CO2 emissions of a diesel and EV (200 kkm, diesel emits 120g/km of CO2, power plant makes 300g/kWh). They found out that the diesel will be responsible for 41.2kt of CO2, while the EV will make just 17.8kt. Surprisingly, battery production will cause less CO2 emissions than drilling oil and turning it into diesel fuel (5.4kt vs 2.6 kt), because batteries are made once, while diesel has to be refined for the whole lifespan of a car. Then add NOx, SOx, PM, etc. and the diesel loses.
You are trying to prove that EV > petrol hybrid because EV > diesel (that is known to be very polluting, especially at non-CO2 emissions)? Wow. Plus, CO2 emissions are not the only emissions, the thing people who pretend to care about environment forget about. For some reason you only cared about them when talking about diesel's running pollution. Environmental costs of recycling are also to be taken into account. To top it off, a couple of unverifiable and questionable statements, just like yours. A German scientist estimated that if all cars in Germany became electric, the pollution levels would rise a lot. Another fact is that producing one battery pollutes as much as driving a petrol ICE for 8 years.
Now, i'm a pretty tolerant guy, I personally don't mind having a bunch of computers in cars. Do I prefer it? No, but I think it could be worse. BUT, one thing that really frustrates me about new cars is the removal of the automatic transmission dipstick, and sealed transmissions. It hinders the longevity of the transmission, as I don't think the ATF is "Lifetime" like the manufactures claim.
The modern car market is like the confederate states. Everyone is buttfucking each other to make inbred-looking, brain-dead cars.
Creases means youth. Nope it doesn't. With the sole engine choice being a N/A 1.3L from the dark ages making next to no torque, do you think the youngsters would chose this or something like Ford's Ecoboost with more horsepower, more economy (potentially), less noise and more torque. Or go to VW for a diesel. OAPs love this car, because they couldn't care less what engine performance is like, as long as it moves the car then it's fine. And that's exactly what it does, reliably so. But this dinosaur of a concept needs to fade away. honda please update the fit line.
Muscle cars should look aggressive and brutal, not elegant like a luxury car. At least Dodge kept the Challenger resembling a Challenger.
Well, the 60s muscle cars weren't "brutal" in their design though, nor the 80s. In fact, I'd debate they became aggressive only because the 21st century started to give cars mental expressions.
Waaaaayyyyy too much standard tech on base models, I think only having the bare essentials on cars (mandated safety equipment, basic radio, etc) would make them much cheaper to buy and I know a lot of people that don't use anything besides the radio and climate controls.
What about backup cameras? IMO those make driving safer if used correctly. I use mine to help cover a blindspot that I otherwise could not see just by looking around. Automatic headlights and daytime running lights also help prevent me from forgetting to turn on the lights when I activate the windshield wipers (you can get ticketed where I live for not having lights on when conditions require wipers to be used)
Federal mandated this year due to the large blind spots in modern cars and both iihs and ncap found drl's do not make cars any safer
