August 2017: Mercedes-Benz USA

[William Maley]

Mercedes- Benz USA reports August sales of 25,373

Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA) today reported August sales of 25,373 units, compared to 28,404 vehicles sold during the same month last year. On a year-to-date basis, Mercedes-Benz retails totaled 213,242 units, down 2.9% from the previous year. Mercedes-Benz Vans reported best-ever August sales with 3,581 units and smart reported 229 units, bringing the MBUSA grand total to 29,183 vehicles for the month.

“It became apparent during the previous months, that the highly volatile U.S. automotive market is affecting the sales figures of Mercedes-Benz. Nevertheless, we see an ongoing demand for our SUV lineup. The limited availability of several models impacted our monthly totals in August,” said Dietmar Exler, president and CEO of MBUSA. “Presently, our thoughts and concerns lie with our dealer partners, employees and their families in Texas, who are experiencing many challenges at the moment.”

Mercedes-Benz volume leaders in August included the C-Class, GLC and GLE model lines. The C-Class took the lead at 5,304, followed by GLC sales of 4,498. The GLE rounded out the top three with 3,750 units sold.

Mercedes-AMG high-performance models sold 1,993 units in August, with a total 21,121 sold year-to-date (up 49.5%).

[David]

Interesting, wish I had a full chart showing all their sales by each model but I find this interesting

MB for GLC & GLE sold 8,248 units

BMW for the X series sold 6,845 across 4 models.

Cadillac with 1 CUV sold 7,236 or if we add in the Escalade versions sold 10,230 units for 3 SUV/CUV Models.

Bill any way you can post the sales numbers for the rest of their SUV/CUV full lineup?

Interesting that a luxury brand with a single CUV is outselling one with 4 versions and nipping at another with 2 models.

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

BMW for the X series sold 6,845 across 4 models.

I suspect BMW lumps the X1 in with cars to bolster the car half's steady declines, but X1, X3, X4, X5 & X6 is 5 CUVs.

[smk4565]

MERCEDES-BENZ USA Sales -- August 2017
Mercedes-Benz Passenger Vehicles				Aug-17				Aug-16				Monthly %					YTD 2017				YTD 2016				Yearly %
B-CLASS				58				57				1.8	%				456				417				9.4	%
CLA				1,972				1,811				8.9	%				12,658				17,706				-28.5	%
C-CLASS				5,304				6,125				-13.4	%				52,755				49,734				6.1	%
E-CLASS/CLS				3,710				5,069				-26.8	%				32,345				32,752				-1.2	%
S-CLASS				567				1,698				-66.6	%				9,620				11,974				-19.7	%
SLC				178				346				-48.6	%				1,993				2,321				-14.1	%
SL				210				443				-52.6	%				1,814				2,520				-28.0	%
AMG GT				120				112				7.1	%				840				848				-0.9	%
GLA				1,994				1,058				88.5	%				14,577				15,375				-5.2	%
GLC				4,498				4,715				-4.6	%				28,227				31,517				-10.4	%
GLE				3,750				3,756				-0.2	%				34,458				33,354				3.3	%
GLS				2,610				2,912				-10.4	%				20,539				18,462				11.3	%
G-CLASS				402				302				33.1	%				2,960				2,724				8.7	%
TOTAL				25,373				28,404				-10.7	%				213,242				219,704				-2.9	%
Vans 1				3,581				3,152				13.6	%				22,139				22,186				-0.2	%
smart				229				353				-35.1	%				2,394				3,439				-30.4	%
MBUSA Combined Total				Aug-17				Aug-16				Monthly %					YTD 2017				YTD 2016				Yearly %
GRAND TOTAL				29,183				31,909				-8.5	%				237,775				245,329				-3.1	%

The problem is the E-class is down a good bit, and the Coupe, Wagon and E63 should be at dealers, a new E400 sedan is coming which should help, but the E-class should be over 4,000.   S-class is on a MCE change over, that number will probably shoot up next month because there is an S450 and a new 4.0 V8 to replace the 4.7.   The GLE and GLS are dated, they are in their final year, and still hanging on okay, YTD they are both up.  

Sort of concerning that the SL is down and not moving many units, there will be another SL, but a lot of sports cars sell in lousy numbers, eventually manufactures will stop making them.

[David]

@smk4565 Thanks for posting the numbers.

Interesting so the Cheap CUV GLA is up but everything else is down. Total SUV/CUV for the month is 13,254, respectable number sold.

Good chance if Cadillac had an XT3 and XT7 they would be equal too or beating MB in SUV/CUV sales.

@balthazar Yup, totally missed the X1 in the Passenger cars group of sales for 2002 sold.

MB = 13,254 for 5 models

BMW = 8,847 for 5 models

Cadillac = 10,230 for 3 models

All respectable sales of SUV/CUV's

Have to say it is an interesting observation.

[smk4565]

But Mercedes sells more sedans than any other luxury car maker, probably more coupes and convertibles too.  

Cadillac is on pace to be an CUV/SUV brand, they would have more sales if they killed ATS, CTS, CT6 and replaced them with XT3, XT4, XT7 front drive crossovers.   

Frankfurt Auto show is this month, Mercedes will get a lot of press from that and get the mojo going, they are only down 2.9% for the year on a record high year in the USA.  And USA is their 3rd most important market.

[balthazar]

29 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Cadillac is on pace to be an CUV/SUV brand...

Might want to pull your calculator out. Last month, Mercedes :

12,119 cars
16,835 CUV/SUVs/vans

Mercedes already IS a truck brand.

[smk4565]

Year to date Mercedes

118,272 cars

134,949 SUVs

That isn't too bad compared to other luxury brands.  Especially when Cadillac's whole line up has 98,316 sold

[balthazar]

Cadillac Mercedes is on pace to be already an CUV/SUV brand, they would have more sales if they killed ATS, CTS, CT6 S-class, SLC, SL, GT, G-class and replaced them with XT3, XT4, XT7 3 front drive crossovers.

 

[That isn't too bad compared to other luxury brands.] - Audi and BMW are still primarily car brands.
Audi : 10,009 cars, 9802 trucks
BMW : 14,706 cars, 8847 trucks

Mercedes is a truck brand.

Edited September 2, 2017 by balthazar

[surreal1272]

16 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Year to date Mercedes

118,272 cars

134,949 SUVs

That isn't too bad compared to other luxury brands.  Especially when Cadillac's whole line up has 98,316 sold

Yeah, it's real impressive until you realize that they have more than twice as many models to sell as Cadillac. You better be ahead at that point. 

[smk4565]

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Yeah, it's real impressive until you realize that they have more than twice as many models to sell as Cadillac. You better be ahead at that point. 

Because they are smart and cover all the segments, and they had 4 SUVs in 2009 well  ahead of the crossover wave that Cadillac missed.

[Cmicasa the Great]

17 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Yeah, it's real impressive until you realize that they have more than twice as many models to sell as Cadillac. You better be ahead at that point. 

Its a point that most arguing about Cadillac's supposed failure never seem to realize.. despite actually seeing the numbers in their effin face. IT IS CADILLAC'S FAULT for not simply rebadging the other GM line-up and pushing it out for the sake of quantity.. but it also gives us Caddy lovers and buyers the best developed sport/luxos on the market. I'm all for Alpha based CUVs and Omega based ones as well.. but would after driving an XT5 gotta say that the C1xx platform is ever bit as competent as the Q3, Q5, GLA, GLC and X3 in terms of drivability.. an Alpha or Omega would kill the X5 , GLE, and GLS in dynamics.Bet

19 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Because they are smart and cover all the segments, and they had 4 SUVs in 2009 well  ahead of the crossover wave that Cadillac missed.

Considering the spike in gas.. and the inevitable move to EVs.. U gotta wonder if the CUV craze is gonna be like the SUV one of the late 90s.. where people eventually realized that driving a fuel efficient car was more economical than driving a fuel efficient SUV

[balthazar]

59 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Because they are smart and cover all the segments, and they had 4 SUVs in 2009 well  ahead of the crossover wave that Cadillac missed.

Cadillac's XT5 outsells any given MB SUV by 2:1, and outsells the GLS & GLE combined. Escalade is also outselling the GLS.

Cadillac didn't miss anything.

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Because they are smart and cover all the segments, and they had 4 SUVs in 2009 well  ahead of the crossover wave that Cadillac missed.

Really? Like the coupe style CUVs that don't sell worth a damn? Did it ever occur to you that Cadillac doesn't have to cover everything that Benz does when you make these asinine sales comments? For example, we already know that the Regal competes (and has beaten in comparos) the CLA. Point being that Cadillac is not GMs only weapon against Benz and you need to understand that key point before hammering down these silly sales arguments. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by surreal1272

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Really? Like the coupe style CUVs that don't sell worth a damn? Did it ever occur to you that Cadillac doesn't have to cover everything that Benz does when you make these asinine sales comments? For example, we already know that the Regal competes (and has beaten in comparos) the CLA. Point being that Cadillac is not GMs only weapon against Benz and you need to understand that key point before hammering down these silly sales arguments. 

Cadillac itself is hardly a weapon against Mercedes, Mercedes is more concerned with Porsche and Tesla than they are Cadillac.  

3 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Its a point that most arguing about Cadillac's supposed failure never seem to realize.. despite actually seeing the numbers in their effin face. IT IS CADILLAC'S FAULT for not simply rebadging the other GM line-up and pushing it out for the sake of quantity.. but it also gives us Caddy lovers and buyers the best developed sport/luxos on the market. I'm all for Alpha based CUVs and Omega based ones as well.. but would after driving an XT5 gotta say that the C1xx platform is ever bit as competent as the Q3, Q5, GLA, GLC and X3 in terms of drivability.. an Alpha or Omega would kill the X5 , GLE, and GLS in dynamics.Bet

Considering the spike in gas.. and the inevitable move to EVs.. U gotta wonder if the CUV craze is gonna be like the SUV one of the late 90s.. where people eventually realized that driving a fuel efficient car was more economical than driving a fuel efficient SUV

I have said for years there should be an Alpha SUV, and I said the same for Omega once that platform came out.  But we'll never know how one would do in driving dynamics vs an X5 or GLE because Cadillac won't build it.  

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Cadillac itself is hardly a weapon against Mercedes, Mercedes is more concerned with Porsche and Tesla than they are Cadillac.  

Pffft - MB benchmarked Cadillac when they decided to move upmarket & build luxury vehicles. And while there was a period after that when the concern was minimal, cars like the CTS-V and ATS-V have unquestionably been closely examined by Mercedes since. And with their relentless focus on salessaleslsales, I wouldn't be surprised if they are also examining the XT5's success.

[smk4565]

42 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Pffft - MB benchmarked Cadillac when they decided to move upmarket & build luxury vehicles. And while there was a period after that when the concern was minimal, cars like the CTS-V and ATS-V have unquestionably been closely examined by Mercedes since. And with their relentless focus on salessaleslsales, I wouldn't be surprised if they are also examining the XT5's success.

Mercedes built luxury cars in the 1920s and 1930s, this isn't new to them.  ATS-V and CTS-V came long after cars like the 450SEL 6.9, or the C36/C43 of the 90s, the 500E of the early 90s, the Cosworth 190 of the 80s, the V12 SL of the 90s, etc.    The 300SL was the first supercar, they have been at the performance game a long time.

Cadillac has 1 sedan with a V8 and Cadillac fans want to call them a performance brand.  Mercedes has coupe/sedan/convertible C-class with V8, E-class sedan/convertible/wagon with V8, S-class sedan/Coupe/convertible with V8 and V12, Maybach with V8 and V12, SL with V8 and V12, AMG GT coupe/roadster with V8, CLS with V8, etc.

The XT5's success is mid-size car for small size prices, same way Lexus and Lincoln do it.  Mercedes doesn't do that.

[balthazar]

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes built luxury cars in the 1920s and 1930s...

• Then forgot how to do that in the '40s, '50s, '60s '70s, '80s and into the '90s? Have you never seen an '85 S-class or SL in person?? What happened?

• Those models you name weren't luxury cars, they were cheaply built performance-aspiring cars. Performance by itself isn't luxury, unless you consider, for example, a Chevelle SS 396 a luxury car.

• I'd take the '56 Chrysler 300 over any mercedes 300. That's a supercar: spawned an entire performance renaissance.

300SL: they only built 1400 gullwings in 3 years then pulled the plug. The roadster was cheaper to build, so they took the easy way out.

XT5's success...  Mercedes doesn't do that.

You mean sell well in the Luxury SUV segments?

[surreal1272]

3 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Cadillac itself is hardly a weapon against Mercedes, Mercedes is more concerned with Porsche and Tesla than they are Cadillac.  

I have said for years there should be an Alpha SUV, and I said the same for Omega once that platform came out.  But we'll never know how one would do in driving dynamics vs an X5 or GLE because Cadillac won't build it.  

That is just grade A bull$h! SMK. If that were truly the case, you wouldn't be on here, on every GM or Cadillac thread, comparing MBs sales and models to them. Just drop that nonsense right here and now. 

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

Pffft - MB benchmarked Cadillac when they decided to move upmarket & build luxury vehicles. And while there was a period after that when the concern was minimal, cars like the CTS-V and ATS-V have unquestionably been closely examined by Mercedes since. And with their relentless focus on salessaleslsales, I wouldn't be surprised if they are also examining the XT5's success.

SMK seems to think that the history between Cadillac and Mercedes is only 25 years old, which about the time Benz actually started making their cars more upscale. 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes built luxury cars in the 1920s and 1930s, this isn't new to them.  ATS-V and CTS-V came long after cars like the 450SEL 6.9, or the C36/C43 of the 90s, the 500E of the early 90s, the Cosworth 190 of the 80s, the V12 SL of the 90s, etc.    The 300SL was the first supercar, they have been at the performance game a long time.

Cadillac has 1 sedan with a V8 and Cadillac fans want to call them a performance brand.  Mercedes has coupe/sedan/convertible C-class with V8, E-class sedan/convertible/wagon with V8, S-class sedan/Coupe/convertible with V8 and V12, Maybach with V8 and V12, SL with V8 and V12, AMG GT coupe/roadster with V8, CLS with V8, etc.

The XT5's success is mid-size car for small size prices, same way Lexus and Lincoln do it.  Mercedes doesn't do that.

I love how you think that one can only be a performance car if you have a V8. Porsche must have missed that memo when they built the 911. 

[balthazar]

Not to mention- his beloved 'sports car' SL didn't get a V8 until 1971.

[oldshurst442]

14 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I love how you think that one can only be a performance car if you have a V8. Porsche must have missed that memo when they built the 911. 

He also forgot that his beloved 300SL also did not come with a V8...

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

   The 300SL was the first supercar, they have been at the performance game a long time.

 

First supercar, huh?

You go and talk smack

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Cadillac has 1 sedan with a V8 and Cadillac fans want to call them a performance brand.  Mercedes has coupe/sedan/convertible C-class with V8

When in the 1950s....American cars were all about the V8

Balthy even told you about a certain HEMI powered Chrysler with the same 300 name...

It is to laugh!!!

[oldshurst442]

PS:

There is a reason why I talk smack back at you SMK regarding M-B and the Italian cars when I say Italians do it better.

1957 with a V12...

And although the 300SL was a great race car...it became a Beverly Hills trophy wife's choice...

That Ferrari on top...its lineage is legendary to this day...

It NEVER ceased to exist either in body nor in engine....unlike the 300SL...

The 300SL took a completely different turn by its 5 year of existence and it took the SLS of this century to get back to its roots...

The 300SL started life as an inline 6....

The 250TR  had a V12 and from 1957...all of the 250TR successors all had the same goal in life all with a 12 cylinder under the hood!

And although the 250TR that I showed was a race car and was not the GT California roadster and later coupes inluding the 250GTO...they were not exactly the same vehicle...they were all closely related to one another anyhow...and that V12 was one of the things that tied them together...they shared other things too...this aint a Ferrari thread for me to go further into detail.

So yeah...Italians do do it better!

 

 

[oldshurst442]

Regarding Cadillac.

 Cadillac was hardly a brand that wanted to flex its muscles on a road course or drag strip.

Not in the 1920s, nor the '30s all the way to the 2000s.

Cadillac did race in its 115 year history. Even in its early years. But it wasnt part of the brands identity.

GM had other brands to do the racing thing...and throughout those 10-12 decades...GM's other brands shuffled the tides with each other for racing dominance. 

In the late 1960s...during the height of the muscle car era where there was no replacement for displacement, Cadillac had the largest displacement V8 ever...but it never did the muscle car thing. Buick did...not Cadillac. Cadillac did not have to!

And you know what?

Cadillac still kicked the 6.9 SEL's ass in any metric you wanna make them compete in!

[balthazar]

• 300 SL was also available as a 4-cyl (the 190SL).

• It's been rumored in more than one quarter that Mercedes bought up a storied Pontiac race car, one that displaced 6.9L, and took it apart in engineering. It's unlikely to have influenced anything, mainly because although it was a FI SOHC V8, Mercedes' version didn't appear until 1975 and it only had 250 HP- not much for a 4400 lb car (the Pontiac had over 450 HP). It "didn't sell" in the U.S.- only 1800 units were bought here. It also wasn't a luxury vehicle- as an S-class level car, it suffered from the same cheap, spartan, utilitarian interior all other MB cars did in this period. By 1982, it was cancelled.

[oldshurst442]

It is also rumored that when Daimler-Chrysler sold off the Chrysler part...and left the Dodge Viper to rot to its inevitable demise in 2017 at the hands of Fiat- Chrysler...it is rumored that the next gen Viper was stolen from Dodge to become the SLS...

Just a rumor...and never proven because of lack of concrete evidence...but all rumors have some % of truth to them...no matter how small the %.

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

• Then forgot how to do that in the '40s, '50s, '60s '70s, '80s and into the '90s? Have you never seen an '85 S-class or SL in person?? What happened?

• Those models you name weren't luxury cars, they were cheaply built performance-aspiring cars. Performance by itself isn't luxury, unless you consider, for example, a Chevelle SS 396 a luxury car.

• I'd take the '56 Chrysler 300 over any mercedes 300. That's a supercar: spawned an entire performance renaissance.

300SL: they only built 1400 gullwings in 3 years then pulled the plug. The roadster was cheaper to build, so they took the easy way out.

 

You mean sell well in the Luxury SUV segments?

Haha, the 300SL was the fastest car in the world in 1955, so they didn't forget how to build performance.  The 460SEL 6.9 had a 147 mph top speed in 1976, even the Corvette had a top speed of 130 mph in 1976.  Oil crisis slowed down the performance in the late 70s, early 80s, but the S-class with the 5.6 liter was faster than any other luxury sedan back then, and they brought out the V12 in 1991 and a 209 mph SLR in 2003.   There has always been performance and engineering.

And their luxury SUVs sell just fine.

[smk4565]

56 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

PS:

There is a reason why I talk smack back at you SMK regarding M-B and the Italian cars when I say Italians do it better.

1957 with a V12...

And although the 300SL was a great race car...it became a Beverly Hills trophy wife's choice...

That Ferrari on top...its lineage is legendary to this day...

It NEVER ceased to exist either in body nor in engine....unlike the 300SL...

The 300SL took a completely different turn by its 5 year of existence and it took the SLS of this century to get back to its roots...

The 300SL started life as an inline 6....

The 250TR  had a V12 and from 1957...all of the 250TR successors all had the same goal in life all with a 12 cylinder under the hood!

And although the 250TR that I showed was a race car and was not the GT California roadster and later coupes inluding the 250GTO...they were not exactly the same vehicle...they were all closely related to one another anyhow...and that V12 was one of the things that tied them together...they shared other things too...this aint a Ferrari thread for me to go further into detail.

So yeah...Italians do do it better!

 

 

You don't need a V8 to be a performance car, but you need horsepower, which Mercedes has a lot of.  

Ferrari was a sports car and really a racing company in the 50s and 60s that also build street cars.  Mercedes was a luxury sedan company with a few cruiser convertibles, they didn't compete back then.  They don't really compete now either.  

[oldshurst442]

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Haha, the 300SL was the fastest car in the world in 1955, so they didn't forget how to build performance.  The 460SEL 6.9 had a 147 mph top speed in 1976, even the Corvette had a top speed of 130 mph in 1976.  Oil crisis slowed down the performance in the late 70s, early 80s, but the S-class with the 5.6 liter was faster than any other luxury sedan back then, and they brought out the V12 in 1991 and a 209 mph SLR in 2003.   There has always been performance and engineering.

And their luxury SUVs sell just fine.

Too bad that the luxury part of the luxury equation was missing from M-B in the 1970s...

And in the 1970s...luxury was about plushiness rather than speediness...you know...you said it yourself...Oil crisis slowed down the performance in the late 70s, early 80s...

 

[surreal1272]

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Haha, the 300SL was the fastest car in the world in 1955, so they didn't forget how to build performance.  The 460SEL 6.9 had a 147 mph top speed in 1976, even the Corvette had a top speed of 130 mph in 1976.  Oil crisis slowed down the performance in the late 70s, early 80s, but the S-class with the 5.6 liter was faster than any other luxury sedan back then, and they brought out the V12 in 1991 and a 209 mph SLR in 2003.   There has always been performance and engineering.

And their luxury SUVs sell just fine.

Again, refer to all those decades of non-luxury from the supposed luxury standard of the world (that has never been called a "performance" brand). Ignore all the evidence that points to complete $h!boxes from Mercedes for over four decades while you try to levy the same statements against Cadillac. 

 

Hell, here's an article about the quickest cars during the 70s. Note the absence of anything from Benz while GM has three. 

http://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/car-and-driver-tested-the-10-quickest-cars-of-the-1970s#11

 

Just stop trying to move the bar already and accept facts. Benz was putting out $h! cars that did not qualify as luxury (and performance for the most part) for decades just like Cadillac was in the 80s and 90s. 

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

You don't need a V8 to be a performance car, but you need horsepower, which Mercedes has a lot of.  

Ferrari was a sports car and really a racing company in the 50s and 60s that also build street cars.  Mercedes was a luxury sedan company with a few cruiser convertibles, they didn't compete back then.  They don't really compete now either.  

"You don't need a V8" yet you just ragged on Cadillac for having only one (they have two models with V8s btw). 

 

This is that bar moving BS that I'm talking about. 

[oldshurst442]

Just now, smk4565 said:

You don't need a V8 to be a performance car, but you need horsepower, which Mercedes has a lot of.  

Ferrari was a sports car and really a racing company in the 50s and 60s that also build street cars.  Mercedes was a luxury sedan company with a few cruiser convertibles, they didn't compete back then.  They don't really compete now either.  

But that is what YOU said...you made fun of Cadillac for having one V8 sedan...

Remember...even the Camaro V8 kicks ass...so does the ATS-V with its supercharged V6...

And if the ATS-V no longer dominates...its because Cadillac has not improved upon its performance in like 5 years...

[smk4565]

1 minute ago, oldshurst442 said:

Too bad that the luxury part of the luxury equation was missing from M-B in the 1970s...

And in the 1970s...luxury was about plushiness rather than speediness...you know...you said it yourself...Oil crisis slowed down the performance in the late 70s, early 80s...

 

Mercedes build the most expensive, most technologically advanced luxury sedan in the 60s and 70s with the 600.  More expensive than any Rolls or Bentley.

[oldshurst442]

7 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes was a luxury sedan company with a few cruiser convertibles, they didn't compete back then.  They don't really compete now either.  

And NO....

 M-B in the 1950s and 1960s certainly was no luxury car maker!

And...its YOU that keeps harping on a hyper car from M-B...

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes build the most expensive, most technologically advanced luxury sedan in the 60s and 70s with the 600.  More expensive than any Rolls or Bentley.

And again NO!

That Pullman was a special order...

Cadillac had few of those going on too.

And Cadillac had a legit Rolls Royce competitor in the 1950s...not M-B...

Edited September 3, 2017 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

4 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

And NO....

 M-B in the 1950s and 1960s certainly was no luxury car maker!

And...its YOU that keeps harping on a hyper car from M-B...

Ummmm

[oldshurst442]

Edited September 3, 2017 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

Funny how Cadillac fans have to go back in time 50 years to find the last time they competed with import luxury cars, and that was mainly because 50 years ago there were no import luxury cars in the USA.  As soon as the Germans came in the 70s and the Japanese in the late 80s, Cadillac went from 1st place to 7th place.

[oldshurst442]

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

Funny how Cadillac fans have to go back in time 50 years to find the last time they competed with import luxury cars, and that was mainly because 50 years ago there were no import luxury cars in the USA.  As soon as the Germans came in the 70s and the Japanese in the late 80s, Cadillac went from 1st place to 7th place.

Dude...M-B in the 1990s wasnt all that great either...

Technically..Cadillac was still above M-B in the 1990s in the lux department and in sales...

You are confusing the surge of Lexus in the 1990s with that with M-B...

[smk4565]

6 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Right, but I never claimed Cadillac didn't make luxury cars, they always have.  It is false for people to say Mercedes didn't make a luxury car in the 60s or 70s.  The 1966 Fleetwood Brougham Sixty Special was $6,695.  A base model Mercedes 600 in 1965 was $22,000. 

And a 1966 Mercedes 300SE was $8,048.

[oldshurst442]

@smk4565

You are  confusing the success of these cars and causing a ruckus in North America with M-B....

M-B had NO such success in the 1990s...

[Drew Dowdell]

ANYWAY....

 

[Cmicasa the Great]

15 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes built luxury cars in the 1920s and 1930s, this isn't new to them.  ATS-V and CTS-V came long after cars like the 450SEL 6.9, or the C36/C43 of the 90s, the 500E of the early 90s, the Cosworth 190 of the 80s, the V12 SL of the 90s, etc.    The 300SL was the first supercar, they have been at the performance game a long time.

Cadillac has 1 sedan with a V8 and Cadillac fans want to call them a performance brand.  Mercedes has coupe/sedan/convertible C-class with V8, E-class sedan/convertible/wagon with V8, S-class sedan/Coupe/convertible with V8 and V12, Maybach with V8 and V12, SL with V8 and V12, AMG GT coupe/roadster with V8, CLS with V8, etc.

The XT5's success is mid-size car for small size prices, same way Lexus and Lincoln do it.  Mercedes doesn't do that.

Its been proven time and time again that PERFORMANCE is not just 0-60 times. The ATS even in bare 2.5L trim when it was avail was out-handling German offerings in its class with bigger motors. U really have zero grasp on what true performance is. When Cadillac had nothing but V8s in almost every vehicle I wasn't so lost in their sauce that I proclaimed them performance.. but U seem to be so smitten with Mercedes that U simply have no clue as to what the word means. 

As to the XT5 comment.. dude get a grip.. the XT5 is priced almost identical to the GLC.. and normally doesn't carry the discounts that Benz has lobbed on its buyers nor the cheap financing/leases

 

12 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Too bad that the luxury part of the luxury equation was missing from M-B in the 1970s...

And in the 1970s...luxury was about plushiness rather than speediness...you know...you said it yourself...Oil crisis slowed down the performance in the late 70s, early 80s...

 

He doesn't get it. in fact.. even in the 80s Cadillac was waaaaaaay more luxo than Benz. Benz didn't get its luxo chops back until the early 2000s.. at the same time GM started to bleed money to its unions.

[balthazar]

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The 460SEL 6.9 had a 147 mph top speed in 1976.
There has always been performance and engineering.

Kudos; Mercedes (almost) matched the top speed of a Chrysler built 15 years EARLIER.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Its been proven time and time again that PERFORMANCE is not just 0-60 times. The ATS even in bare 2.5L trim when it was avail was out-handling German offerings in its class with bigger motors. U really have zero grasp on what true performance is. When Cadillac had nothing but V8s in almost every vehicle I wasn't so lost in their sauce that I proclaimed them performance.. but U seem to be so smitten with Mercedes that U simply have no clue as to what the word means. 

As to the XT5 comment.. dude get a grip.. the XT5 is priced almost identical to the GLC.. and normally doesn't carry the discounts that Benz has lobbed on its buyers nor the cheap financing/leases

I do know that performance is more than acceleration, it is about braking, ride quality, handling, sound deadening, etc.  Mercedes does all that, they have like 25 AMG models to 2 V-series, 2 Lexus F models and zilch at Infiniti.  

The XT5 and Lexus RX are the size of a GLE, not GLC.  The XT4 should be $40k and the size of an Equinox, an XT5 should be like $50-85k.  Then the XT3 in the $30s.  This is no brainer stuff.  Even the number on the car XT3-4-5 can help people know that it is $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 starting price since Cadillac likes that sort of sequential order.

[surreal1272]

"Hey look everyone! A bar! I think I'll kick it over here a bit!"

[smk4565]

17 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

 

 

Hey look, a super car with less torque than a 1996 Buick LeSabre!   That 90s NSX is still the most overpriced car ever.

[balthazar]

And yet- Honda beat Mercedes in building a mid-engine supercar.

[smk4565]

18 minutes ago, balthazar said:

And yet- Honda beat Mercedes in building a mid-engine supercar.

Maybe Mercedes preferred front engine cars, they still do.  And Mercedes had a 400 hp V12 at the time that 270 hp NSX went on sale.

Honda knows nothing about performance, the McLaren Honda has defaulted half the F1 races this year  Mercedes has 435 points to McLaren/Honda's 11 points this year.

[balthazar]

• But MB put its V12 into a car ('00 CL600) that weighed 4900 LBS. Even the '01 CL, which got liposuctioned down to a still-bloated 4300, was still slower and less quick than the NSX, and it was in a dumpy sedan body.
• If MB has no interest in building a mid-engined car, why have they teased a baker's dozen for 50 years and is doing so yet again?
Too little, too late, they "missed that opportunity".

[smk4565]

The 1993 SL had a V12 too.  

[Cmicasa the Great]

On 9/3/2017 at 11:06 AM, smk4565 said:

I do know that performance is more than acceleration, it is about braking, ride quality, handling, sound deadening, etc.  Mercedes does all that, they have like 25 AMG models to 2 V-series, 2 Lexus F models and zilch at Infiniti.  

The XT5 and Lexus RX are the size of a GLE, not GLC.  The XT4 should be $40k and the size of an Equinox, an XT5 should be like $50-85k.  Then the XT3 in the $30s.  This is no brainer stuff.  Even the number on the car XT3-4-5 can help people know that it is $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 starting price since Cadillac likes that sort of sequential order.

Cadillac God bless them has intelligently given us VSports and Platinums as designations of vehicles that reeeeeeally shouldn't hold a purist performance designation of "V-Series." If U noticed.. I never ask for an XT5-V.. or an Escalade-V.. I call them to create an XT5-VSport etc. That name should be the one that is attached to every Cadillac. The use of the VSeries name would actually piss me off. The idea of performance being the whole of 25 AMG models means to me one thing.. Mercedes has WHORED out the AMG name to a point of pointlessness. Fuck Benz.  Even BMW is better than that with the use of the "///M" offerings. An AMG GLA??? I might as well have your mom shit between two slices of bread and tell U its a brown lobster roll. Speaking of WHORING.. See Below

Looking at the dimensions.. I have to say that the XT5 plays in the bath of both the GLC and GLE.. is Benz rapes its customers on price.. and U seem to love it.. just make sure they use Astroglide.. so they don't rip and tear.

XT5  190″ L x 75″ W x 66″ H

GLC 183-186″ L x 74″ W x 63-65″ H

GLE 189-190″ L x 76″ W x 71″ H

[Cmicasa the Great]

20 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Hey look, a super car with less torque than a 1996 Buick LeSabre!   That 90s NSX is still the most overpriced car ever.

Hold on.. I'm never one to defend a Japanese car, but have U ever driven an NSX.. in particular this NSX pictured? I did.. a few times back in my younger days back to back with the 300ZX, RX7, Supra Turbo, and my C4 LT1.. and let me tell U.. the car was no slouch. In the end scenario the engine kicked in up in the rev and was very well balanced even against my torque havin Vette and the Rotary RX7