ccap41

^ Gnarly Porsche! And that was older when I just didn't like the design of Porsches much at all but that looks gooooood. Okay I'm just a huge freakin stupid head and I have absolutely no clue why I put the Grand National on my list.. I think maybe I mixed the two threads and didn't even think twice about it. Well take that out(for obvious reasons) and put in the ...Cayman... No. Mustang. ..maybe Cayman.. Naahhhhhh Mustang!

Well I think I got my list.. There are just so many "average" cars to pull from in this price range. First two will probably be my daily divers. Both sporting the twin turbo 2.7. Lincoln MKX 2.7 F150 FX4 2.7 Focus RS I feel like it would be stupid NOT to get an F40 because of just what the heck the car is and how glorious it is. That leaves me with one other car... first instinct is that I want a Grand National or maybe a Cayman(base, because the GTS and GT4 use a 3.4l engine) but I think I'd go back to Ford because I want to be able to drive these cars and the Grand National I wouldn't want to drive much to protect it and the Cayman would never be practical.. I think I might get a 2.3 Mustang and fiddle around with trying to make more power! I guess I just wouldn't worry about breaking or wrecking or whatever on a new Mustang but a GN is history. I'd want to park that next to the F40. Ya know what? As I'm typing this I'm wanting the GN more and more to park next to the F40. Pitch Black next to bright Ferrari Red. honorable mentions... Audi RS3 Sportback 2.5T Mustang EcoBoost

This is what I was talking about.

Hahaha so I read.. So is the NY show this week? I so, I assume you're out that way?

Just watched possibly THE BEST finish ever in a Nationwide race! Holy $h! that was an insane last two laps!

12 hours of Sebring is going on right now!

I may have to get back to this one monday at work..lol

Hahaha well when cp brought it up I had to visit their site to see how well I could or couldn't build one. It's really tough to decide if I'd prefer the twin turbo or the extra amenities..

I've sat in the 16's. Penalty box. Just a penalty box that is rewarding to the driver is why it gets passes.

Your friend's was probably a 91 or 92 with the non-LT1 350. The 93 - 96 got the LT1 and the difference is night and day. Most likely. It was one ugly son of a b..lol cassette deck and all.

You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here. Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol Come on man. You are killing me here. Read what I am saying. He is saying that the only way to succeed as a luxury make is to put out low volume niche cars to draw customers in. I am saying that is not the only way. See how Lexus has done it without a big halo car (not counting the two years of the LF-A because Lexus was succeeding before that) and enjoy brisk sales year after year. From the get go, he has been trying to say that Cadillac needs to slap a V8 in every damn thing (including a FWD XT5) they make while his own favorite brand doesn't even do that. Just trird of his cherry picking and I called him out on it. I guess I just didn't think he was saying the ONLY way to succeed was to make the V/AMG/M variants but just a more complete lineup overall. But I will agree that they will HELP draw in and cause either internet traffic or foot traffic and that's always a plus. The more people look the more people will buy.. I definitely agree it is not THE only way but I think it is a good way as they are also high markup vehicles therefor the ones that do sell, even in very small overall numbers, will help out the company. Lexus is kind of the only example of a really successful luxury brand that isn't badge jobs(Lincon/Acura) and still makes sporty offerings. I don't know sales at all other than the super inaccurate "eye test" but MB and BMW out sell Lexus handily. That's super inaccurate though so take that with a grain of salt. I definitely see what you're talking about though but I also see the point of those vehicles as well...

Yep, i saw this yesterday as well. It's a good one because a lot of people don't care about how much better of a "driver's car" the Camaro is or the better power:weight ratio but they want the larger and more useful on a daily basis, Challenger. While I don't have kids though give me the Camaro and 10 cameras and a 40 inch screen to replace the windshield because it's useless anyway. Let me "play" the ZL1 video game style but with real g-forces!

Yeah I think this will be the most difficult. Everybody makes a variation of damn-near everything with a small 4cyl turbo!

^ I'm looking around to see what this C200d is and is it a 1.6L diesel AMG????

I looked long and hard and drove a Tiguan before I bought my Escape because I liked how they looked and I loved the 2.0T but I couldn't find one that had a price/mileage/equipment ratio to my liking, at all. It definitely is a little smaller than the CUVs it competes with, and for me that was fine as I don't pack it regularly but I think that was one of it's largest downfalls in comparisons. I never really saw the "value" to it either which goes to the thing I said above about finding the right package for the price. I really liked everything about how it drove and power and fuel economy was acceptable to me at the time as it was a little older than the brand new stuff anyway and it also had a lot more power than the n/a 4's most offered. If I remember correctly the AWD system they use is one of the better ones out of the CUVs.

Very sharp looking CUV. I'd buy one i I had the money.

OMG that was an awesome video! Super cool car! A good friend of mine's first car was one of these with the 5.7 and it was sooooooo slow it was hilarious that it would possibly have a Chevy 350 under the hood. It was such a boat and an awesome ride though, just no power to the wheels.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument. I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything. You're missing my bigger point to him. He is trying to overemphasize these niche low volume brands to convince people that it leads to more sales on lower end cars and CUVs. I provided a link showing the top luxury sellers and half of those have none of the halo type vehicles that he thinks is so important to one's success. Lexus has been succeeding for decades without one. Acura as well (although they have their halo NSX back). It's a fallacy argument when you see that one fact alone. That has been my one and only point here. Not really.. That's why people have flagship vehicles(and high profit margins ). The best of the best hit the advertising campaign while the cheaper and smaller get the majority of the sales. You can be successful without the top tier vehicles but I can't see how it would hamper sales in any way having MORE vehicles to choose from and of the best if not THE best in their respective categories. I have NO CLUE actual profit numbers for BMW and MB but I have to believe they are leading the way over any other luxury automaker(we can throw Audi in there as well even though it's to a lesser extent) so their philosophy must be right some how. Also, I never saw a link.. maybe I'm blind lol

Dang, that literally looks like a toy compared to that era Caddy. Still, a very well proportioned vehicle. I don't have any interest in the ones I chose but if somebody walked up to me and said I will buy you any 5 cars/trucks/suvs BUT they have to be 1.9L and lower these are what you'd choose? That's how I look at it.. just a fantasy land.. But I've always enjoyed the theoretical "what-ifs" with cars. AHHH Yes! The Miata! That would have been my sporty honorable mention as I would have gotten rid of the 4C for it but I don't think I'd take a convertible over a coupe, but I do like the new Miata quite a bit.

Nice C63 choice! I'd ask what color but if it isn't black or white it might push it over the limit. I forgot what the other colors cost.. Maybe 750? You'd still be in the clear.

Balty, that American Austin is one awesome looking car! 0.7l?!? Whew that thing must have bearly moved lol

^ Heck, you could get a VSport for 60k. Add a few small things and keep it under 67,xxx. I have to assume the VSport package alone adds a lot of options that you'd have to check in lower trims.

That's literally the whole point. Yup! That's what makes it fun! At least to me.. I mean I'd never buy a Q3 or A4 with a 1.4 but if I had to make a collage of cars that I'd drive with wee-little engines.. It'd be in that group. Heck, even as gorgeous and simplistic of a car the 4C is I would never consider it because it's just too expensive for what you get, imo. But its still beautiful to me.

My money is on lazy..lol PS. that gen RX-7 was always my go-to ricer car. I always loved them. Honestly, it really never had anything to do with the engine because I never really knew much about them. I just thought they looked awesome, rwd, and must have been easy to make power with them because all of them are modded and wicked quick.

Who the hell needs to compete with niche vehicles like the C63 and X5 M? Seriously? Why worry about the 0.5% volume? I love how you have to continually try to compare anything Cadillac does to the most expensive examples from the German competition, when that is just a fallacy argument. I think it is more for a prestige thing than actually needing those vehicles. They are for MB to say they compete with anything and EVERYTHING from any automaker out there and they will build the fastest of them all(and they pretty much do). Only BMW or Audi can even compete with their lineup. Then they throw AMGs out in pretty much everything except their work vans! Actually, now that they have a GLC63 on its way I think that is an AMG motor in everything.