surreal1272
Members
-
Joined
Everything posted by surreal1272
-
Again, you said in an earlier post that these cars are for the grocery getter types, which makes performance a far less desirable trait than versatility. And your weak B Class argument holds no water as it has no real electric range and is six shades of fugly. How well is it doing btw compared to the Bolt? And you are modifying your CUV argument because of who is involved here. Fact is that if this were Cadillac here, you would be typing away about their need for more CUVs not more sedans that don't sell. Sorry but if the rule applies to Cadillac then it most certainly applies to everyone else given the current sales climate. The Prius has a hatch as does the Volt. Try again. And 180,000 "orders" is not 180,000 produced which has been Teslas Achilles heel from the get go. They haven't provided close to that number yet. Hell they haven't sold that many total cars yet but you think they can do it with one half baked car, just because it's Tesla? Again, I like Tesla overall but I also live in the real world where they have not proven that they can handle that type of production yet.
-
So I question why you continue to move the bar when it doesn't suit your agenda. For example, for that range increase you bring up, you have to spend $9K more. Why doesn't it offer more range when it's the same price as the Bolt while being less versatile and far more spartan on standard features and appearance? And again, by your own admission this will be for the grocery getter crowd so why try to upsell on its handling when those same folks could care less while wanting more cargo room to haul those groceries? See how that bar can be moved back to its original place now?
-
Apples to oranges. We are not talking about the Volt since it is not a EV only car like the 3. We are talking about the Bolt which does seat five and has far more cargo room. That is the whole reason why CUVs are being picked over sedans. Remember? This is a perfect example of why Tesla should have released a CUV is this price range as opposed to the struggling sedan market. If this were a $35-40K Cadillac EV sedan, you would say the exact thing as what we are saying about the 3. Stop moving the bar to fit your argument just because of the brand in question.
-
And the Bolt has far more cargo and hauling room for families than the 3 but hey let's just ignore why CUVs are putting sedans in the dirt because it is not convenient to your argument.
-
I don't care about the order in which things were spoken. You think Cadillac should prove their sedans cheaper than their CUVs and I'm saying that they do not have to do that and it can work given the Mercedes example I gave, end of story. The gen 1 CTS you reference at $35K would sell for $40K if you adjust for inflation. You clearly did not consider that while you were so busy moving that bar. Mercedes "will have". The key words there are "will" and "have" while they really have zero here right now. GM already has one, the Bolt which I would take over the Tesla just for having a hatch and far more cargo flexibility. Oh and it isn't priced anywhere near $59K under any configuration. Sorry. I like Tesla overall but the 3 is a big miss for me. Just ugly. "Can learn"? Sorry but what exactly have they been doing with that massive R&D budget you crow so much about? The learning should have already been there from the "best or nothing" luxury car company.
-
-
-
-
If Tesla is the future and Cadillac is the past then you can add Mercedes to that past list as well (and no supposed upcoming EV vaporware doesn't count). Also, as much as I like the Tesla S, the 3 is fugly, options out at $59K (not much lower than a base S) and Tesla has yet to prove that they can back up this mass production claim of theirs. Sorry but Tesla is the wrong argument to use here. Furthermore, Cadillac does not need to price their sedans lower than their CUV counterparts just because you say they do. The fact that Benz gets away with identical pricing proves my point.
-
You keep talking about needing a price gap between the sedan and CUV yet a MB CLA and GLA (platform mates btw) share the same entry price of just north of $32K. Point here is that you keep applying rules to everyone else that your own favorite brand doesn't even do. Sorry but that kills your entire argument about price structures. We wont even get too far into the Tesla and Alfa comparisons. Alfas are piles and the 3 clocks in at $60K with reasonable options, putting it way above the target price of the CT5. Furthermore, you are making yet another baseless assumption that it can't compete against a C Class. Until it comes out, your entire claim is just moot.
-
Hence why I said $40K and not $45K. Furthermore, comparing it to an XT5 is pointless. The only common thing between the two is the number "5". They are two completely different platforms and again with the CT4 slotted beneath the CT5, it makes even less sense to start at $35K. Again, this is pretty much common sense to anyone who is not trolling just for the sake trolling.
-
I don't care what he said. That's just a safe range for the sake of putting a number to it. It means nothing until the actual product is released. Mark my words. It will not start under $40K given current trends and the fact that a smaller CT4 will be slotted underneath. 2006 was a totally different market back then and you know that so comparing that is just pointless. And again, Benz needs the volume whereas Cadillac does not for the most part. I'm not going to explain to you for the upteenth time why that is the case.
-
Why bother arguing with someone who has the hypocrisy to call Cadillacs rebadged Equinoxes while his lord and savior rebadges a Nissan Frontier/Navara? It is just same old tired arguments with no original thought. His other post doesn't even merit a response. And given that the current CTS starts at $45K, a few grand drop would do it some good. It will not be anywhere near $35K when they have a CT4 planned, something a Benz troll clearly does not get.
-
You think way to highly of the E Class considering that the CTS will still be there, just under a different that has been in the works for a while now. And im with Balth. The E63 would be $h! if it didn't have the CTS-V to benchmark. Fact. Do you not read? Nevermind. It was rhetorical. Is that better or worse than a rebadged Nissan Frontier? I'm asking for a friend.
-
I'm failing to see the problem here despite the usual naysayers trolling remarks. Basically the CTS becomes the CT5 and the ATS becomes the CT4. That's three different sedans plus a potential CT8 flagship model to go with the additional CUVs planned. This has been in the works for years. At least they are not pulling a Mercedes and putting out an even smaller FWD car (the A Class) to go underneath the already small FWD CLA. It will all be RWD like a luxury car is supposed to be.
-
So what? That still doesn't change the fact that pretty much everyone else knew better. You are not unique in your position here. Furthermore, he also stated that the ATS would become the CT4 (which it is) so your statement isn't even entirely correct in that department either. In other words, saying "called it" really doesn't carry much weight when so many others here also "called it" in one form or another.
-
In fairness, so did everyone else.
-
-
-
And this why I will never buy another new car from a dealer, if I can help it. They are proven cheats who don't give two $h!s about the product. All they care about is a buck and then more bucks when they can screw over people. Tesla was right and dealers are obsolete in this day and age (no offense to anyone who works in the industry and is actually honest btw) and they are only hastening their demise with tactics like these. Sorry about that. Rant over.
-
They are only comparable to a point and that is what Stew does not get. The Regal is priced in line with the competition while offering things they clearly don't have. Can you get AWD on the Camry or Accord? No. Can you get a hatch, which adds cargo room? No. Those two things alone kill any comparison to those other two cars. @Stew--Yes apples to oranges for reasons I just stated. As far as your ridgeline and Colorado comparison, at least those two are more alike than what you have been serving up by bringing up the Accord and Camry. Again, it's not just me saying this. Drew brought up many good points as to why your comparisons are just off base and honestly it's just more of your bitter GM BS because of how you see people criticize FCA. You said it yourself.
-
So you do the reverse and bitch about GMs offerings based on the same "logic" by making apples to oranges comparisons? That sounds perfectly reasonable. Again, the Accord and Camry are not luxury nor are they marketed as such. They also do not offer AWD. You also cherry picked your argument by ignoring literally every reason why the GS can beat out the Fusion Sport (which was carefully pointed out by Drew, which (btw) has a far more mundane interior than the GS but we will just skip over that so that you can still have the "and it's cheaper" argument. Good grief. What is ironic here is that Chrysler is offering the same old 3.6L V6 AWD on the 300 for the same amount of money as the GS, while being a much older model and platform with a much more dated interior. By all means though, keep bitching about GM though.
-
Exactly. Might as well just give up because SMK said so. Can't have all that pesky competition to worry about so might as well do nothing and let other get the sales. I am just baffled by that kind of "logic". And the Alfa is still an Alfa. If this has to be explained, in relation to low sales, then there is just no hope for some.
-
If I were in the market, I would be taking a serious look at the AWD wagon.
-
But that's the price you pay for top notch German engineering lol. The best or nothing.
