surreal1272

Real easy to turn a profit when you get to rely on Jeep and RAM to make up for the rest of your $h!ty Italian product. If only Musk had that to fall on.

I've read my history and to make any kind of comparison of Tesla to Hitler is just very careless and honestly, quite ignorant. No it is not.it was more a comparison to Germany. Germany in the war was more advanced than any of the Allied powers. They were first with the Jet, They had the lead on rockets and they were ahead on the bomb. Just as Tesla is in the lead on EV vehicles Germany was ahead in technology in the war. In the end the Allies had something Germany did not have. More natural resources and more man power. While they lacked the advanced things in the war they were able to out build and catch up technically as the war went on because they were bigger and had more to fall back on. Most major automaker has more money and ability in their R&D than Tesla. Also the major automakers can afford to make cheaper models like the Bolt fully loaded and still not make money on them and survive. Telsa has to make a major profit on anything that rolls out the door or they will pay the price. They have not trucks, suv's and any ICE models to pay the bills. If you know your history then you know what I am pointing out here. It is not about Hitler so much as it was about the size and advancement of Germany. They were ahead technically but in the end they still lost the war. Just a simple illustration. Note too after Germany fell the Allies came in and fought for the things Germany had to offer them. We got the rockets and some advanced aero technology from them. It spurred the technical growth of America from the 50's to today. Hitler? Germany?One and the same and completely off base in the manner that you using it. Sorry, I don't take the comparisons very lightly when it comes to Nazi Germany unless there is a direct comparison to be had. In the case of comparing Nazi Germany to Tesla, way off base and very short sighted IMO. Oh and it has been proven that Germany had little more than paper planning when it came to the bomb claim. The fool who claimed they did ten years ago has been thoroughly debunked.http://m.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/a-346293.html That's all I'm going to say about it. Time to stop being overly sensitive of history. Much to be learned by it good and bad in many parts of our lives. As for the story the key wording in the story states "If these theories were accurate, history would have to be rewritten" The fact is there were many what if's in the war. If Hitler has not ignored the technology he had as much as he did things would have been much different. That is not a theory. No matter if you like the example or not it illustrates the fact that you can hold an advantage on technology yet due to your size and mistakes still lose in the end. I am sure you get the point no matter if you like it or not! Many times the true statement is bigger is better in cases like this Imagine Tesla getting hit with some kind of major recall. You know the kind like GM had on the Cobalt and VW on the Diesels. That would put an end to Tesla right now. And don't be naive to say it could not happen. Just not enough company to absorb that kind of action. It has not one damn thing to do with being "overly sensitive". It was a completely of touch and out of context comparison to begin with. It's that simple. The rest of your post is just trying to put words into my mouth which doesn't even merit a response.

I've read my history and to make any kind of comparison of Tesla to Hitler is just very careless and honestly, quite ignorant. No it is not.it was more a comparison to Germany. Germany in the war was more advanced than any of the Allied powers. They were first with the Jet, They had the lead on rockets and they were ahead on the bomb. Just as Tesla is in the lead on EV vehicles Germany was ahead in technology in the war. In the end the Allies had something Germany did not have. More natural resources and more man power. While they lacked the advanced things in the war they were able to out build and catch up technically as the war went on because they were bigger and had more to fall back on. Most major automaker has more money and ability in their R&D than Tesla. Also the major automakers can afford to make cheaper models like the Bolt fully loaded and still not make money on them and survive. Telsa has to make a major profit on anything that rolls out the door or they will pay the price. They have not trucks, suv's and any ICE models to pay the bills. If you know your history then you know what I am pointing out here. It is not about Hitler so much as it was about the size and advancement of Germany. They were ahead technically but in the end they still lost the war. Just a simple illustration. Note too after Germany fell the Allies came in and fought for the things Germany had to offer them. We got the rockets and some advanced aero technology from them. It spurred the technical growth of America from the 50's to today. Hitler? Germany?One and the same and completely off base in the manner that you using it. Sorry, I don't take the comparisons very lightly when it comes to Nazi Germany unless there is a direct comparison to be had. In the case of comparing Nazi Germany to Tesla, way off base and very short sighted IMO. Oh and it has been proven that Germany had little more than paper planning when it came to the bomb claim. The fool who claimed they did ten years ago has been thoroughly debunked. http://m.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/a-346293.html That's all I'm going to say about it.

I've read my history and to make any kind of comparison of Tesla to Hitler is just very careless and honestly, quite ignorant.

Really? That's your big differentiating statement between two? Might as well have just been sticking out your tongue while you were doing that.

Oh good grief Sauve. Stop being a drama queen about it. You know full well how badge snobbery works and to me, that is a sheep mentality. There is no other way to put it. Ok Surreal, I am not being a drama queen. You get riled up too easily, especially for this, where I'm just sharing my dream and life experiences. If you do not like story time, then I can't help you here, and you can keep opinions to yourself, because I don't like being called out for stuff that ISN'T bull$h!. Seems like it's you that's getting riled up because it sure isn't me. Where anywhere did I call you out on your post as being "bull$h!"? That's all you Sauve. I am speaking from my experience as well so to simply dismiss mine because you think your "storytime" is more important or relevant or whatever you think it is so much that you feel slighted by my response, is rather short sighted and honestly kind of childish. Just saying.and my point about this has always been about the buses mentality and it can just as easily applied to the out of touch douchebags that clamped for the also way overpriced H1 while never using it for what it was designed for. It's all about that "I got to have this cachet time" SHEEP mentality.

Oh good grief Sauve. Stop being a drama queen about it. You know full well how badge snobbery works and to me, that is a sheep mentality. There is no other way to put it.

Yes we can but you know there is a big difference between first year and five year depreciation and it doesn't take away from my sheep remark given the evidence I presented. Depreciation % makes a buyer a sheep? GMC Yukon is on the top ten list of 5 year depreciation %, Chevy Impala, CTS, MKS are all on two of the top 10 depreciation lists I saw.. I don't think any Lincoln buyer is a following some trend obliviously. That's a lot of sheep out there then. Should have rephrased that. I am not connecting depreciation to one being a sheep (thought that was obvious but clearly it wasn't). It's what mentioned earlier that makes one a sheep. If the only reason you are buying an outdated SUV is because of the badge, then yes you are being a sheep. That would apply to any badge btw.

Yes we can but you know there is a big difference between first year and five year depreciation and it doesn't take away from my sheep remark given the evidence I presented.

So why ever buy any BMW/MB over a Corvette, Mustang, Fusion, Impala, Edge,? "dynamics" don't make a car "better". They have less room, less efficient, if one metric is better..like lateral grip.. does that make it better and worth buying over an Impala or Camry? "Better" is an relative term. Better for you is different than better for me. What SUVs do what the G does and does it better? There are only a few SUVs that even compete in the category the G does. Range Rover, Wrangler, Land Cruiser and they are all over the place in comparison to each other. Nobody looking for a Mercedes is thinking of a Jeep or Toyota. Heck those two are slow as balls in comparison to a G550. Maybe the customer wants a Land Cruiser but they want some balls under the hood. If you are buying an luxury SUV for its "balls", then you are buying the wrong type of vehicle. I stand by my assertion, even though I do see what you're getting at but you cannot deny the sheep mentality towards something like that when there are better options. A Land Cruiser has plenty of power and has a far better rep off road and it is unsurpassed in the reliability and high resale department. The drop off on the G wagon after just a few years is insane. Why does it have to be the wrong type of vehicle? Why can't a vehicle run a mid-low 14's in the 1/4(g550) and still be able to rock crawl with a Wrangler off the showroom floor? Sheep will flock to ANYTHING that is rare/exotic with a label to it though. Hell, people are going to buy those nasty GLC Coupes, GLE Coupes, X4's, X6's... I bet A LOT of it is because the brand. But the G Wagen actually has some very impressive capabilities both in straight line performance and off the beaten path. Toyota HANDS DOWN has a great rep for reliability but this Land Cruiser is an 8 seater.. That's a big-ass SUV compared to a G Wagen. Hard to even compare them other than their off-road worthiness. I'm not sure what the resale will be on an 85k Toyota but it'll likely be dog$h! a long with anything else in this price range and up. G Wagens don't have a terrible resale considering. Alright, I randomly KBB'd a 2005 G500 and Land Cruiser @150,000 miles and the only option box I checked was the color and I made them both black. Both to private parties and both "good" condition(middle choise) Land Cruiser: $12,702 G500: $23,283 Same thing for 2010 but 100,000 miles instead. Land Cruiser: $31,746 G550: $44,723 Seems like they both keep roughly the same % away from each other as they depreciate. The Land Cruiser has one of the highest resale values out there. It shames any Mercedes in that category. Sorry but no one is exploiting that 0-60 time or the 1/4 mile with that G Wagon. It only sells because of the badge on the hood, hence my sheep assessment. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2013/11/18/cars-that-return-top-resale-values/#314f9a98d36f I found this as well which covers the resale value of the G Wagon in a nutshell (while comparing it to the Land Cruiser). "ALG, a company that tracks vehicle residuals, says both the G550 and G63 AMG will retain just 34 percent of their values after five years of ownership. That’s better than a Range Rover (25-30 percent) but well below the Toyota Land Cruiser (41 percent). Research firm Intellichoice, which tracks cost of ownership including depreciation and maintenance, rates the G-Class as “Poor,” saying this SUV will cost well above the class average to own over five years." http://carpreview.com/mercedes-benz/g-class/2015/review

So aside from the V12, Benz is just doing what GM did with the Hummer H1 for years as far as cachet and Hollywood appeal went. How'd that work out for GM btw?

From my perspective, if one can find better options for far less money but only buy the overpriced one because of the badge on the hood, that is the very definition of being a sheep.I understand.. but kind of disagree.. That would put Audi, BMW, MB, Bentley, Rolls... all out of business. Yes, nobody makes cars like Rolls does but "for the money" they are as overpriced as they come because you could buy an Impala and have it all customed to make it uber luxurious for waaaaaay less than the 250k+ or whatever it costs. There is an awkward medium in there. There's no medium here. If there are far better SUVs out there for far less money (and there are) yet your average Benz buyer still flocks to the G? Sheep. So why ever buy any BMW/MB over a Corvette, Mustang, Fusion, Impala, Edge,? "dynamics" don't make a car "better". They have less room, less efficient, if one metric is better..like lateral grip.. does that make it better and worth buying over an Impala or Camry? "Better" is an relative term. Better for you is different than better for me. What SUVs do what the G does and does it better? There are only a few SUVs that even compete in the category the G does. Range Rover, Wrangler, Land Cruiser and they are all over the place in comparison to each other. Nobody looking for a Mercedes is thinking of a Jeep or Toyota. Heck those two are slow as balls in comparison to a G550. Maybe the customer wants a Land Cruiser but they want some balls under the hood. If you are buying an luxury SUV for its "balls", then you are buying the wrong type of vehicle. I stand by my assertion, even though I do see what you're getting at but you cannot deny the sheep mentality towards something like that when there are better options. A Land Cruiser has plenty of power and has a far better rep off road and it is unsurpassed in the reliability and high resale department. The drop off on the G wagon after just a few years is insane.

From my perspective, if one can find better options for far less money but only buy the overpriced one because of the badge on the hood, that is the very definition of being a sheep. I understand.. but kind of disagree.. That would put Audi, BMW, MB, Bentley, Rolls... all out of business. Yes, nobody makes cars like Rolls does but "for the money" they are as overpriced as they come because you could buy an Impala and have it all customed to make it uber luxurious for waaaaaay less than the 250k+ or whatever it costs. There is an awkward medium in there. There's no medium here. If there are far better SUVs out there for far less money (and there are) yet your average Benz buyer still flocks to the G? Sheep.

From my perspective, if one can find better options for far less money but only buy the overpriced one because of the badge on the hood, that is the very definition of being a sheep.

Let's start with everything but the V8 and the 4WD system. It is woefully outdated everywhere quite honestly which makes that $140K price tag even more absurd.

No it's giving the customers who want a G...a G. They sell every one they make, they're hand made still. 99.99% never touch 200mph in their exotics but it's something they need to do. People buying cars like this or a 458 aren't buying the car to DO what it can do. They're buying the capability to do it and frankly to say, " hey my car can do this." Personally, I don't understand the hatred towards the G because of how capable and tank-like that they are. They're a modern old school like the Toyota (I forgot the name of the one they're making a retro version of) that everybody freakin loves. If they got rid of it people would ask, "why can't we get a vehicle to do XXX?" So they just never stopped making it as opposed to most that make soemthing super awesome and get rid of it a few years later. Like the Chevy SS. Its the almost perfect enthusiast car, 6.2 Chevy V8, manual transmission, sedan(because as adults coupes just aren't practical) and it's leaving us already. I just hope I can score a used one in a few years. It's not so much the hatred of a severely outdated brick on wheels as exposing SMKs defense of said brick. Sorry, but if this were from GM or Ford, he would have a 180 degree opinion of this. Oh and all that is being done for $140K+ which is insane for an outdated brick, I don't care how advanced the four wheel drive is or what kind of history it is has. The only history I see is a brick with the same boxy design since 1972. Sorry, but it does nothing for me. But what else can do what it can do straight off of the show room floor? Range Rovers, Wranglers and there's about nothing in between. So for perspective buyers it's either a Rover or a G. After reading a bit prior to posting it appears the Land Cruiser can also handle its own off the beaten path. Not liking it's style is one thing, that's fine. Even though I find it ironic that people say X is bland and Y and bland and then there's something with some actual character and people dislike that too. It's a lose-lose. Bringing up the Land Cruiser brings up an even better point. It can do everything the G Wagon can do, on or off road, and can be had for less than half the price and it also has a V8. Sorry but the G Wagon is one of the biggest examples of bilking clueless sheep buyers when you consider the much better options out there for far less dough. That's relying on your past instead of moving into the future, especially when considering the make involved. The only other options in the luxury 4X4 world are the Land Cruiser and Range Rover though, right? They've updated the interior and driveline multiple times so it isn't like they are completely leaving it stagnant. just the exterior. The next most stagnant exterior out of any vehicle on the road is the Wrangler and people eat that up as well. People just love the unconventional-ness of the G(and Wrangler) It has been using the same basic unpinnings and the same frame for decades. There is no R&D with this one, only a purely profit machine. Now before anyone loses it on that statement, understand that I have no problem with profit. However, a company such as Benz should be moving forward with the G Wagon, not hanging on to the past which is contradictory to every other model they make.

No it's giving the customers who want a G...a G. They sell every one they make, they're hand made still.99.99% never touch 200mph in their exotics but it's something they need to do. People buying cars like this or a 458 aren't buying the car to DO what it can do. They're buying the capability to do it and frankly to say, " hey my car can do this." Personally, I don't understand the hatred towards the G because of how capable and tank-like that they are. They're a modern old school like the Toyota (I forgot the name of the one they're making a retro version of) that everybody freakin loves. If they got rid of it people would ask, "why can't we get a vehicle to do XXX?" So they just never stopped making it as opposed to most that make soemthing super awesome and get rid of it a few years later. Like the Chevy SS. Its the almost perfect enthusiast car, 6.2 Chevy V8, manual transmission, sedan(because as adults coupes just aren't practical) and it's leaving us already. I just hope I can score a used one in a few years. It's not so much the hatred of a severely outdated brick on wheels as exposing SMKs defense of said brick. Sorry, but if this were from GM or Ford, he would have a 180 degree opinion of this.Oh and all that is being done for $140K+ which is insane for an outdated brick, I don't care how advanced the four wheel drive is or what kind of history it is has. The only history I see is a brick with the same boxy design since 1972. Sorry, but it does nothing for me. But what else can do what it can do straight off of the show room floor? Range Rovers, Wranglers and there's about nothing in between. So for perspective buyers it's either a Rover or a G.After reading a bit prior to posting it appears the Land Cruiser can also handle its own off the beaten path. Not liking it's style is one thing, that's fine. Even though I find it ironic that people say X is bland and Y and bland and then there's something with some actual character and people dislike that too. It's a lose-lose. Bringing up the Land Cruiser brings up an even better point. It can do everything the G Wagon can do, on or off road, and can be had for less than half the price and it also has a V8. Sorry but the G Wagon is one of the biggest examples of bilking clueless sheep buyers when you consider the much better options out there for far less dough. That's relying on your past instead of moving into the future, especially when considering the make involved.

No it's giving the customers who want a G...a G. They sell every one they make, they're hand made still. 99.99% never touch 200mph in their exotics but it's something they need to do. People buying cars like this or a 458 aren't buying the car to DO what it can do. They're buying the capability to do it and frankly to say, " hey my car can do this." Personally, I don't understand the hatred towards the G because of how capable and tank-like that they are. They're a modern old school like the Toyota (I forgot the name of the one they're making a retro version of) that everybody freakin loves. If they got rid of it people would ask, "why can't we get a vehicle to do XXX?" So they just never stopped making it as opposed to most that make soemthing super awesome and get rid of it a few years later. Like the Chevy SS. Its the almost perfect enthusiast car, 6.2 Chevy V8, manual transmission, sedan(because as adults coupes just aren't practical) and it's leaving us already. I just hope I can score a used one in a few years. It's not so much the hatred of a severely outdated brick on wheels as exposing SMKs defense of said brick. Sorry, but if this were from GM or Ford, he would have a 180 degree opinion of this.Oh and all that is being done for $140K+ which is insane for an outdated brick, I don't care how advanced the four wheel drive is or what kind of history it is has. The only history I see is a brick with the same boxy design since 1972. Sorry, but it does nothing for me.

That is why it sells. The more outdated it is, the better it sells.No they are not. They are only selling 3000 a year when they could be selling 9000 a year by just actually updating it while keeping the V8 you allege they love. And again, no one outside of the Sahara desert is taking one of those off road. Do you see the fault in your reasoning while you dog other makes for doing the same thing?

So this is confirmation that Mercedes is bilking their customers? "Hey we have this modern SUV with everything you need for less that $60K or you can buy our $140K SUV that offers none of those things except worse gas mileage and a four wheel drive system than 99.99999999% of you will never use." Got to give them credit though. Their sheep eat that up but it doesn't speak well to their buying intelligence.

And while the timing of the stock sell is suspect, maybe you need ask the NHTSA why they waited. Also, given that the stock actually ended up higher kind of contradicts any inside knowledge when there ended up being nothing to gain. And if we are going to bring up stock manipulation, then maybe there needs to be a new thread about it. I have a lot of reference material involving the subject, most of which involves the auto industry.

Again, I promise you that regardless of when Cadillac actually puts it out, they will have similar problems. Who will it look worse upon when that happens? The upstart company that may have been a little early to the game and is having to take some lumps for it or the more than 100 year old company that waited to put the tech out and still had problems? I can tell you right now which one that will look worse upon.

Elon has blamed customer and to be fair he may be correct in some cases and in other not so much. He also has done a lot of distraction. When bad sales are reported he talks the travel tubes. If the rockets crash he introduces a new program for the Tesla. He is a master of making the public look to his right hand as he takes their wallets with his left hand. He does have a masterful way with PR and how to try to keep a positive spin on about anything. That is one reason he has been as successful as he has been. It is not so much what he has done but how he did it. Most of it is in the presentation. The problem is time tends to run out on people like this if they do not show profits. The whole three thing was a spin. Why would you show a car 2-3 years out to pre sell it? Because Tesla needed the money. It was expensive to develop the X model and they were down to 2 billion based on reports. Not good if you are also working to finish the 3 and start up production on it too. While he fooled many with the 3 pre sale he now has to deliver on time which he has not done to this point. The cheap S model offering is a way to buy time but even that will hold limits as Porsche and others come to market with more EV cars. Just look at Toyota and the Prius sales that are tanking right now. People have moved on and at some point many will move on with Elon. He has done a hell of a job to this point but he also has had a lot of things that normally don't go right work. In time they will go wrong and it will be interesting to see if the share holders wait or bolt. Right now they should look into disabling the autopilot for now and wait till things are a little better sorted as the customers are just not going to use it properly. The system will fail the customers at times and you just can't rely on the customers to pull your ass out of the fire every time as a company. As it is now I expect most of the automakers will proceed with caution. They will let these systems assist but they will not be fully auto at least till the sensors can be worked out and maybe some driver defaults to make sure they are still holding a wheel or something similar. Even with the best flight systems in the world we still have two pilots on every plane. The bottom line is the systems are not perfect and the customers are not to be trusted to do the right thing. Sorry but there is a certain irony to criticizing a man for doing the exact same thing as every other company head out in the last 100 years (referring to the claim of Musks slight of hand tactics). Suave is right. The critics are fooling themselves if they think that the old guard companies won't have the same problems as Teslas automation systems, regardless of when they actually put it out. Then the same people here, who ragged on Musk, will vehemently defend their favorite brand when they screw it up too (and they will).

I don't blame the vandals.. I mean taking up 2 spots is one way of being an asshole but essentially taking up 5 spots? Fck that person. And for what? A C class? Anybody can get a loan for a C Class if they really want one. Where I'm from, they would have found four cars parked around all four sides of that Benz. Sorry but if you really cared about your car, you wouldn't park like an elitist asshole.

I'm done bickering. He got exactly what he deserved for his remarks though (not referring to SMK for the record). I disgress though...